Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: US export doubled?

  1. #1 US export doubled? 
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    When i heard this it seemed like the first thing i ever liked form this administartion. In fact it confused me becuase it made me actually consider that obama is not all thast bad of a guy.

    But can this really happen?


    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    do you want to tell us what you are talking about? More than 95% of the planet's population don't watch FoxNews, or even CBS or ABC.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Whats that about? Where did you hear that and what are those exports supposed to be?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    First Obama "plans" to double exports, over the next five years. Second; Government has no means or influence to do that. Third and most importantly, the US is a serviced based economy, opposed to manufacturing and service in most cases, cannot be exported. Those that can (oil exploration, mining operations etc.) are already primarily overseas today. In some cases major Corporations are doing well over 50% of all there business, off shore. Forth; A good share of US exports are in fact raw material or parts, that will be used in manufacturing/products of products sent back to the US for US Companies, few of which are sales in foreign Countries. If he doubled this (could happen) this only means more jobs have been lost....but he has no control over how a company operates, at least not yet.

    President Obama, unveiled plans Thursday to double U.S. exports over the next five years in hopes of spurring job growth, an ambitious goal that may rekindle the battle over free- trade policy....

    The president acknowledged the formidable barriers to his goal: doubts in Congress over new free-trade agreements, misaligned currencies that make Chinese products cheaper on global markets, and continued weakness in global demand, all problems that could dwarf efforts to promote U.S. products and services abroad.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031100739.html

    Then and mentioned, the US simply cannot compete with China, South America, India or several others. For what it cost in the US to build or maintain the infrastructure for a manufacturing plant/operation, on to the labor and tax involved are 1/10th the cost in the above places, compared to the US, that is there is no conceivable means where 'PRODUCTIVITY' can make up the differences. Productivity, is the dollar cost per item produced, which the US is already the highest rated.

    Obama, IN MY OPINION, has no idea what he is even saying, has absolutely no business experience, NONE and has very few, if any in the direct line of advisors, that have any. The few (less than 1 in 5, compared to Bush 43, 6 in 10) that have studied or been in Business or Economics, are not in the decision process and often openly disagree with this administrations economic policy decisions.

    I'll add this, during the campaign, he opposed Free Trade Agreements, International Trade almost to the point of isolationism, which is a US Union philosophy and he will NEVER throw the unions under the bus. This program, is just another empty of content speech, hoping to convince
    'Moderates/Independents/Republicans', that he is a CENTRIST,which he IS NOT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Second; Government has no means or influence to do that.
    Of course they do. Let the value of the dollar drop relative to other currencies. Voila. US exports increase.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Then and mentioned, the US simply cannot compete with China, South America, India or several others.
    Again, of course we can. You're here arguing we should just stop because we can't be first? Way to go, Ricky Bobby.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Obama, IN MY OPINION, has no idea what he is even saying, has absolutely no business experience, NONE and has very few, if any in the direct line of advisors, that have any. The few (less than 1 in 5, compared to Bush 43, 6 in 10) that have studied or been in Business or Economics, are not in the decision process and often openly disagree with this administrations economic policy decisions.
    Christina Romer - Chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Romer
    former vice president of the American Economic Association, a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship recipient, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a winner of the Berkeley Distinguished Teaching Award. Professor Romer is co-director of the Program in Monetary Economics at the National Bureau of Economic Research,[11] and was a member of the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee until she resigned from this position on November 25, 2008.[12]

    In 2008 Romer was set to join the Harvard faculty of economics

    Austan Goolsbee

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee
    Goolsbee graduated from Milton Academy and received both his B.A. summa cum laude and M.A. in economics from Yale University in 1991 and went on to receive his Ph.D. in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1995. He was an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow (2000-02) and Fulbright Scholar (2006-07).
    <...>
    Goolsbee has been a Research Fellow at the American Bar Foundation,[6] Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[7] and a member of the Panel of Economic Advisors to the Congressional Budget Office.[8] He served as Senior Economist to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).[9] He has been Barack Obama's economic advisor since Obama's successful U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois. He advised Barack Obama in his 2004 Senate race and was the senior economic advisor to the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.[10] [11]

    Goolsbee's academic research focuses on the Internet, the new economy, government policy, and taxes. He taught a class on economics and policy in the telecom, media and technology industries. He is known in political circles as a centrist and in academic circles as an empirical economist. He focuses on human activity in natural settings to find economic explanations for how people behave.
    <...>
    Over the years he has been named one of the 100 Global Leaders for Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, one of the six 'Gurus of the Future' by the Financial Times, one of the 40 Under 40 by Crain's Chicago Business, and one of the 30 Under 30 by the Chicago Sun-Times.

