Obama: US needs to up exports

[Ford Jellymoulds]

WASHINGTON, Nov 2 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday that the United States ought study the example of Germany's dominant export sector in order to lift exports, and promised he would pursue an "aggressive" trade policy. "If Germany, a wealthy, highly unionized industrial nation, can generate 40 percent of its economy as export-based, then it seems to me that there is something we're missing that they are doing right, and we have got to figure that out," he told a meeting of his economic recovery advisory board. Obama said America was not afraid to compete with anyone, but countries viewing its markets as an engine for their own growth must also ensure reciprocal access for U.S. exports.

LINK

[sprinter]

The Germans are hurting too.

 

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4313040,00.html

 

 

German exports plunged by an historic 28.7 percent in April from the same month a year earlier, according to figures released on Tuesday by Destatis, the national statistics office in Wiesbaden.

 

This marks the strongest decline in six decades with the value of German exports amounting to 63.8 billion euros ($88.5 billion) -- a seasonally-adjusted 4.8 percent drop on March 2009.

 

German exports within the European Union suffered a 29.9 percent drop, and trade outside the 27-member bloc witnessed a similar decline of 26.5 percent.

 

This leaves Germany, one of the world's leading exporters, with a disappointing trade surplus of 9.4 billion euros for April. Although this was slightly higher than analysts' forecasts it still constitutes a significant drop over March's trade surplus of 11.3 billion euros. The gap becomes even wider compared to April 2008 which registered a trade surplus of 19.0 billions.

 

 

In order for exports to become strong again, you will have to throw the current players (both parties) in DC out. Their only concern is promoting the import of crap from China, Mexico and other 3 world countries.

[RaZor]

It is actually very simple. U.S. financial generosity to our (former enemies - but now) allies after WW II included giving them special trade advantages to help them speed up their post-war recovery. We agreed that they could rebate to their producers any "indirect" taxes they paid on goods they exported to us, and they could also impose an equal charge on any U.S. products they imported. Unfortunately, we have allowed this to continue - & even though their recovery happened long ago - it still is going on today.

 

This is (still) how it works: A German manufacturer of a car exported to the United States gets a rebate from the German government equal to the indirect taxes paid in Germany, a type of tax called the Value Added Tax (VAT). Since the VAT rate in Germany is 19%, the German carmaker gets a 19% tax rebate on every vehicle exported to the United States.

 

That's a significant subsidy to German auto manufacturers which enables them to sell cars in America for much less than they sell for in Germany. But what about American cars exported to Germany?

 

A U.S. manufacturer exporting an auto to Germany must pay the German government a VAT equivalent tax of 19 percent of the price of the car plus 19 percent of all the costs of transportation, insurance, docking and duties involved in getting the car to Germany. The U.S. company gets no credit for corporate taxes it pays in the United States (BTW this applies to most products not just vehicles).

 

The VAT advantage also creates a perverse incentive for U.S. companies to move their plants and jobs to other countries so they, too, can take advantage of the VAT subsidy.

 

You would think that unions would have united against the continuance of this unfair trade policy long ago. Let's see, wasn't there something like 1.5 million UAW members around 1970? How many are there today? What 140-150,000?

 

I wonder why . . . oh by the way, German (union) workers are the highest paid in the world. Maybe the UAW got target-fixated (on the wrong target).

[BlackHorse]

WASHINGTON, Nov 2 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday that the United States ought study the example of Germany's dominant export sector in order to lift exports, and promised he would pursue an "aggressive" trade policy. "If Germany, a wealthy, highly unionized industrial nation, can generate 40 percent of its economy as export-based, then it seems to me that there is something we're missing that they are doing right, and we have got to figure that out," he told a meeting of his economic recovery advisory board. Obama said America was not afraid to compete with anyone, but countries viewing its markets as an engine for their own growth must also ensure reciprocal access for U.S. exports.

LINK

 

 

LMAO, yet another example that it's amateur hour at the White House.

 

Barrack: "Hey, Germany exports 40% of it's economy and they are a bunch of unionized socialists. Why can't we be a bunch of unionized socialists here in the US and export 40% of our economy?"

 

Common Sense Americans: Well for one thing much of the exported German economy comes here you moron. Secondly, maybe if we didn't have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world more companies would want to set up shop here. I know that saying "lower taxes" to a liberal is like explaining advanced calculus to parakeet though. Finally, when you study your socialist heros in Germany be sure to study the part about how much they pay in income tax because I think Americans aren't really keen on the idea of their income tax being raised right now.

 

Sheesh, this current Administration is a complete and utter failure. Just as many of us knew they would be.

