I miss the days when top of the line gear could be ordered from overseas companies at a fraction of the cost. Sigh

I suppose defective stuff might be cheaply imported from China.

Coincidentally, there's a big thread on n00bs-rc.com where a number of folks have their panties in a bunch because Black Diamond cams are now being manufactured in China.

What, are they afraid they'll be covered in lead?

It is indeed one of the stupidest threads over there.

And that's saying something.

GO

Actually, there are threads about that on Cascadeclimbers, mountainpost and rc.com.

Why do you think it's stupid, gabe? I'm honestly curious...

Having our one of our primary US innovators and manufacturers of expensive, high quality climbing gear go to China is indeed a big problem. The new Chinese made BD cams are in stores and the price hasn't dropped one dime. Now, the wages formely paid to the US BD employees who made the protection is heading to China.


http://www.mountainproject.com/v/climbin...china/106015512

the price hasn't dropped one dime

And it's no tough guess who's pocketing the difference.

Nothing wrong with someone making money, which then goes back into our economy. The increase in paid sales tax, etc. continues to increase our treasury; just as has been occurring over the last few years and has occurred every time we have seen a tax cut.
I like cheap prices as much as anyone but trust the free market to rein in anyone who doesn't provide goods or services at reasonable and competitive rates. The EU is now working out as expected to provide those people with a more stable and competitive economy.

Guess what? Pretty soon the wage that goes to the engineer that INNOVATED the protection is going to be going to China too unless this country wakes up and starts generating some scientists and engineers! THEN we'll be in a world of shit. The world is flat.

I have to disagree – big time – though the money is not the issue. Have you visited Chinese manufacturing plants? I think not. Having things made over there in conditions we would not tolerate is simply taking advantage of foreign workers. I can tell you Americans wouldn’t tolerate the general manufacturing job conditions that are common over there.

I like low price too, but the free market isn't all it's cracked up to be. The world be vastly better of if 1st would inhabitants were forced to learn the true value of what they consume. Thank god I don’t have to make the call myself – I’d probably never get to climb again, though the world would be better off for it!

this country wakes up and starts generating some scientists and engineers!

Why bother if Chinese engineers are cheaper to hire?

I have been in several chinese manufacturing plants and they are marvelous. Spotlessly clean, nice equipment, and workers who actually want to work instead of just collect health care benefits and go on smoke breaks.

[/quote] I have been in several chinese manufacturing plants and they are marvelous. Spotlessly clean, nice equipment, and workers who actually want to work instead of just collect health care benefits and go on smoke breaks.[/quote]

No time to really write just now - except to say the same plants I have visited were on par for the things you reference. I doubt that either of us would have been allowed to visit if they weren't! Its the things you don't mention that Americans wouldn't tolerate.

Like their ever improving scores on quality audits conducted by their western customers?

Quick….what’s the largest export (by volume) out of the US?



Empty shipping containers to China.


Now when we start to import knowledge as Strat pointed out like we do lead toys, then we are screwed.

I thought those containers were filled with cash?

US Treasury notes and bonds, you mean.

I agree with your warning that the tech jobs will soon follow the manufacturing jobs. But if you're saying that technology jobs are going to China because there aren't enough sci/engineers here to fill them, then I strongly disagree. There are too many well paid US scientists losing their careers here because jobs are being outsourced TO SAVE MONEY. (And don't respond with some academician's essay about the shortage of technical graduates. US universities have been banging that drum since the Kennedy administration. It's called job security.) Let's find professional employment figures for the traditional American powerhouse industries: oil, steel, chemicals, technology. These industries are in full flight out of the US. Hell, even the entertainment industry seems to be globalized now. Hollywood? Where's that?

Yes, the world is flat. And small. And the US is an economic dinosaur.

The drum beat just gets louder and people just continue to practice ostrich politics.

Our Shanghai Technical Center opens in two weeks. Because a) that's where the growth will be b) that's where the talent is and c) it's cheaper.

Why wouldn't you want the company your 401K is in to do that?

Having 401(k) dollars invested in highly profitable global companies is a good thing. I like my dividends and appreciating equities.

But you wanna know what would be even better? Actually HAVING a 401(k). I lost mine when my employer became economically non-viable due to Walmart-driven changes in our business climate. Our technology company and all its high paying jobs was a victim of a globalizing marketplace.

I know, boo hoo, pity on me.

I wonder...do those Chinese engineers get a 401(k)? Do the soon-to-be-underemployed Utah BDEL staffers get a 401(k) benefit when they go to work as seasonal Snowbird employees?

I hear what you're saying, if by "ostrich politics" you're referring to the folks who refuse to acknowledge the need to be globally competitive in a global marketplace. My point is that we as a county are not competitive. There are very, very few things that we do that are world-leading. Our job base is becoming service and low-tech. Basically those of us left behind will be doing the jobs that can't be easily outsourced. And as wages fall, our standard of living will soon no longer be world leading. China's gain is our loss. Kudos to you for embracing the future. I'm a dinosaur who never wanted to travel that far. I hope my son's do better. One has already worked a spell for an India-based network management firm, so I guess he'll be global enough when he needs to be.

I am an engineer who was laid off 5 yrs ago from a dream job. I do have a “non – technical” engineering job now, and fortunately I get paid well enough. But I will be very lucky if I ever again hold a job doing the technical design work I went to school for and loved. My employer’s partners hire the technical engineering staff and manufacturing plants in china. They are very proud of their manufacturing and the way they treat workers.

But WHAT about my cheap Petzl-Charlet gear? This thread is about ME damnit!

But WHAT about my cheap Petzl-Charlet gear?

What about it?
Did you expect an I-can-get-it-for-you-wholesale reply?

I work in the Film Industry and the primary reason film work continues to thrive in the United States is because we still command cultural supremacy in the world.
Our stories sell. However, we cannot afford to give away the house any longer if we hope to hang onto our standard of living and our continuing creative and intellectual output.

That doesn't make any sense...

damn the
euro
baht
pound
canadian dollar
aussie $
NZ $
yen
yuan
etc
etc

damn! the "bushman" for fucking us all!

damn
damn
damn

I fail to see where it is the President's fault that we remain dependent on foreign oil and the ensueing devaluation of the dollar.

Then you're an idiot...

Bad response. You'd do better to enlighten Chip.

It's a perfectly good response...

...but here...

Chip, read stuff!

There, now he's "enlightened"...

Dill, if you were actually trying to persuade me, you might try to do better. Anyone can say anything but why would I believe them without some cogent rationale as to why they have arrived at that conclusion. It sounds like you don't have one and perhaps are the one in need of some reading. Op-eds in whatever conservative hating paper you like do not change the realities of economics.

Perhaps someone with a good, non-biased understanding of economics could compare the dollar to other leading currencies. Is the US dollar uniquely weak of late? If so, then I think one needs to look at domestic fiscal policy and gov't spending (did someone say "Bush"?) for an explanation.

Biased assertion, unsupported by the aforementioned understanding of international monetary principles: Bush & Co. have wrecked the US economy long-term, surging stock markets notwithstanding.

You're right...!

The Federal Reserve Bank bears no small share of the responsibility over the standing of US currency.

And the Chairman of the Fed serves at the pleasure of...whom?

Oh yea, Shrub. But this is the No Accountability Left Behind administration, so we'll let him off the hook for this too I guess.

I wouldn't blame Bush - the weakness in the dollar is due to a variety of factors, that have been around longer than Bush.....

look at the American economy - consumers have been spending like drunken sailors (or Irishmen), leading to massive debt buildups. Personal savings in the US are anaemic. We essentially mortgaged the country to buyers of US debt. The usual up and down of currencies is now being leveraged against us by the fact that we owe massive debts.

China announced today that it is going to "start favoring stronger currencies over the weaker" - ie they're gonna start dumping the US dollar and buying euros, sterling, the Canadina dollar etc etc

The dollar lost about 1% of its value overnight - losts of foreign money is going to start fleeing US equity markets soon......wouldn't be surprised to see a major correction before Christmas.

The chickens are coming home to roost......

Oh, and Bush hasn't made that worse, to the tune of a TRILLION dollars, with his wars?

And massive tax cuts that went mostly to the very, very wealthy?

I think the US was heading towards this problem before Bush. In the Clinton years, personal savings rates dropped down to almost nothing. But the governmental budget had improved to the point of surplus. Now the savings rate is lousy (or nonexistent) for both individuals and the government.

I think the general public has to take part of the blame. People don't like being told that they actually have to pay for things, but they also don't like program cuts (at least those that benefit from them), so it's politically easier to borrow than to increase taxes or reduce spending. But leadership means laying out responsible choices and vetoing irresponsible ones, and W has done nothing on that score. He and his base keep pushing for tax cuts when they had no idea of how to pay for the ones they already enacted. It's infuriating that only now has Bush made any gesture concerning fiscal responsibility, and it's on programs that people probably would be willing to pay for if asked (such as S-CHIP).

I certainly ouldn't absolve Bush of all blame - I just don't think that the problems we're currently seeing can be layed entirely at his door.

YVMV

P

I certainly don't agree with many of Bush's policies, but the tax cuts have resulted in much more treasury gain than they have taken away. This has been the case with each of the 4 major tax cuts enacted, beginning with Kennedy.

Some people claim that tax cuts increase revenues, but I've heard that economists generally agree that there would have been even more revenues today without W's tax cuts.

Tax cuts rarely reduce revenues because they are usually outweighed by typical economic growth, increases in population (and so number of people and workers paying taxes), and inflation. Bush 41 and Clinton increased taxes and revenues went up too. Problem is that with the tax cuts, revenues have failed to keep pace with expenditures.

W's tax cuts for the wealthy were originally justified as giving the surplus back to those who had paid for it. When the economy tanked, the exact same tax cuts were marketed as an economic stimulus. Most economists agreed that a tax cut meant as an economic stimulus would have been much more effective if it had been directed at the lower income groups which would be much more likely to spend it on goods and services. The tax cuts we got were not good economic policy; it was Republicans playing to a part of their base.

There is a basic flaw in this discussion that we're talking about the government's money or giving back the government's money to the people with tax cuts. I think we should remember that it is our money that the government is taking from us. The rich aren't a natural resource to be tapped at the Democrats whim every time they want to fund some bridge to nowhere.

It is commonly agreed that heavy taxes have cause the Eurpean community in general to suffer from uncompetitive practices and stalled economic growth.

Further, is the OP suggesting that we should pay more as consumers for products and artificially inflate prices? I doubt it.

Finally, it seems xenophobic to me to want to put Chinese workers out of work so we can pay more for rock climbing equipment.

The solution to D-elvis's problem is for him to be paid in euros. OPEC producers may do the same someday.

If you're going to take cheap, gratuitous shots, please get your facts straight. The infamous "bridge to nowhere" and it's funding was pushed relentlessly by staunch Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.

The flaw is seeing government as an alien entity that "takes" from us. "Government" doesn't tax us; we are our government, and we decide through our government how to tax ourselves for the programs we say we want. When Reagan said "It's not the government's money; it's your money," he was only half right. It is your money. But it's also your government.

As for the rich not being a natural resource, surely there are tax rates that becomes counterproductive by inhibiting growth. But I don't see a rush to avoid getting into the top brackets these days. We had tremendous growth, even pre-bubble, after H.W. and Clinton raised taxes. The wealthy did fine; in fact, the gap between rich and poor increased (though the poor did somewhat better too). I don't see why we shouldn't return to those rates, especially if it helps restore fiscal responsibility. (Add to that the fact that after one includes wage taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, our overall tax system is pretty flat.)

There are many factors other than taxation that effect growth. Many European countries make it hard to fire workers or have other rules that inhibit innovation. There was an article in the NY Times recently (can't find it at the moment) about a study on taxes as a percentage of GDP and economic growth; the study found a correlation but it was weak. In particular, one of the Scandinavian countries had performed substantially better than the US even with its substantially higher tax burden.

The problem with W's tax cuts is that it continued to "give back" the surplus to those who had paid for it when there was no longer any surplus to give back. If you want to cut taxes for the wealthy, fine; but then figure out how it should be paid for. Because if expenditures don't decrease, and one group pays less taxes, others will have to pay more unless you want to further run up our debt--which would only further weaken the dollar (to return to the OP topic).

I know a bit about the Scandinavian situation, as my wife is from there and we enjoy visiting her family. There was a tremendous loss of productivity under some ridiculous taxation that actually caused a number of people to leave, especially Sweden and Denmark. My father-in-law painfully desided to become an American citizen over this issue about ten years ago. The taxation has been cut and the increased productivity is the result. I'm not sure where it will level off, but there continues to be public sentiment through-out most of Scandinavia to continue the trend.