    Larry Summers - Director of the National Economic Council

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
    Summers is the Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He is the 1993 recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal for his work in several fields of economics and was Secretary of the Treasury for the last year and a half of the Clinton Administration.

    Summers also served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.
    <...>
    At age 16,[4] he entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he originally intended to study physics but soon switched to economics (S.B., 1975). He was also an active member of the MIT debating team. He attended Harvard University as a graduate student (Ph.D., 1982), where he studied under economist Martin Feldstein. In 1983, at age 28, Summers became one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history.
    <...>
    Summers was on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan from 1982-1983.
    <...>
    Summers left Harvard in 1991 and served as Chief Economist for the World Bank until 1993.

    Yeah... You're right. We should be worried about the lack of experience on the team advising the president. He may as well be listening to toddlers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Of course they do. Let the value of the dollar drop relative to other currencies. Voila. US exports increase.
    The US Dollar is very much part of the International Currency Financial Market (Floats) and is traded according to other currencies. Where they can effect the value, FED money supply, can be controlled with figures offered by Government, it's today a minor influence. It is a concern today, those figures are being extremely under reported, which would make US Goods cheaper elsewhere, but also create inflation.


    Christina Romer - Chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

    Romer is known for her research on the causes and recovery of the Great Depression, and on the role that fiscal and monetary policy played in the country’s economic recovery. Her most recent work, authored with her husband David Romer, also an economics professor, shows the impact of tax policy on government and economic growth.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/administra.../about/members

    Larry Summers - Director of the National Economic Council
    Economics guru Larry Summers will be out the Obama administration by November’s election, or shortly thereafter, Joshua Green contends—mainly out of frustration that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and not he, has become President Obama’s go-to adviser in that area.
    http://www.newser.com/story/85355/la...years-end.html

    Timothy Franz Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
    Geithner believes along with Henry Paulson, that the United States Department of the Treasury needs new authority to experiment with responses to the financial crisis of 2007–2010.[11] Paulson has described Geithner as "[a] very unusually talented young man...[who] understands government and understands markets."[20]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner

    inow; Obama has surrounded himself, with like minded individuals who believe in the operation of Governing, as close to his as possible, which is based IMO on Social Justice. I don't think Ms. Romer, has much influence or that either her or her economist husband have any real business experience, but are firm believers in the FDR approach to an economy, call that 'Progressive', 'Socialist' or anything you wish.

    On Geithner, aside from his own problems with the IRS, now in charge, is probably the source for most if not all, anything Obama presents a policy or desired policy. I believe further that Geithner, has included 'Social Justice' into his thinking to get his ideas on 'Economic Recovery' (FDR) used and using the Government to explore his ideas for any recovery, the current or into the future recoveries. It hasn't worked, and is under fire by his own party members in Congress. It's not only my opinion, but the vast majority of Economist on this planet, that you simply can't spend your way out of an recession without consequences, which are yet to come. I probably should give you a list of people in Business, like Warren Buffett, that have serious problems with Geithner and Obama's approach to business itself, while trying to affect the current economy.

    Yeah... You're right. We should be worried about the lack of experience on the team advising the president. He may as well be listening to toddlers.
    Of course you know it would be my opinion, you are "LISTENING TO THE TODDLERS"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Third and most importantly, the US is a serviced based economy, opposed to manufacturing and service in most cases, cannot be exported.
    When did the united states change over to service from manufacturing? Britain is largely service - oriented, but manufacturing grew at its fastest pace in 15 years during the first quarter, in part due to the fall of the pound against the euro and the dollar. Perhaps Obama can do something along these lines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Third and most importantly, the US is a serviced based economy, opposed to manufacturing and service in most cases, cannot be exported.
    When did the united states change over to service from manufacturing?
    It happened several years back... Bush 1 or Reagan, I think. Manufacturing is about 15-20% of the US economy (still an enormous amount), whereas service is roughly 30-35%.



