Liberals - NOW will you believe climate regulations bring job LOSSES?

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
Well it's official, what was blatantly obvious, that regulating more and boosting the cost of products from global warming regulations would result in less demand and thus job losses has happened.
And let's all remember that Liberal Democrats in every level of power are saying they are focused on jobs while they try and push FEDERAL regulations that do EXACTLY what California did in trying to control emissions.

"California is likely to see modest job losses in the near term from its aggressive climate change policy due to higher energy costs and other factors, the state's independent Legislative Analyst's Office said. Skip related content
The budget watchdog was responding to a request by Republican state Senator Dave Cogdill to study the effects of California's 2006 climate change law, which mandates changes to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

California's environmental vanguard approach is being hotly debated in the state ahead of a November gubernatorial race and in the midst of an economic downturn that has pushed unemployment to recent records. Many other states and the federal government are watching closely.

"We believe that the aggregate net jobs impact in the near term is likely to be negative," said the report, dated March 4. "Reasons for this include the various economic dislocations, behavioral adjustments, investment requirements, and certain other factors," it said."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100309/tpl-environment-us-climate-california-20b2d2f.html

Spread this out to as many as you can so this stops and hopefully gets reversed.
 
Cap and trade would obviously raise prices, but the reform is very modest and wouldn't have much of an economic impact on way or the other.
 
As for California, it would be difficult to judge how many job losses could attributed to their capping scheme. I would imagine it would be a negligible percentage, and that that could've been avoided through jobs subsidies.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Personally I would go with farm tractor. That steel machine fucker ruined many a subsistence farmers life from whence we have never recovered!
Click to expand...

It's not being a luddite to espouse protectionism to keep americans working and avoid unnecessary dependance on hostile sovereigns.

Destroying the middle class isn't forward thinking, it's dark ages bullshit.
 
until they lose their jobs, the libtards will ignore this. They simply do not care about fellow humans' economic health. They do not care if people starve or die of preventable diseases. As long as Noah Wiley appeals to their emotion, these idiots will continue to support anything they believe in the name of global warming
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not being a luddite to espouse protectionism to keep americans working and avoid unnecessary dependance on hostile sovereigns.
Click to expand...
Good point, everytime I look at my "Made in Malaysia" shirt that used to say "Made in America" once upon a time, all I can think of is them hostile Malaysians laughing at me with their machetes and unsavory looks...
If there's one thing that pisses those guys off and makes them never want to buy some different American product or service again, well it's got to be the trade I did in buying what they exported and making them wealthier!
 
KingCondanomation said:
Good point, everytime I look at my "Made in Malaysia" shirt that used to say "Made in America" once upon a time, all I can think of is them hostile Malaysians laughing at me with their machetes and unsavory looks...
If there's one thing that pisses those guys off and makes them never want to buy some different American product or service again, well it's got to be the trade I did in buying what they exported and making them wealthier!
Click to expand...

You mean some corrupt politician or connected cronies who treat their citizens like slaves?

You're truly a noble fuckface.
 
Bittermark said:
Cap and trade would obviously raise prices, but the reform is very modest and wouldn't have much of an economic impact on way or the other.
Click to expand...
You have so bought into this scheme that you are willing to risk American jobs without a scintilla of proof that it will create ANY meaningful change in the climate. There should be some real evidence that it is going to work before we do anything that will affect jobs at a time when jobs are at a premium.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You mean some corrupt politician or connected cronies who treat their citizens like slaves?

You're truly a noble fuckface.
Click to expand...

If they are slaves, why do they flock from the countryside to the city for those manufacturing jobs? What looks like less to you is more to them.
What would you rather do - work in a mosquito infested rice paddy with the hot sun for under a dollar a day or work in a factory for a few dollars a day?

It is a step UP for them, can you understand that?
 
KingCondanomation said:
If they are slaves, why do they flock from the countryside to the city for those manufacturing jobs? What looks like less to you is more to them.
What would you rather do - work in a mosquito infested rice paddy with the hot sun for under a dollar a day or work in a factory for a few dollars a day?