[V8 Ford]

If he wanted to raise net exports he wouldn't have reduced them by 1.5 trillion dollars through deficit spending. Of course that presumes subterfuge rather than incompetence.

[mustang84isu]

Well for one thing much of the exported German economy comes here you moron.

Wrong, Blackhorse. For someone so quick to call the president a moron, it would serve you to look up your own facts first.

 

France receives the most German exports at 9.7%. The US is second at 8.6%. The UK is third at 7.6%. Italy is 4th at 6.7%. Eight percent is far from "most." Exports are far greater to the European Union, and one can tell that just by traveling around the EU and seeing all the German goods available in those countries.

 

Secondly, maybe if we didn't have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world more companies would want to set up shop here.

We have the second highest tax rate as an average, but we also have numerous tax credits and subsidies such as the New Markets Tax Credit program of 2000 that reduce the overall taxes corporations pay. Other recent tax breaks include the Corporate Tax Bill of 2004 and the corporate equities tax cut of 2003.

 

The taxes are not the real issue; the real issue has been our high labor costs and the historically low transportation costs to ship goods, until recently.

 

Prior to the dollar's decline beginning in 2002, foreign companies generally avoided manufacturing operations in the US; it was cheaper to build in China, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Low fuel costs made exports to the US extremely profitable. Today, fuel and transportation costs are much higher, eliminating the wide profit margin they had using cheap overseas labor. Suddenly it is much more desirable to build a plant in cheap labor states such as Alabama and Mississippi to supply North American goods, rather than ship them from overseas and have the profit margin eaten up by fuel costs. It has become even more desirable now that the dollar is weak and the Yen and Euro are strong. Why do you think BMW, Hyundai, Toyota, and others have begun a building spree in southern US states in the last 5 years?

Edited November 3, 2009 by mustang84isu

[BlackHorse]

Whatever Mustang. Nobody cares about your percentages of this and percentages of that. At the end of the day what it comes down to is Barack Obama was holding up a unionized socialist country as an example of how he thinks the United States should be. That's becuase Barack Obama is a socialist borderline marxist who is beholden to the unions of this country. He is in fact a moron because he believes in liberalism and socialism and both of them are proven failures that do nothing but oppress the population while lavishing the ruling political class in riches taken from the people.

Edited November 3, 2009 by BlackHorse

[Edstock]

Whatever Mustang. Nobody cares about your percentages of this and percentages of that.

You were stating that the US had "2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world". Sounds like you're stating numbers. Mustang corrects you, and you have a tantrum. You'll have to do better than that.

 

"That's becuase (sic) Barack Obama is a socialist borderline marxist"

 

Whatever BlackHorse. Nobody cares about your ravings: "Soclialist borderline Marxist"

 

Actually, considering Obama's dry wit, maybe he's a borderline Groucho-Marxist.

[BlackHorse]

You were stating that the US had "2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world". Sounds like you're stating numbers. Mustang corrects you, and you have a tantrum. You'll have to do better than that.

 

"That's becuase (sic) Barack Obama is a socialist borderline marxist"

 

Whatever BlackHorse. Nobody cares about your ravings: "Soclialist borderline Marxist"

 

Actually, considering Obama's dry wit, maybe he's a borderline Groucho-Marxist.

 

Nobody asked you lib.

[NickF1011]

Play nice everyone. :shades:

[Ron W.]

It's gratifying to see you guys playing nice :shades:

 

It's the internet nothing should be taken personally, opinions and perceptions are just that and nothing more.

[mustang84isu]

Whatever Mustang. Nobody cares about your percentages of this and percentages of that. At the end of the day what it comes down to is Barack Obama was holding up a unionized socialist country as an example of how he thinks the United States should be. That's becuase Barack Obama is a socialist borderline marxist who is beholden to the unions of this country.

Once again, baseless claims. You have bought into the right wing talking points.

 

You can't make false or misleading statements and not expect others to call you out on them.

 

He is in fact a moron because he believes in liberalism and socialism and both of them are proven failures that do nothing but oppress the population while lavishing the ruling political class in riches taken from the people.

The deregulated free market of the last 25 years has done basically the same thing. Policies spanning Reagan up through Bush 43 have failed the middle class while enriching the elite 1%. Had there been market oversight, we would not be in this recession in the first place.

 

Obama is doing nothing more than swinging the pendulum back to the center where it used to be, to the dismay of the far right and their special interests.

Edited November 4, 2009 by mustang84isu

[xr7g428]

Mustang please provide actual specific examples of specific deregulation that occurred during this period that led to or contributed to the current situation.