    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Britain is largely service - oriented, but manufacturing grew at its fastest pace in 15 years during the first quarter, in part due to the fall of the pound against the euro and the dollar. Perhaps Obama can do something along these lines.
    It definitely has its downside, but I do think he and his team are looking at all possible solutions and trying to do something meaningful. Another thing which would help manufacturing in this country TREMENDOUSLY would be to pass some very serious green energy and climate legislation.

    Unfortunately, right wing conservatives tend to only see the "it's gonna cost stuff and coal miners will lose jobs" side of that particular equation. Frustrating, really.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Services produced by private industry accounted for 67.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2006, with real estate and financial services such as banking, insurance, and investment on top. Some other categories of services are wholesale and retail sales; transportation; health care; legal, scientific, and management services; education; arts; entertainment; recreation; hotels and other accommodation; restaurants, bars, and other food and beverage services.

    Production of goods accounted for 19.8 percent of GDP: manufacturing – such as computers, autos, aircraft, machinery – 12.1 percent; construction, 4.9 percent; oil and gas drilling and other mining, 1.9 percent; agriculture, less than 1 percent.

    Federal, state, and local governments accounted for the rest – 12.4 percent of GDP.
    http://www.america.gov/st/econ-engli...0.9101831.html




    From the end of WWII to the middle of the 70's, the US was very active mining and manufacturing. Most of the largest Copper Mines, were in Arizona, Coal/Cobalt/Silver/Gold and other mining was done in some degree in most all States. The US, then self sufficient in crude oil, even exporting. There were few regulation for building, starting or maintaining most any business and US good were exported around the world, tariffs and all. Furniture, Clothing, Auto, Electronic of the day (TV's/Radio), appliances, aircraft, were just a few of the items the US led the world in production. We had a growing middle class economy, building from WWII and consumption of these and hundreds more, were bought up by them or shipped overseas to Countries recovering from war. I'd have to guess, if wanting and exact year when mining/manufacturing slipped below service, but would think between 1980 and 1985, would be close, production/manufacturing 32% in 2006.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    It was on National public radio NPR
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    I'll add this, during the campaign, he opposed Free Trade Agreements, International Trade almost to the point of isolationism, which is a US Union philosophy and he will NEVER throw the unions under the bus. This program, is just another empty of content speech, hoping to convince
    'Moderates/Independents/Republicans', that he is a CENTRIST,which he IS NOT.
    I think those are the very agreements that turned us into a "service economy" to begin with. Maybe what we should learn from this is that service economies are unsustainable. You can't just give everyone a back scratcher, and instruct them to scratch the back of the person next to them, because backscratching is not the foundation of wealth.

    Manufacturing is the foundation, and if you put all of your manufacturing in a foreign country, sooner or later they will realize they own you.

    These agreements prevent us from using protective tarrifs in order to keep our manufacturing on our own soil. We save a few bucks right now on cheap products that come out of China, but lose independence. We get a few golden eggs now, but we lose the goose.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    On Geithner, aside from his own problems with the IRS, now in charge, is probably the source for most if not all, anything Obama presents a policy or desired policy. I believe further that Geithner, has included 'Social Justice' into his thinking to get his ideas on 'Economic Recovery' (FDR) used and using the Government to explore his ideas for any recovery, the current or into the future recoveries. It hasn't worked, and is under fire by his own party members in Congress. It's not only my opinion, but the vast majority of Economist on this planet, that you simply can't spend your way out of an recession without consequences, which are yet to come. I probably should give you a list of people in Business, like Warren Buffett, that have serious problems with Geithner and Obama's approach to business itself, while trying to affect the current economy.

    Yeah... You're right. We should be worried about the lack of experience on the team advising the president. He may as well be listening to toddlers.
    Of course you know it would be my opinion, you are "LISTENING TO THE TODDLERS"
    GW's people, on the other hand, thought you could rescue the economy by allowing the public to borrow all that money themselves and spend it, and they used it to purchase real estate until the price of land had reached an unsustainable value, and collapsed.

    Only difference now is that Obama thinks the government will do a better jab than they did (which is certainly a dubious idea to me.)

    So the question: If you can't fix the economy by giving people money to spend, and you can't fix it by giving the government money to spend....... how can you fix a tanking economy? (Maybe by eliminating the policies that got us there, such as the "free trade" arrangements that kill local industry?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •