Tucson Citizen.com

Veteran Veritas

Advocacy for our Veterans

Happy Labor Day/China; The Day After

by on Sep. 07, 2010, under Veterans Benefits

As we  wander off to sleep tonight, having celebrated a Holiday dedicated to Labor in America, I just wanted to give a hearty thanks to the people of China who were awarded 31% of  our labor force over the past 9 years.

Thank  you China for my underwear, my new toilet seat, my new TV, my heart monitor for the gym, and  a special thanks to the  Bank of  Singapore, for bailing out our “free enterprise,”  Banking system.

I am ever so grateful for your Communist  charity. It is a pity our Tea Party citizens cannot lend us the same help that you do.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 7th, 2010 at 1:58 am and is filed under Veterans Benefits. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • Johnny Bravo

    okay, I’ll take the bait…please support your statements.  What data supports your contention that 31% of our labor force (I presume you mean “jobs” was awarded to China over the last 9 years?
    Also, please tell me how the Bank of Singapore “bailed out” “free enterprise”.  FYI, Singapore is not in China, and did very little in response to the global economic crisis (brought on mainly by greedy American bankers).
    Finally, what “charity” has the Chinese communist party bestowed upon you or ANY of us?
    Just asking…

    • http://pointmantucson.yuku.com/ mike_brewer

      Yes, to many, the  labor force and jobs are interchangeable. Some distinctions are made between skilled labor force and plain old grunt labor..like the Chinese textile industry.  Or the distinction between College graduates and no college.  Incidentally the unemployment rate of college graduates is 4.4%, not the 9.5% that is published as the overall rate.  The figure of 31% was lifted from a Rand Corporation task force that studied the number of jobs that have gone overseas in that time frame and its impact on the trade deficit and the consequent hit on the American economy.
       
      I am fully cognizant that Singapore has been an independent Republic since 1965  and  in those years has become the 4th wealthiest city/state on earth. There depositors are in fact Chinese, as is the dominant segment of the 5 million people who live there.
      As for the bail out, well it just IS what it IS. When a nation does not have enough liquidity to feed its own system it needs some cash from outside its borders, and outside its own system of finance. If that ain’t a bail out then what adjective would you prefer? 68% of our debt is owed to Foreign Nations, who have in fact bailed us out. 12% alone is owed to Saudi Arabia, a Muslim nation. That can be found on many  U.S. Government websites.  I frequently use the Pew Research Center and the Annenberg Center in Pennsylvania.
      As for your last question, which is a bit tangential. Marines do not need charity, we give it.

  • Johnny Bravo

    Sorry–i forgot to ask–what does the poor man in the picture have to do with your article?  Are you worried that his job–apparently working in a traditional chinese medicine store–was relocated from the US to China, or was that the only picture of a chinese person you could find?

    • http://www.ryngargulinski.com Rynski

      dear johnny bravo,

      just a note that the photo in the featured section to promote this article was chosen by site administrators, not blogger mike brewer. yes, it was selected because the man is chinese but, equally as important, because it depicts someone who appears to be enjoying his work. thank you.

      ryn.

      • http://pointmantucson.yuku.com/ mike_brewer

        Thank you for the clarification. Too bad the reader did not grasp the satire that was intended.

  • http://livingwithptsd.yuku.com/ Winneo

    Somehow I don’t see loans from China as charity–something much more ominous is going on.
     
    To paraphrase the title of Malcolm Knox’s article:
     
    THE DEAL IS SIMPLE.
    THE UNITED STATES GET MONEY.
    CHINA GETS THE UNITED STATES.
     
    Buy American made.

  • Johnny Bravo

    I call B.S.  Please cite the specific Rand report that backs up your contention.  You also never respeonded about the role the Bank of Singapore (which doesn’t actually exist) allegedly played in the global bail out.  And as for your statement that it’s depositors are mainly Chinese is simply wrong!  Even assuming that a “Bank of Singapore” that took deposits actually existed, it wouldn’t be true.  Some investments in Singapore banks come from Singapore citizens, but more actually come from Indonesian and European citizens (Singapore is a former British colony–like the US).
    I really shouldn’t care, since it is clear that few people read your blog, but I do because really, there needs to be some level of journalistic integrity–even in a blog–on a newspaper website.  And your not so veiled racism has no place in this newspaper’s site.
    If there is such a thing as an ombudsman for the Tucson citizen, I would appreciate it if he/she would contact me.  I would like to make a formal complaint.  I have been a Citizen reader for 30 years, and I am deeply saddened to see it devolve into a forum for unprofessional displays such as your blog.

