by Alex Hutchins
As turmoil and anger against all Americans continues to build within the Mediterranean countries, the economy is still the focus of debate, despite the media attention that the Royal Family is receiving over the nude photographs of Kate. And, while protests spread throughout the Muslim world as a result of the anti-Islam film that has curiously gone viral on the internet, Chicago teachers with true solidarity remain on strike, forcing the administration to seek out the indulgence of the court system. And, while the NFL players continue to complain about the ability of the league’s temporary referees, the NHL Players Union votes to take them out on strike, forcing many of the players to seek out and sign contracts in Europe.
The timing is perfect, one might conclude, since there are less than 2 months until the nation re-elects a President or decides to elect a new one, a Republican this time, instead of a Democrat. And, if a new one is elected on the coattails of bad news and a lack luster economy, then do we really think this new one, this Republican, this big business representative, will be able to fix what was started so many, many years ago?
Is it the President that is completely responsible for the creation or the elimination of jobs? Is that what we think? If we do, then why have Democrats over the last 50 years created twice as many jobs as Republicans? Why do we think that is, pray tell? We cannot say with accuracy because there is actually minimal correlation between the President and job creation outside of Government jobs.
When one studies business and business cycles and the impact of stockholders on making business decisions, one can easily conclude that borrowing money for instance, is done exactly when it needs to be done and not before or later, based upon interest rates. Therefore, businesses who are willing to share their Balance Sheets with the public, will show that their Liabilities section could possibly show monies borrowed at 5% and 10% and 3% and 9% and 1% over the years as they pay back each of those loans. The economy had very little bearing on their decision, other than to “bitch” about it at a staff meeting.
The same hold true for new product introductions, Research and Development, hiring and firing of employees, and/or opening up new branches, divisions, or stores. It is done, when the Strategic Plan indicates that it will be done. It may be postponed a quarter or two for a variety of reasons, perhaps the economy could be one of those reasons, but it would not be postponed for over 3 years, despite what the Republican are trying to tell the American people.
Foreign businesses open up stores in America and American companies open up stores in different parts of the rest of the world. In fact, a recent USA Today article indicated that more than 18 million new cars were sold last year in China, which is now the world's largest automotive market.
At issue are more than 80% of U.S. auto exports to China, and the duties fall particularly hard on General Motors and Chrysler. The Chinese government imposed the duties last December.
They affect large-engine autos and SUVs exported from the U.S. Those vehicles are worth approximately $3.3 billion.
Taken together, the duties are 15% on the Jeep Grand Cherokee made in Detroit and 22% on the Buick Enclave and Cadillac CTS produced near Lansing, Mich.
For all U.S. automakers, anti-dumping duties range from 2% to 8.9% while countervailing duties -- intended to reduce the impact of subsidies -- range from 6.2% to 12.9%.
The automakers, however, were largely silent on the administration's request for consultations at the World Trade Organization. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complained that in raising the duties late last year, Chinese officials did so without sufficient evidence of product dumping or injury to automobile manufacturers already producing in that country.
A couple of questions come to mind:
First: Why were the American Car Dealers silent about providing consultant to present their case to the World Trade Organization?
Second: If tariffs are imposed by China on American Car Dealer import to
China, then employees will be laid off to compensate and I am wondering how blaming the current President for that unemployment is fair?
China, then employees will be laid off to compensate and I am wondering how blaming the current President for that unemployment is fair?
Third: If American workers would stop asking for more money and actually reduce their salary demands, American businesses would be in a much better financial position to hire more American workers, so why is this so hard to understand?
No comments:
Post a Comment