Romney stands by message in secret video

[Elizabeth502]

No it was consumers’ demands for lower prices that moved manufacturing overseas. Use Walmart as an example. If they can buy products for lower prices and then pass on the savings to their customers, voila, more customers buy from Walmart than from the store that is purchasing higher priced goods either from American manufacturers or other countries that are higher than the Asian countries.

Not all customers. (One of the many reasons I don’t shop at Walmart. )

However, I acknowledge that

we now have difficulty finding products made in America even if we are willing to pay more.

 

[stevegravy]

Because cheap labor always was, is, and always will be the mother’s milk of American capitalism.

Wrong…IT has been cheap energy and a lot of it and a lack of regulations. Something this government has been out to destroy since 1970’s regardless who occupied the Imperial throne.

 

[LisaA]

The companies went overseas because they wanted to maintain or increase profits by selling cheaper than their competitors. People have always wanted lower prices, but until the whole ‘globalization’ thing, they did not always (or even generally) get what they demanded. .

So what’s your point? Companies should not go overseas to provide products at lower prices? Much as you seem to want to demonize these companies, the reality is that lower income people are the beneficiaries.

So you prefer the working poor, those on food stamps or on fixed incomes pay more? Walmart isn’t allowed in this city so our people have to buy groceries at the big chain stores or they have to drive beyond the DMZ to get to a Walmart. Our city’s grocery prices are high and that hits working families. Is that what you want instead?

It isn’t so much “globalization” as industrialization of these countries that drove business overseas. When China was a country of peasant farmers rather than a country that promotes manufacturing, there was no option to purchase goods from China. As China became urbanized and industrialized the factories rather than the fields became the source of family income.

I wonder how it is that regardless of the demand for lower health care costs, they just keep going up? Hmm, must be because health conglomerates are NOT moving overseas in significant numbers?..on second thoughts, maybe I should add a “yet”…

What do you mean “health conglomerates?” If you mean drug and device companies, well they have moved overseas and more WILL move because of the Obamacare Tax on devices. That’s already happening. Most of the rest of healthcare is service oriented and cannot be “outsourced.”

Also FWIW payments to physicians have gone DOWN not up. We’re getting about 40% of the revenue generated for the same procedures twenty years ago.
Lisa

 

[ComputerGeek25]

So what’s your point? Companies should not go overseas to provide products at lower prices? Much as you seem to want to demonize these companies, the reality is that lower income people are the beneficiaries.

So you prefer the working poor, those on food stamps or on fixed incomes pay more? Walmart isn’t allowed in this city so our people have to buy groceries at the big chain stores or they have to drive beyond the DMZ to get to a Walmart. Our city’s grocery prices are high and that hits working families. Is that what you want instead?

It isn’t so much “globalization” as industrialization of these countries that drove business overseas. When China was a country of peasant farmers rather than a country that promotes manufacturing, there was no option to purchase goods from China. As China became urbanized and industrialized the factories rather than the fields became the source of family income.

What do you mean “health conglomerates?” If you mean drug and device companies, well they have moved overseas and more WILL move because of the Obamacare Tax on devices. That’s already happening. Most of the rest of healthcare is service oriented and cannot be “outsourced.”

Also FWIW payments to physicians have gone DOWN not up. We’re getting about 40% of the revenue generated for the same procedures twenty years ago.
Lisa

Economics 101 lesson.,

Companies have a duty to maintain a certain profitability level. Consumers want lower prices. Something has to give…

 

[stevegravy]

Economics 101 lesson.,

Companies have a duty to maintain a certain profitability level. Consumers want lower prices. Something has to give…

Reality heck time.

IMHO there are very few real laws of economics so for free I am giving away the equivalent of an MBA here.

1st Law
A successful individual, corporation, or country must produce, compete, or parish.

2nd Law
Capital always seeks its highest return on investment

3rd Law
Labor always seeks its highest (combination of intrinsic and hard/real) compensation.

Everything else is a lot of arithmetic. Corporations moved to China for one or all three reasons.

 

[seekerz]

So what’s your point? Companies should not go overseas to provide products at lower prices? Much as you seem to want to demonize these companies, the reality is that lower income people are the beneficiaries.

So you prefer the working poor, those on food stamps or on fixed incomes pay more? Walmart isn’t allowed in this city so our people have to buy groceries at the big chain stores or they have to drive beyond the DMZ to get to a Walmart. Our city’s grocery prices are high and that hits working families. Is that what you want instead?

It isn’t so much “globalization” as industrialization of these countries that drove business overseas. When China was a country of peasant farmers rather than a country that promotes manufacturing, there was no option to purchase goods from China. As China became urbanized and industrialized the factories rather than the fields became the source of family income.

What do you mean “health conglomerates?” If you mean drug and device companies, well they have moved overseas and more WILL move because of the Obamacare Tax on devices. That’s already happening. Most of the rest of healthcare is service oriented and cannot be “outsourced.”

Also FWIW payments to physicians have gone DOWN not up. We’re getting about 40% of the revenue generated for the same procedures twenty years ago.
Lisa

I have not demonized anyone, just stated facts. For hundreds of years, consumers had no choice but to accept the prices offered within their own borders - that didn’t simply change because consumers demanded lower prices - consumers have ALWAYS done that. Heck in ages past, people used to haggle, but they still could only haggle with the merchants in their local markets.

My choice of ‘conglomerates’ was perhaps not the most apt terminology. I’m referring to actual service providers, not drug or device manufacturers. There is some medical tourism, but not much.

Payments to physicians may have indeed gone down, but think what might happen if health care got outsourced on a significant scale…say, private hospitals in Mexico, perhaps…We should all count our blessings

 

[rlg94086]

The companies went overseas because they wanted to maintain or increase profits by selling cheaper than their competitors. People have always wanted lower prices, but until the whole ‘globalization’ thing, they did not always (or even generally) get what they demanded.

I wonder how it is that regardless of the demand for lower health care costs, they just keep going up? Hmm, must be because health conglomerates are NOT moving overseas in significant numbers?..on second thoughts, maybe I should add a “yet”…

Obama has done absolutely nothing to change outsourcing or better our trade situation. In fact, outsourcing to China has increased under his watch, thanks to his terrible “recovery.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=714791

 

[seekerz]

Reality heck time.

IMHO there are very few real laws of economics so for free I am giving away the equivalent of an MBA here.

1st Law
A successful individual, corporation, or country must produce, compete, or parish.

2nd Law
Capital always seeks its highest return on investment

3rd Law
Labor always seeks its highest (combination of intrinsic and hard/real) compensation.

Everything else is a lot of arithmetic. Corporations moved to China for one or all three reasons.

So before they moved we:

a. had no capitalism?
b. no economy?
or
c. customers who happily paid whatever they were charged?

I think we’ve solving only one part of the algebraic equation that is modern economics and trade. If trade regulations and policies had not changed on both sides, the companies would not have been able to move regardless of what they or consumers wanted. So the desire for profits AND for lower prices were both facilitated by governments on either side of the ocean. Maximizing gain - that’s the only law of economics I understand and it applies both to producer and to consumer.

 

[seekerz]

Obama has done absolutely nothing to change outsourcing or better our trade situation. In fact, outsourcing to China has increased under his watch, thanks to his terrible “recovery.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=714791

Outsourcing to China increased because companies wanted to retain their competitive edge. American workers cannot compete with he financial advantages to be gained from paying Asian people peanuts to make stuff that sell for hundreds apiece, not even if they offer to work for free and only ask for insurance coverage.

 

[LisaA]

I have not demonized anyone, just stated facts. For hundreds of years, consumers had no choice but to accept the prices offered within their own borders - that didn’t simply change because consumers demanded lower prices - consumers have ALWAYS done that. Heck in ages past, people used to haggle, but they still could only haggle with the merchants in their local markets.

My choice of ‘conglomerates’ was perhaps not the most apt terminology. I’m referring to actual service providers, not drug or device manufacturers. There is some medical tourism, but not much.

Payments to physicians may have indeed gone down, but think what might happen if health care got outsourced on a significant scale…say, private hospitals in Mexico, perhaps…We should all count our blessings

Even the crunchy granola people in my town like business if it doesn’t make a profit and recycles everything . Local coffee cart staffed by nose ringed, tattooed barrista is fine, Starbucks though…way too Corporate! As I said, Walmart is not allowed within our city’s borders which to me seems counterproductive if our objective is to get basic goods to people struggling in this economy. Your food dollar goes a lot further there than at Whole Foods (aka Whole Paycheck) but believe me, we LOVE Whole Foods here!

Outsourcing medical care, other than something like cosmetic surgery, is unlikely. If someone is sick enough to need to be hospitalized, it’s unlikely they could travel out of the country. There are also a good number of people who come TO America because of the quality care. But they are stable and can deal with the travel and delay. We have become a service based economy to a great extent and that is hard to relocate outside of America.

Lisa

 

[stevegravy]

So before they moved we:

a. had no capitalism?
b. no economy?
or
c. customers who happily paid whatever they were charged?