It is a step UP for them, can you understand that?
Click to expand...



Poverty in the countryside? Government policy which destroys all other options?

I believe it's not such a step up as it is the only option left, by design.
 
KingCondanomation said:
If they are slaves, why do they flock from the countryside to the city for those manufacturing jobs? What looks like less to you is more to them.
What would you rather do - work in a mosquito infested rice paddy with the hot sun for under a dollar a day or work in a factory for a few dollars a day?

It is a step UP for them, can you understand that?
Click to expand...
But at what cost to our country? I really do understand, but almost anything we make in this country can be made somewhere else for cheaper. Our only advantage right now seems to be our consumer base and if that base is becoming more and more a service sector society, our consumer base will eventually decline. I HATE protectionism but if all our manufacturers are going to leave us for 3 dollar a day employees, we are going to sink deeper into decline.
 
Each nation's economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.

Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don't care if it's a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.

Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet as Chairman of the President's council of economic advisors.

Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.

After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let's get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.

That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.

The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it's bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.

Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia 'subsidizing' food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out, intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia's financiers and, by extension, the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia's new president in the nation's first democratic election. The World Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury's vault in Washington.

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
 
Socrtease said:
But at what cost to our country? I really do understand, but almost anything we make in this country can be made somewhere else for cheaper. Our only advantage right now seems to be our consumer base and if that base is becoming more and more a service sector society, our consumer base will eventually decline. I HATE protectionism but if all our manufacturers are going to leave us for 3 dollar a day employees, we are going to sink deeper into decline.
Click to expand...

Embrace protectionism. Theres nothing wrong with it. We've just been inundated with 50 years of globalist propaganda. That's why you have a knee jerk reaction to protectionism.


It's actually a good thing.
 
Socrtease said:
But at what cost to our country? I really do understand, but almost anything we make in this country can be made somewhere else for cheaper. Our only advantage right now seems to be our consumer base and if that base is becoming more and more a service sector society, our consumer base will eventually decline. I HATE protectionism but if all our manufacturers are going to leave us for 3 dollar a day employees, we are going to sink deeper into decline.
Click to expand...
There is virtually no manufacturing whatsoever in England or Sweden or Norway, not even much car manufacturing. You have to remember there are natural resources, services that people sell abroad like the thriving British financial sector, forestry products in Sweden, etc...

America has many exports including agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%

Then there are service exports, people abroad do pay for American consulting fees, support, tax, legal, etc...

Typically what companies choose to manufacture elsewhere are lower end cheap products that require less skilled workforce - like plastic toy manufacturing in China, garment manufacturing in India. It's true that there are a SMALL amount of high tech jobs exported, but this is really peanuts and always has been

I mean look at the stats even from the height of the outsourcing scare the Dems tried in 2004 when Kerry was running.
1. Government statisticians reckon that outsourced jobs are responsible for well under 1% of those signed up as unemployed.
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2501977

2. We have economically, provably resulted in a net gain of jobs here when measuring countries outsourcing here to our outsourcing to other countries:
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2572245


The only thing I agree with Asshat on in regards to all this is that China needs to stop playing currency games, but that is not even close to a reason to shut down trade and ruin millions of jobs in America and trading partner countries.
 
Fuck england, sweden and norway.

How does a consumer economy recover when all jobs are sent overseas and the banks are cutting credit? How, genius?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Fuck england, sweden and norway.

How does a consumer economy recover when all jobs are sent overseas and the banks are cutting credit? How, genius?
Click to expand...

Because all jobs are NOT being sent overseas, I've posted repeated FACTUAL links that show that it is far under 1% of those who are unemployed.

I understand if you feel that way and I understand that you are a good patriot who feels pride in America doing it all by itself. But we are all better off when we can trade freely because there is simply no nation that will be best at everything, nor needs to be.

And as for the banks I have already said that is a seperate issue and certainly the fault of the government for setting interest rates too low along with programs designed to increase aid and homeownership for people who could not sustain it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top