Saturday, September 30, 2006

Don't Worry, We can get Pears from China

Re: Don't Worry, We can get Pears from China

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:58:26 -0700 (PDT), M A Granich
wrote :

>
> > Kids used to pick up a few thousand dollars doing
> > this, but that was made illegal too.
>
> Well, having illegal immigrants pick your fruit
> is....illegal too. Maybe this is about poor farm
> management rather than about laws protecting workers.

But here is the problem: the farmers know they are illegal, the govt knows they
are
illegal, you and I know they are illegal.. but the documents the workers carry
are real.
The fraud and corruption in this field is huge, even to the point the green
cards, real
ones fraudulently issued are down to about $25 each. The fruit is ripe, the
worker's
documents are in order, no other workers available...what's a farmer to do?

In spite of this congressional testimony back in 2001,

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/testimony/0110a.htm

fraud on the part of people in Homeland Security goes unabated.

Instead of more rules, how about getting rid of rules, and see what happens
when
free people cooperate? It's what we used to do.

John


NAFTA to expand globally?

Re: [spiers] NAFTA to expand globally?

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:02:24 -0700, "Malcolm Dell"
wrote :

> How has NAFTA shaped small businesses involved in import-export, John?
... In other words, NAFTA was less about "free trade" and more about favoring
> BIG BUSINESS OVER SMALL BUSINESS. ... you indicated that many small
import-export
businesses in the US found it
> easier to do business overseas, sans-NAFTA, than with our neighbors in
> Canada and Mexico.
> Can I assume a lot of small players got out of the
> business??


***Well, got rid of employees, reorganized to meet the tax and regulatory
environment one
finds oneself. Further, it is distressing to visit world trade crossroads
liked Canton China
and find zero, zip, nada young americans, but wall to wall young africans,
Russians, south
americans. The USA young are busy doing something else, not business.***

> Now, reading the article below, it looks like the US political machine is
> going to expand its assault on domestic small business by expanding
> NAFTA-like legislation to a wider range of countries. What challenges or
> opportunities will this create for the small businesses represented in this
> forum? Am I overstating the downside? Or did NAFTA create small business
> niche opportunities in this industry for trade between North American
> contries?? If so, will the same principles apply to quasi-NAFTA's around the
> globe??
>
***Well, to my mind it is a replay of the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity
Sphere" a Japanese
plan to counteract European domination of Asia. USA is trying to lockdown its
business
patterns and trade lanes, while the Chinese (this time) are growing and freeing
up their
economy. The Chinese are making a pretty good offer to the rest of the world,
and USA is
what... legalizing torture and conducting a War on Moisture on our airplanes.

The niche opportunities are to simply punish stupid government policies.
Privately I think
USA needs to import very little, and export even less. Much international
trade is a result of
market distortions and malinvestment. See below...***

>
> Lost jobs blamed on trade accord
> By Alwyn Scott

> The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a Washington, D.C., think tank, said
> Thursday that NAFTA has cost the U.S. more than 1 million jobs and billions
> of dollars in lost wages.

***At least... but not unwittingly...***

> Others economists disputed the study. The number of factory jobs in the U.S.
> has plunged in recent years, but many economists say more productive U.S.
> workers are the cause, not trade.

***More productive making cars, or more productive making real estate loans,
and more
productive searching luggage? something like 40% of new job creation since
1991 is in the
real estate field... and a similar amount in govt jobs.***

> Hufbauer said the growing U.S. trade deficit wasn't caused by NAFTA but by
> larger economic forces - the U.S.'s high budget deficit and low savings
> rate.

***Exactly, it gets down to monetary policy, the fed reserve system. A gold
standard is the
cure, one that the russians, argentinian, likely India and all of Islamia is
taking now,
slowly.***
>
> Bill Center, president of the Washington Council on International Trade,
> said that by blaming trade, the EPI study misses the real predicament for
> U.S. workers - a lack of education, training and government assistance for
> moving from manufacturing to other jobs.

***LOL***
>
> "They're letting the politicians off the hook," Center said. "Politicians
> should fix health care, fix education ... Those are the kinds of things we
> should be addressing. Not trade."

***ROFL***

John


Report From Bangkok

Folks,

My sister is living in bangkok with her husband, an oil engineer. At $60 a
barrel, even
Thailand has oil. In the midst of the coup, she is heading out of the Oriental
Hotel to the
curb for a taxi when the footman says to her, "May I get madame a tank...?"

John


Friday, September 29, 2006

NAFTA to expand globally?

Article from Friday's Seattle Times, below.

How has NAFTA shaped small businesses involved in import-export, John? I
believe I read a post from you, many years ago, about how NAFTA basically
turned a variable cost into a fixed cost, which benefitted larger
businesses, while small mom-and-pops were disadvantaged. Pre-NAFTA an
importer or exporter paid a flat % duty, the playing field was level, since
every exporter, for example, paid the same percentage duty for the similar
product, regardless of volume. If I remember your point correctly, post
NAFTA, the paperwork issues for a given product, with no duty, created more
work initially to get the product across the borders. For the small flexible
company with lots of products and low volumes for any one product
(generally) the paperwork was a nightmare compared to just paying an 8%
tariff or whatever the duty happened to be, that everyone had to pay.
However, for the large companies, moving big volumes of each product and
office staff available to fill out paperwork, NAFTA was a bonanza, as the
overhead associated with getting a product to meet NAFTA was relatively
small by comparison.

In other words, NAFTA was less about "free trade" and more about favoring
BIG BUSINESS OVER SMALL BUSINESS. As a result of NAFTA, again if memory
serves (and with growing bouts of half-zeimers I am not so sure of my facts)
you indicated that many small import-export businesses in the US found it
easier to do business overseas, sans-NAFTA, than with our neighbors in
Canada and Mexico.