[BlackHorse]

Mustang please provide actual specific examples of specific deregulation that occurred during this period that led to or contributed to the current situation.

 

No Mustang, don't bother with specific examples. You're a little liberal drone here to defend your big liberal hero and we don't care what you have to say. Liberalism is an utter failure, as the current adminstration has so clearly demonstrated by putting our unborn grandchildren into debt, devaluing our money in the process, nationalizing massive sections of the private sector and seeking to burden us with a failure of a medical system that we all know will cost more and provide less service no matter how much they try and say it won't. When you wake up to the fact that liberalism / socialism is a lie and will always result in a population stripped of it's freedoms, liberties and riches, then we can talk. Until then, you're just one the countless drones that have voted to put all of us into shackles.

[fmccap]

Mustang please provide actual specific examples of specific deregulation that occurred during this period that led to or contributed to the current situation.

It's funny because I have asked this question about the so-called deregulation many times and have never received an answer.

[mustang84isu]

Mustang please provide actual specific examples of specific deregulation that occurred during this period that led to or contributed to the current situation.

Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 - deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry, led directly to the Savings and Loan Crisis of 1987

 

Wendy Gramm, 1989-1993 CFTC chair - exemption of derivatives regulation

 

Alan Greenspan, 1987-2006 Federal Reserve chair, and Rick Rubin and Arthur Levitt - ignored the warnings of Brooksley Born, 1996-1999 FCTC chair, she wanted regulation of the derivatives market and they didn't. They ignored her and then Long-Term Capital Managment, a hedge fund heavy in derivatives trading, collapsed in 1998. She attempted to introduce regulation once again, but pressure from Greenspan & Co. forced her to resign from the CFTC in 1999.

 

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 - repealed portions of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 and allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate...the main contributor to our current recession

 

SEC 2004 ruling allowing investment banks to determine their own net capital instead of the SEC, yet the SEC never thoroughly examined those banks to see what net capital claims actually existed. The banks claimed unhealthy assets as part of their net capital, with no SEC oversight. Went hand-in-hand with Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

[mustang84isu]

No Mustang, don't bother with specific examples. You're a little liberal drone here to defend your big liberal hero and we don't care what you have to say. Liberalism is an utter failure, as the current adminstration has so clearly demonstrated by putting our unborn grandchildren into debt, devaluing our money in the process, nationalizing massive sections of the private sector and seeking to burden us with a failure of a medical system that we all know will cost more and provide less service no matter how much they try and say it won't. When you wake up to the fact that liberalism / socialism is a lie and will always result in a population stripped of it's freedoms, liberties and riches, then we can talk. Until then, you're just one the countless drones that have voted to put all of us into shackles.

 

Fail. I'm not a liberal.

[Edstock]

You're a little liberal drone . . . you're just one the countless drones

There's nothing quite as irrational as a foaming-at-the-mouth conservative. Epithets and bluster: sound and fury, signifying nothing but impotence and frustration. You could become a poster child for the benefits of Thorazine.

[suv_guy_19]

When you wake up to the fact that liberalism / socialism is a lie and will always result in a population stripped of it's freedoms,

 

Perhaps you should read the actual definition of liberalism.

Edited November 4, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[fmccap]

Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 - deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry, led directly to the Savings and Loan Crisis of 1987

 

Wendy Gramm, 1989-1993 CFTC chair - exemption of derivatives regulation

 

Alan Greenspan, 1987-2006 Federal Reserve chair, and Rick Rubin and Arthur Levitt - ignored the warnings of Brooksley Born, 1996-1999 FCTC chair, she wanted regulation of the derivatives market and they didn't. They ignored her and then Long-Term Capital Managment, a hedge fund heavy in derivatives trading, collapsed in 1998. She attempted to introduce regulation once again, but pressure from Greenspan & Co. forced her to resign from the CFTC in 1999.

 

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 - repealed portions of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 and allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate...the main contributor to our current recession

 

SEC 2004 ruling allowing investment banks to determine their own net capital instead of the SEC, yet the SEC never thoroughly examined those banks to see what net capital claims actually existed. The banks claimed unhealthy assets as part of their net capital, with no SEC oversight. Went hand-in-hand with Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Bill Clinton: I should have better regulated derivatives

Former President Bill Clinton: I think that the only thing that our administration did or didn't do that we should have done is to try to set in motion some more formal regulation of the derivatives market.

 

 

 

 

We need to get past the two party thing and all of us demand that these people do the jobs they are supposed to do.