I think we’ve solving only one part of the algebraic equation that is modern economics and trade. If trade regulations and policies had not changed on both sides, the companies would not have been able to move regardless of what they or consumers wanted. So the desire for profits AND for lower prices were both facilitated by governments on either side of the ocean. Maximizing gain - that’s the only law of economics I understand and it applies both to producer and to consumer.

As I see things after WWII the powers and money folks got together and realized that they almost lost everything and the next war they very well will lose everything. So, for the next 50 odd years they tinkered around and created a world where capital can flow freely from one sovereign state to the next. The result WTO, NAFTA, Euro and a host of other tariff and duty busting organizations.

The manufacturing base which is semi mobile, seems you can build a plant almost anywhere, can move almost at will. The scramble for a competitive edge is the driving force. A edge that is driven by the second law.

If you are saying it is all about money then we agree.

 

[rlg94086]

Outsourcing to China increased because companies wanted to retain their competitive edge. American workers cannot compete with he financial advantages to be gained from paying Asian people peanuts to make stuff that sell for hundreds apiece, not even if they offer to work for free and only ask for insurance coverage.

Right. And, Obama has done what to improve the situation for our country?

I’ll answer, since you seem to be politically unable to: Didlly Squat! He hasn’t entered into any trade agreements or initiated any trade negotiations with any country.

So, liberals can keep complaining about Romney’s past company’s outsourcing (more heavily Democrat contributors btw… thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop ), but the reality is that Obama has been complicit in the outsourcing of America.

 

[LisaA]

Outsourcing to China increased because companies wanted to retain their competitive edge. American workers cannot compete with he financial advantages to be gained from paying Asian people peanuts to make stuff that sell for hundreds apiece, not even if they offer to work for free and only ask for insurance coverage.

Still don’t you think this will change at some point? Look at the model of Japan which was the maker of cheap goods in the 60s and 70s. Eventually the people there also demanded a higher standard of living and manufacturing found the low water level in other countries. As I understand it, the Chinese too are demanding better pay and conditions. I’m not sure how successful it is in a totalitarian system but certainly as you agreed, everyone is looking for the better situation.

Also I think Estesbob mentioned that our regulatory climate discourages business in this country. Of course we can point to the low safety and quality standards in some Chinese factories and realize we don’t want to go there. But the cost of doing business in America with all of the regulations, paperwork, taxes, is really high. I remember John Stoessel’s program where he contrasted the time it took to set up a very simple storefront in America vs Hong Kong. Another good read is a former liberal politician (George McGovern? Gene McCarthy) essay on trying to run a B&B. When he learned about the many obstacles, requirements and regulations he was not only stunned but angry. Someone reminded him that HE was instrumental in PASSING that very legislation. His conclusion was that those in Congress really should understand the ramifications of what can be very onerous laws and taxes before passing them. I think more “citizen legislators” would be a huge improvement over the gaggle of attorneys there now.

Lisa

 

[Alan55]

Right. And, Obama has done what to improve the situation for our country?

I’ll answer, since you seem to be politically unable to: Didlly Squat! He hasn’t entered into any trade agreements or initiated any trade negotiations with any country.

So, liberals can keep complaining about Romney’s past company’s outsourcing (more heavily Democrat contributors btw… thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop ), but the reality is that Obama has been complicit in the outsourcing of America.

Actually, Obama has entered into several trade agreements that were held up in Congress:

washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-gets-win-as-congress-passes-free-trade-agreements/2011/10/12/gIQAGHeFgL_story.html

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, Obama has entered into several trade agreements that were held up in Congress:

washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-gets-win-as-congress-passes-free-trade-agreements/2011/10/12/gIQAGHeFgL_story.html

I stand corrected. He is 3-0.

I didn’t see the “several trade agreements” mentioned in the article you provided. Also, you fail to leave out that the examples you cited in the article was initiated during the Bush Administration and “held up in Congress,” when the Democrats were in control. It finally passed, after the 2010 election brought a change to Congress.

Congress passed three long-awaited free trade agreements on Wednesday, ending a political standoff that has stretched across two presidencies.
…
The House voted to pass the Colombia measure, the most controversial of the three deals because of concerns about the treatment of unions in that country, 262 to 167; the Panama measure passed 300 to 129, and the agreement concerning South Korea passed 278 to 151. **The votes reflected a clear partisan divide, with many Democrats voting against the president. In the Senate, the Colombia measure passed 66 to 33, the Panama bill succeeded 77 to 22 and the South Korea measure passed 83 to 15. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, voted against all three measures. **

The House also passed a measure to expand a benefits program for workers who lose jobs to foreign competition by a vote of 307 to 122. The benefits program, a must-have for labor unions, passed with strong Democratic support. The Senate previously approved the measure.

nytimes.com/2011/10/13/business/trade-bills-near-final-chapter.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

So…I’m guessing you are for this Republican initiated, Democrat-opposed, Republican-passed trade agreements that Obama signed?

