The jobs bill that wouldn't cost a cent:

[brentspeak]

1) Renegotiate NAFTA as per Mexico (keep the same trade relationship with Canada)

2) shut the door on cheap Chinese imports

3) ditto India

4) drastically reduce the H1-B program

5) raise taxes 50% on any American corporation that offshores its labor and expects to reimport back into the United States

[doc03]

1. If we piss China off who buys our debt? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Who buys China's cheap exports if they refuse to buy US govt securities?

It works both ways. It's not like new markets will magically open up for China, especially in this stagnant global economy.

[doc03]

3. What will Walmart do without cheap Chinese imports? n/t

[vaberella]

8. And by that question we get...What will Americans do without cheap Chinese imports?

Well New York will survive...the 5 boroughs---Walmart can't open a store in our area.

[jmowreader]

9. Contrary to New Yorkers' popular belief, NYC is not the entire nation

And for a lot of us, big boxes are the majority of our retail.

[vaberella]

12. Aye? When did I say we were the entire nation.

I believe our small business put enough pressure on our local government to make Walmart not able to exist. It should be done all over since Walmart is a small business killer.

[avaistheone1]

10. Walmart is the largest importer of Chinese goods in the U.S.

[AllentownJake]

14. They stopped buying months ago

It is a matter of holding now.

[Zynx]

25. Correct. They haven't been net buyers for a while now.

[Ildem09]

4. can't shut the door on china

we've become symbiotic with them. they would cash in their debt futures if we reduced trade. we've written cheques our ass cannot cash i'm afraid

[AllentownJake]

20. China isn't buying anymore

and they can cash out with no real long term effect. They can drop the DOW to 6700 and force the government to take more cost cutting measures, after we make those measures, we'd kick the living shit out of them economically.

They can take their 2 trillion and go on a spending spree all at once, however that will rise commodity prices and devalue the dollar make the 2 trillion more like 500 billion of buying power.

China doesn't have any idea how to design consumer goods, they aren't a consumer culture.

[Robb]

5. 2-4, and probably 5

...would tank a bunch of business that built those inequities into their model. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that it might take a bit to create some jobs.

[vaberella]

7. Exactly...majority of the ideas suggested are industry and economic killers in the US.

I'm surprised a few of them were even suggested.

[vaberella]

6. Sounds rather protectionist which would be shot down by every and all Economist.

At least for 2, 3, 4. 5) I would agree with but lower the tax level a bit. That's ridiculous and would end up not working to our benefit. You'd have all our companies running abroad. Which they would do with that kind of tax hike. Unless of course you give them an incentive in repayment. Further more most offshore to other countries because of cost. You'd want to provide other incentives to maintain US workers----here is where you offer free healthcare for all their workers---instead of subsidies and then they'd take up your offer. 1) I wholeheartedly agree with---that was a shotty deal. I actually think the H1-B program should stay in tact (way too isolationistics) why? We can use intuitive and fresh ideas from all over the world and if the H1-B program gives that outlet I say why not.

[avaistheone1]

11. India and China both engage in protectionist policies to protect themselves.

We need to level the playing field and have policies that protect our industries and our workers too.

We need to wise up fast.

[vaberella]

13. Yeah, and playing protectionist politics won't have us in the winning field either.

Basic economics 101, nations were doing that during the Great Depression and hence the reason things took a long time to heal. Or one of the things. Production was high during that time...but goods weren't moving. Leveling the playing field by engaing in the same crooked methods doesn't always win the game...but finding ways to have them open theirs is one. Keep in mind that another wa China is able to even do what it does is because they own us economically. When we are near economically failure they come to the rescue...that dependency is now somewhat inherent. Protectionist politics won't win when that is around. I like how people love to play this one upmanship game with things or saying we need show them who's boss is going to get anything done. We're a debtor nation at a massive disadvantage---we don't have a real hand to play. So protectionism doesn't work for us.

However, strenthening other imports and lessening the need for Chinese imports is one way. But how do you change the mind of the American people.

[AllentownJake]

15. I think the part of the recovery in America in the 1940s and 1950s

was the blowing up every industrial competitor. Literally, either the Germans and Japanese bombed the shit out of them or we bombed the shit out of them.

Of course, after that happened and we were sitting on a shit load of manufacturing capacity that had not been blown up, free trade looked awesome to us.

I think the fact that Europe and Japan had to rebuild every piece of infrastructure they had, also aided in their recovery. Easy to have full employment when you are rebuilding 200 years of infrastructure that has just been destroyed.

[vaberella]

16. To the last part true and it also aided in the massively impressive social programs they have.

However...I don't think bombing is a good choice. War always makes for great economic boom 20 years down the line; but I don't think it's rational to even think of bombing China or India. They out number us population wise 12-15:1 and Russia would come out on top of that one or the European Union.

[AllentownJake]

18. I'm not advocating blowing things up

However, things have now equalized infrastructure wise, and it is now time for them to either play fair, or not play at all in the American market.

[avaistheone1]

17. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the Great Depression than an initial cause.

We are going in the wrong direction with just about everything on trade.

1.) You say China owns the U.S. Well that is because they keep lending us money for our big expenditures like the wars. Stop the wars. That would solve a multiplicity of problems including reducing our financial dependence on China.

2.) How much closer do you think we need to come to economic failure before trade protections can be of value? There are parts of like Michigan already at 30% unemployment.

3.) How are we going to strengthen our imports when Americans can't afford to buy imports especially if we don't have jobs. BTW purchasing imports creates jobs for the importing countries not for people here in the U.S.

I don't think your proposals make sense at all. Currently we have an administration who on one hand is creating a stimulus package to create jobs, and on the other hand is readily kissing our jobs off to other countries. This is counterproductive and nonsensical. This approach is not creating a stable job market here at home. We do not have sustainable jobs beyond the next stimulus package. Are we developing industries? No. These jobs are just only going to run to the end of the stimulus package or the end of the next election cycle take your pick. How short-sighted! Then we are bad in same spot and owing more money to China.

I think this is a dismal picture for future of American workers.

[AllentownJake]

19. China owns nothing

They have overplayed their hand this year and are about to get an economic smack down.

They refused to make trade concessions or float the yuan and are lowering their buying of world debt. Once they are considered no longer a source of funding, they are fucked. The governments in Europe and America will turn on them in a heartbeat to explain to their populace why they can't find jobs and they have to cut social spending.

China manufactures a lot. They don't develop many things. It is hard to develop consumer products when your country has no consumers.

They are going crazy with the decrease in demand for exports in the Euro zone and America right now. They have a lot of money to buy commodities but they have no customers for their finished product. They are literally building cities for no one.

They refuse to float their currency because it would create a new class of millionaires over night, a new class of millionaires that are going to demand their seat at the table with the politburo or take their yuan elsewhere. The politburo does not want a middle class. That would be bad for the politburo.

China has a choice, grow-up and install the pressure valve of democracy, or face certain reprisals by the other world powers and protectionist policies.

[brentspeak]

23. Smoot-Hawley raised tariffs on almost all imports from all nations

Raising tariffs on Chinese goods -- but not on Canadian or German or Argentinian goods - would therefore not fall under the category of "Smoot-Hawley protectionism."

It's like this: keep out dumped cheap imports which have destroyed U.S. manufacturing, and American industries will have a chance to rebuild themselves and their market share -- and we live; continue to allow cheap imports to be dumped on our shores -- and we die.

[brentspeak]

22. You sound (almost) thoroughly indoctrinated and marinated in ruling elite economic dogma

I say "almost", because at least you recognize that NAFTA is a job-killing sham.

[harun]

21. I see a less than 1% chance of any of those seeing the light of day.

None of them would even get a vote in Congress.

Not saying they are bad but we have a bought and paid for Congress that won't touch any of those.

[robcon]

24. That would result in enormous layoffs and reduction in our standard of living.

n/t

[OldDem_63]

26. 6. Pass card check

Make it easier for workers to unionize then cound on the unions to help defend the jobs. Costs nothing, increases wages, increases jobs. Win all around.