[mustang84isu]

No Mustang, don't bother with specific examples. You're a little liberal drone here to defend your big liberal hero and we don't care what you have to say. Liberalism is an utter failure, as the current adminstration has so clearly demonstrated by putting our unborn grandchildren into debt, devaluing our money in the process, nationalizing massive sections of the private sector and seeking to burden us with a failure of a medical system that we all know will cost more and provide less service no matter how much they try and say it won't. When you wake up to the fact that liberalism / socialism is a lie and will always result in a population stripped of it's freedoms, liberties and riches, then we can talk. Until then, you're just one the countless drones that have voted to put all of us into shackles.

 

Eh, I wasn't going to bother responding to the rest, but I've got some time to kill

 

"current adminstration has so clearly demonstrated by putting our unborn grandchildren into debt" - Yet George W. Bush's increase of the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion over his 8 year term was ok...gotcha

 

"devaluing our money in the process" - our dollar has been weakening since 2002 when the national debt and trade deficit began to run up under dear leader Bush, and inflation today is directly due to the financial crisis which was due to deregulation activities listed in my post above. You should be sending your thanks to Ayn Greenspan for our current situation.

 

"seeking to burden us with a failure of a medical system" - yep, competition is going to be a horrible thing for the insurance industry. Let's just stick with the status quo and continued to get raped with our insurance premiums.

 

"liberalism / socialism" - once again, you place a label on me without even knowing where I stand

 

"you're just one the countless drones" - Pot, meet Kettle

[Edstock]

[mustang84isu]

Bill Clinton: I should have better regulated derivatives

 

We need to get past the two party thing and all of us demand that these people do the jobs they are supposed to do.

 

No disrespect meant, but your avatar implies that you are a Ron Paul supporter, and these forms of market regulation would go directly against libertarian ideology, no?

 

I do agree that the two party system is outdated. I think a third independent party would really shake up the other two, and force them to become more politically effective.

[Imawhosure]

No disrespect meant, but your avatar implies that you are a Ron Paul supporter, and these forms of market regulation would go directly against libertarian ideology, no?

 

I do agree that the two party system is outdated. I think a third independent party would really shake up the other two, and force them to become more politically effective.

 

 

No offense Mustang, but I think you are wrong. As soon as people believe that a 3rd party is a good idea, 765 different groups will attempt to create one, meaning that not 1 of them has a chance. Not to mention---->whichever of the 2 big partys are in vogue at that time, would then accumulate more power, as those in the center attempt to create those 765 partys, and the far left and right will solidify their control of the big 2.

 

A better suggestion is--------->whichever party you believe is more towards your way of thinking; get in there and reshape them. For the forseeable future, they are winning the elections, and if you are in, you can have a CHANCE to exert some sort of rudder. If you are off fooling around, out of any kind of power, how can you exert anything?

 

MOST of us should laugh at the examples of far right and left put forth here. As each of us who are moderate can see, the far lefties and righties are in power in both partys.

 

The problem we as Americans must admit though is this----------->which party more closely resembles what the constitution was written to represent? If you define what the constitution says, there is no doubt which party that is.

 

On the other hand, the constitution is a living document. We can't just believe in absolutes from centuries ago, and think that by implementing all of its ideas verbatim again, all will be well. Yes, our founders were brilliant, but they were not soothsayers who could see this country this far down the road.

 

But, what we do know from modern history is........SOCIALISM does not work; for if it did, the USSR would have defeated us, Cuba would be a superpower, and China would not be leaning towards capitalism as we move towards socialism.

 

I understand that the American electorate voted for change. But if you look at the pols, this is not the change they were thinking about.

 

We can debate this till the cows come home, and nobody is going to convince anyone; but let me make a suggestion to each of you on how to gauge the real thoughts of America. Watch the special elections going on. If America is happy, Obamas guys will win handily. If America is not happy with the way change is occuring, you will see it for sure. In the end, if Obamas candidates are defeated, it does not mean that the tide has turned and now America believes in the republicans, but rather they are scared to death of the liberals, lol.

 

Point is, unless YOU help take control of YOUR party, these swings will continue....from far left, to far right, to far left, and back again. You will never get what you want, because the people in charge of both of them are the crazys, and you..........well you sit on the sidelines instead of taking control.

 

We will get what we deserve, and I wish all of us luck

[xr7g428]

Mustang I give you credit for taking a stab at this. I have to leave for SEMA very early tomorrow, but when I get back, if this thread is still alive, I will be happy to address the real issues. And "warnings" don't count. Regulations carry the force of law, so deregulation has to mean changes in the law, not just suggestions. You really should take a look at the Community Redevelopment act. You need to start in about 1964 to get the complete picture.