 

[epan]

You shouldn’t be concerned with how Romney spends his money,however,you should be concerned with how Obama spends yours…

All I want to see are two things from Romney: (1) for him to start acting presidential and show me that he can control his own tongue, instead of constantly eating his own foot. What is wrong with the man? I can’t tell wether he is of only moderate intelligence, lacks appropriate impulse control, is clueless about current events, or has no self awareness. I would like to see him act like he has these important qualities. (2) Tell me exactly how he will reduce the deficit spending, while at the same time cutting taxes. If he can come up with a coherent and reasonable plan to do so, which does not violate my moral values, then I will vote for him. So far he has spoken in the same Reganesque terms for which President Reagan has been canonized by the Right. But the historic truth is that in normal economic times, Reagan and Bush both showed us that cutting taxes is easy. Reducing spending is hard. Cutting taxes without reducing spending is disastrous. Reagan and Bush both proved to us that trickle down does not trickle down. Cutting taxes does stimulate the economy, but not enough to result in a net increase in tax revenue, as they would claim.

I guess what I want is something realistic to come out of his mouth, instead of unrealistic ideological platitude. We all know that the rich pay taxes, and they would like their man to cut them, so they can get even richer. This is not news. But painting this as if it is something else is disingenuous.

 

[Jeanne_S]

All I want to see are two things from Romney: (1) for him to start acting presidential and show me that he can control his own tongue, instead of constantly eating his own foot. What is wrong with the man? I can’t tell wether he is of only moderate intelligence, lacks appropriate impulse control, is clueless about current events, or has no self awareness. I would like to see him act like he has these important qualities. (2) Tell me exactly how he will reduce the deficit spending, while at the same time cutting taxes. If he can come up with a coherent and reasonable plan to do so, which does not violate my moral values, then I will vote for him. So far he has spoken in the same Reganesque terms for which President Reagan has been canonized by the Right. But the historic truth is that in normal economic times, Reagan and Bush both showed us that cutting taxes is easy. Reducing spending is hard. Cutting taxes without reducing spending is disastrous. Reagan and Bush both proved to us that trickle down does not trickle down. Cutting taxes does stimulate the economy, but not enough to result in a net increase in tax revenue, as they would claim.

I guess what I want is something realistic to come out of his mouth, instead of unrealistic ideological platitude. We all know that the rich pay taxes, and they would like their man to cut them, so they can get even richer. This is not news. But painting this as if it is something else is disingenuous.

Maybe he needs a TelePrompter

 

[estesbob]

All I want to see are two things from Romney: (1) for him to start acting presidential and show me that he can control his own tongue, instead of constantly eating his own foot. What is wrong with the man? I can’t tell wether he is of only moderate intelligence, lacks appropriate impulse control, is clueless about current events, or has no self awareness. I would like to see him act like he has these important qualities. (2) Tell me exactly how he will reduce the deficit spending, while at the same time cutting taxes. If he can come up with a coherent and reasonable plan to do so, which does not violate my moral values, then I will vote for him. So far he has spoken in the same Reganesque terms for which President Reagan has been canonized by the Right. But the historic truth is that in normal economic times, Reagan and Bush both showed us that cutting taxes is easy. Reducing spending is hard. Cutting taxes without reducing spending is disastrous. Reagan and Bush both proved to us that trickle down does not trickle down. Cutting taxes does stimulate the economy, but not enough to result in a net increase in tax revenue, as they would claim.

I guess what I want is something realistic to come out of his mouth, instead of unrealistic ideological platitude. We all know that the rich pay taxes, and they would like their man to cut them, so they can get even richer. This is not news. But painting this as if it is something else is disingenuous.

He has offered a coherent and reasonable plan on how he plans to address the problems facing this country.mittromney.com/issues The idea that he is gaffe prone is a creation of the mainstream media. I mean its not as if he claimed there are 57 states or accused Pennsylvanians of ignorantly clinging to their guns and religion.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Maybe he needs a TelePrompter

Depends on which of the 57 states he’s in, really.

 

[Jeanne_S]

He has offered a coherent and reasonable plan on how he plans to address the problems facing this country.mittromney.com/issues The idea that he is gaffe prone is a creation of the mainstream media. I mean its not as if he claimed there are 57 states or accused Pennsylvanians of ignorantly clinging to their guns and religion.

That was Obama off Tele Prompter…