|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 8, 2007 16:03:24 GMT -5
Satiev, I don't know about that. People always bitch about their wages, no matter what class they are in.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 8, 2007 16:20:37 GMT -5
Hmmmm, what would I rather have, 10 pairs of Chinese shoes or much cheaper gas that I use everyday when I drive? I think I will go with cheaper gas.
|
|
|
Post by Donkey on Mar 8, 2007 17:52:32 GMT -5
Flop, Under clinton half of the middle class weren't complaining about the wages. Bush's policies that benefit the rich and his oil buddies have divided this nation. of course they were complaining. But the drive-by media refuses to pull out those cards on dems.
|
|
|
Post by RYou on Mar 8, 2007 21:41:35 GMT -5
Hmmmm, what would I rather have, 10 pairs of Chinese shoes or much cheaper gas that I use everyday when I drive? I think I will go with cheaper gas. Big, it's out of your control. it has nothing to do with what YOU purchase. Chinese products are all over the globe. China is becoming the world's supplier. They are to undercut all others because the socialist internal policies that run the infrastructure - electricity, fuel - oil, gas and coal and water supplies. Government subsidized utilities enable the Chinese to undercut market prices. However, if you ever lived there you'd be screaming about the brownouts for residential areas ordered to maintain industrial operations. That is your new Market Socialism.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 8, 2007 21:47:53 GMT -5
China is the way it is because Bush made it that way through lack of trade barriers.
RYOU, you are just a sheep follower and you do not question the decisions on trade that this administration makes.
|
|
|
Post by RYou on Mar 8, 2007 22:24:50 GMT -5
China is the way it is because Bush made it that way through lack of trade barriers. RYOU, you are just a sheep follower and you do not question the decisions on trade that this administration makes. just don't get it do you big guy. The US is not the sole market in a global economy. China's expansion was initiated under Clinton, but that is a meaningless fact. Cuba continues has significant exports despite the US barrier. Unfortuately for them they are pretty much limited to tobacco and sugar.
|
|
|
Post by RYou on Mar 8, 2007 22:28:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 8, 2007 23:41:23 GMT -5
My proof is much simpler and more real RYOU. If the kind of treatment Chinese experience at the factories in China existed in Soviet Union back in the 70s and 80s, it would be all over front pages of NY Times. However, we never see such articles about China. Why? Because US economy needs such sweatshops in China.
|
|
|
Post by RYou on Mar 9, 2007 8:03:26 GMT -5
My proof is much simpler and more real RYOU. If the kind of treatment Chinese experience at the factories in China existed in Soviet Union back in the 70s and 80s, it would be all over front pages of NY Times. However, we never see such articles about China. Why? Because US economy needs such sweatshops in China. Oh there we go the old. "We never had gulags and Siberia" excuse. That's right, in the USSR everyone had equal civil rights. LOL Back then US reporters weren't even in Russia to report on human civil rights. The politburo wouldn't let anyone in, 'cept maybe a few wrestlers and hockey players now and then.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 9, 2007 11:24:48 GMT -5
China is the way it is because Bush made it that way through lack of trade barriers. Big, that doesn't even make sense. Even when Bush doesn't do something (erect trade barriers), you blame him for things that happen within a sovereign country. When Bush (or the US) does something, such as enact trade embargoes with Cuba, for example, you say that the US is responsible for all of the poor people in Cuba. Could communism and lack of human rights within the countries possibly be the problem? Nah, it's easier to blame Bush and capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 9, 2007 11:38:11 GMT -5
Gulags were no different than Guantanamo Bay Prisons.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 9, 2007 11:55:37 GMT -5
No innocent female factory workers lived 12 people in one room in Soviet Union.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 9, 2007 11:57:35 GMT -5
You need to have some trade with both, Cuba and China. However, that trade should not be harming price of necessary commodities such as oil.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 9, 2007 12:14:30 GMT -5
How are our trade policies negatively affecting the price of oil? How are Bush's trade policies materially different than Clinton's in regard to oil?
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 9, 2007 12:32:51 GMT -5
Many American companies are building factories in China to make more products cheaper. There are more products available to Americans from China as a result at a lower price.
However, to make all those additional products requires much more oil and the price of oil goes up due to higher demand. Bush removed many taxes on imports of foreign goods so that those goods could easily be imported in US. As a result, China can sell more products to US and will use much more oil and the price of oil went up.
Clinton allowed more taxes on foreign goods and fewer Chinese products could be sold in America. Hence less demand for oil and the price of oil was lower.
|
|