I was in El Paso, Texas many years ago, right on the Mexican border, post
NAFTA. A person I was visiting with there at the workshop, said that there
used to be (pre-NAFTA) two pages of company listings under Import-Export in
the El Paso phone book. When I was there, there was only about 2 column
inches of listings. Can I assume a lot of small players got out of the
business??

Now, reading the article below, it looks like the US political machine is
going to expand its assault on domestic small business by expanding
NAFTA-like legislation to a wider range of countries. What challenges or
opportunities will this create for the small businesses represented in this
forum? Am I overstating the downside? Or did NAFTA create small business
niche opportunities in this industry for trade between North American
contries?? If so, will the same principles apply to quasi-NAFTA's around the
globe??

Looking forward to your analysis...

Malcolm
---------------------



Lost jobs blamed on trade accord
By Alwyn Scott

Seattle Times business reporter

In a state that bills itself as the nation's most trade-dependent, it's hard
to find a politician who's against global free trade.

But a new report argues that the record U.S. trade deficit with Canada and
Mexico is costing good jobs, the opposite of what free-trade advocates
promised when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in
1994.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a Washington, D.C., think tank, said
Thursday that NAFTA has cost the U.S. more than 1 million jobs and billions
of dollars in lost wages.

The institute, partly funded by labor unions, said that while NAFTA
generated a rise in trade, it has hurt working people, particularly those
with minimal education.

U.S. pursuit of new NAFTA-like trade deals in Thailand, South Korea, Central
America and other regions has given the debate a fresh urgency.

"We've lost jobs because of growing trade deficits" with Mexico and Canada,
said Robert Scott, an EPI economist and a co-author of the report. Since
1993, the cumulative trade deficit with the NAFTA partners has grown to $107
billion, the report said.

Scott estimates that the rise in U.S. exports since NAFTA created 941,000
U.S. jobs. But the larger rise in imports from NAFTA partners displaced 1.9
million jobs that would have been created without the trade deal.

The net total of 1 million jobs lost includes 659,000 in manufacturing and
hit hardest in industry-heavy states like Michigan, Indiana, Mississippi and
California.

Washington state gained an estimated 14,688 jobs due to the rise in U.S.
exports to Canada and Mexico after NAFTA, according to the study. But jobs
displaced by rising imports cost the state 31,203 jobs, for a net loss of
16,515 jobs, or about 0.6 percent of the state's job base.

Others economists disputed the study. The number of factory jobs in the U.S.
has plunged in recent years, but many economists say more productive U.S.
workers are the cause, not trade.

While manufactured imports cause job dislocation, "it would be wrong to
equate jobs dislocated with net jobs lost in the economy as a whole," said
Gary Hufbauer, an economist at the Institute for International Economics in
Washington, D.C.

Hufbauer said the growing U.S. trade deficit wasn't caused by NAFTA but by
larger economic forces - the U.S.'s high budget deficit and low savings
rate.

Bill Center, president of the Washington Council on International Trade,
said that by blaming trade, the EPI study misses the real predicament for
U.S. workers - a lack of education, training and government assistance for
moving from manufacturing to other jobs.

"They're letting the politicians off the hook," Center said. "Politicians
should fix health care, fix education ... Those are the kinds of things we
should be addressing. Not trade."

Alwyn Scott 206-464-3329 or ascott@seattletimes.com


Don't Worry, We can get Pears from China

Re: [spiers] Don't Worry, We can get Pears from China

> Kids used to pick up a few thousand dollars doing
> this, but that was made illegal too.

Well, having illegal immigrants pick your fruit
is....illegal too. Maybe this is about poor farm
management rather than about laws protecting workers.

I read a story in the International Harold Tribune
about a Chinese businessman who bought a tomato paste
factory in France. He could import Chinese tomatoes
for less than the French could grow them. He still
looses money though, because by his own admission, he
did not understand French labor customs. I took that
to mean the French weren't going to be exploited like
their Chinese counterparts.

I was in Germany a few weeks ago visiting my
mother-in-law. It was harvest time for grapes and it
was Germans in the field doing the harvesting...no
immigrants. And, I didn't see where using
non-immigrant labor raised the price of the product.
You can buy a bottle for less than 5 Euro. And the
German standard of living is still pretty high.

Anthony

--- John Spiers wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Kids used to pick up a few thousand dollars doing
> this, but that was made illegal too.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lfpsm
>
> Think about all that water diverted, all that
> pesticide laid in, growth hormones applied... look
> forward to high priced fruit...
>
> John


Thursday, September 28, 2006

Don't Worry, We can get Pears from China

Re: Don't Worry, We can get Pears from China

Sounds like the farmers are ripe for new harvest designs.

I'm tired of the line "The're doing jobs that Americans won't do...
well not true. I and my friends are proof of that. The option to do
those jobs have been stripped away from us. We eventually were
replaced by migrants.

If argriculture can't perform on a level playing field (world stage)
then perhaps the farmers should get out of the biz.... or redesign.



--- In spiers@yahoogroups.com, "John Spiers" wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Kids used to pick up a few thousand dollars doing this, but that
was made illegal too.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lfpsm
>
> Think about all that water diverted, all that pesticide laid in,
growth hormones applied... look
> forward to high priced fruit...
>
> John
>


Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Don't Worry, We can get Pears from China

Folks,

Kids used to pick up a few thousand dollars doing this, but that was made
illegal too.

http://tinyurl.com/lfpsm

Think about all that water diverted, all that pesticide laid in, growth hormones
applied... look
forward to high priced fruit...

John