You got me on the mixed metaphor. I apologize, I am too busy trying to make enough money to keep your entitlements afloat to use the right metaphor. Just insert "great society" instead.

That is exactly the attitude that will kill off productivity in the country. That and trying to respond to all these scurrilous charges.

That is exactly the attitude that will kill off productivity in the country. That and trying to respond to all these scurrilous charges.

Trying to respond to all these scurrilous charges will surely destroy productivity in your office.

You mean the scurrilous charge that there was tremendous growth after H.W. and Clinton raised taxes? That those tax rates did not seem to impede the accumulation of wealth or the expansion of the economy while helping to balance the budget and supporting a strong dollar?

Oh yeah, I guess I forgot about the tax rates of the Clinton years killed off productivity.

I think it's the attitude that government is some alien entity which has lead to the fiscal irresponsibility that calls for tax cuts and wars and prescription drug benefits without any way to pay for them, and which has contributed to the falling dollar. Saying "It's not the government's money, it's my money" is like going to the checkout at the grocery store and refusing to pay because it's not the grocery store's money, it's my money. If we don't want to pay so much, then we have to put some stuff back on the shelves. But let's not pretend the grocery store is confiscating our funds. It's our choice how to use our money, but the groceries aren't free. Deciding collectively what goods we want and how much we want to spend is a messy process, and some of us will disagree with the choices. Welcome to democracy.

So is it not so commonly agreed, not a probelm, or do they simply not want to sovle it?

"That those tax rates did not seem to impede the accumulation of wealth or the expansion of the economy while helping to balance the budget and supporting a strong dollar?"

There is no question that the economy of at least the last Clinton term was a facade, based on out of proportion values placed on the .coms sprouting up. This also led to a very weak economy which, combined with the 9/ll catastrophy, should have brought about much earlier weakening of the dollar. I did not have my taxes cut but the extra money left avalable by those cuts allowed the overall economy to continue running along, benefitting all. I credit Clinton with being smart enough not to screw up what was doing well and Bush II with being smart enough to change it when needed, keeping in mind that most of what a president can do for a country economically is only window dressing. It remains the congress that has the most direct impact on our economic growth by budgetting and taxing, while the president can only recommend, approve or dis-approve. The presidency has tremendous influence in that the congress must have overwhelming agreement to do something fiscally that the president doesn't agree with.

I think those assertions either miss the point or are wrong on the facts. Even in the first Clinton term, and at least part of the second, the economy experienced very strong growth. Take out the bubble at the end, and the record is still exceptional. If the marginally higher tax rates at those times were a drag on growth, it's hard to see it. I don't know why that evidence is so easily dismissed by those who claim the Clinton tax rates were so awful for the economy. (Some Republicans at the time said the tax hikes would kill the recovery that had just started.)

W's tax cuts were poorly distributed. As I wrote earlier, they were originally proposed to give back the surplus mainly to the wealthy (despite looming debt from entitlement programs and no plan to fix them). When the economy tanked and there was no surplus, the same cuts were marketed as an economic stimulus. But most economists agree that the best way to stimulate the economy through tax cuts is to direct the money at people who will spend it, not give it to the wealthy. (If I'm a business owner, why should I hire or rehire people when most consumers still can't afford to buy more stuff?) Consequently, we got poor bang for the buck for the debt we took on. Growth out of a recessionary period is generally strong, as it was under Clinton. The growth after W's recession as been anemic by comparison.

And the tax cuts have not benefited all. The wealthy have done amazingly well, the middle class and the poor generally have not seen their situation improve. One could argue that the middle class and poor would have done even worse without the tax cuts--it's always hard to replay the history tape under different conditions--but that doesn't explain why the rich should have reaped such spectacular gains while other income groups have remained stagnant at best.

Not to mention that the administration's debt estimates assume nothing will be done to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax (which is essentially becoming a tax increase on the middle class) and include the temporary Social Security surpluses, which allow them to claim hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that will have to be accounted for at some point.

So back to the OP: national debt contributes to a weak currency. While some of the dollar's fall may be due to other factors such as globalization, I think W's flawed fiscal policies share some of the responsibility.

oh come on. Gunks.com is responsible for the decline of productivity in this country. I thought everyone knew that.

Damn... boss won't pay me in Euros