  • Johnny Bravo

    Not that I agree with Rand very often, but since you named them as the source of your data, and since I care about journalistic integrity and all, I thought it might be useful to point your readers to a REAL Rand report, which can be found at:  http://www.rand.org/commentary/2006/12/21/WP.html
    This report states:
    “Some manufacturing workers in the United States — such as those who labored in huge factories making basic steel — have suffered as they’ve seen their jobs leave America for low-wage countries. But for workers as a whole, the truth about globalization and inequality is the opposite of what the protectionists claim. There are three caveats to the steel worker’s story and two larger perspectives on inequality.”

    “One caveat is that protectionists enormously exaggerate the negative effects of globalization by attributing virtually all manufacturing job losses to competition with China. We are told by union leaders and some politicians that America is exporting millions of jobs to China. This is absolutely untrue.”
    “Scholarly studies show that most job losses in the United States are attributable to domestic causes such as increased domestic productivity. A few years ago it took 40 hours of labor to produce a car. Now it takes 15. That translates into a need for fewer workers. Protectionists who blame China for such job losses are being intellectually dishonest. In fact, both China and the U.S. have lost manufacturing jobs due to rising productivity, but China has lost ten times more — a decline of about 25 million Chinese jobs from over 54 million in 1994 to under 30 million ten years later….”
    “A third caveat is that the protectionists never mention the jobs created and saved by globalization…
    p.s. we do apparently agree on one thing–please buy American!

  • Johnny Bravo

    My bad–there is a Bank of Singapore–it is a private bank, and a subsidiary of OCBC.  I doubt this is the bank you referred to though, as OCBC and its subsidiaries were the recipients of bailout assistance, not the grantor of assistance.  I suspect you actually meant the Monetary Authority of Singapore, which is akin to the US Federal Reserve, neither of which take deposits from individuals–whether they are of Chinese ancestry or otherwise.

  • http://pointmantucson.yuku.com/ mike_brewer

    Unfair China Trade Costs Local Jobs
    Robert E. Scott
    March 23, 2010
    EPI Briefing Paper #260

    Download full text in print-friendly PDF version


    Press release


    Supplemental Table A: Net job loss due to growing trade deficits with China, 2001-08, by Congressional district [PDF] [Excel]
    Supplemental Table B: Net job loss in Congressional districts due to growing trade deficits with China, 2001-08, alphabetical [PDF] [Excel]

    Since China entered The World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the extraordinary growth of U.S. trade with China has had a dramatic effect on U.S. workers and the domestic economy. The United States is piling up foreign debt, losing export capacity, and the growing trade deficit has been a prime contributor to the crisis in U.S. manufacturing employment. Between 2001 and 2008, 2.4 million jobs were lost or displaced, including 91,400 in 2008 alone, despite a dramatic decline in total and bilateral U.S.-China trade deficits that began in the second half of that year. Growing trade deficits have cost jobs in every Congressional district, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (this study reports these district-level data for the first time).
    The computers, electronic equipment, and parts industries experienced the largest growth in trade deficits with China, leading with 627,700 (26%) of all jobs displaced between 2001 and 2008. As a result, the hardest hit Congressional districts were located in California and Texas, where remaining jobs in those industries are concentrated, and in North Carolina, which was hard hit by job displacement in a variety of manufacturing industries.
     

    Possibly this will help Mr. Bravo in his quest for pure professionalism.

      The Rand Corporation did, as you so aptly pointed out in your homework, sans Bank of Singapore, qualify and defend the benefits of a globalism. These figures have been floating around with most all economic think tanks for several years.
    This blog actually is pretty well read, given our volunteer status. Since its inception, it has been primarily for advocacy for veterans issues and has assisted many disabled veterans and their families  I add a little levity and satire and you see what it triggers?
    As for your complaint, I would encourage you to contact Mark Evans.
     

«
»

About Veteran Veritas

 

September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Recent Comments