Category: International Issues

Tariffs: That Giant Sucking Sound

Use tariffs to put pressure on companies to raise wages of their overseas workers.

The 1992 Presidential debate had three candidates on stage, President George Bush, Democratic challenger Bill Clinton, and independent Ross Perot.  In one debate questions were allowed from the audience.  At the time the Bush administration was negotiating with the leaders of Mexico and Canada with what came known as the North American Free Trade Agreement.  It was signed in 1992 and implemented in 1994.  Mr. Perot was personally asked about how he would keep jobs here in the United States.  He said, “We have got to stop sending jobs overseas.” 

“if you don’t care about anything but making money there will be a giant sucking sound going south.”

Ross Perot

Perot then presented a scenario of a domestic manufacturer facing paying $12-14 /hour, with health care versus the same job in Mexico paying $1 /hour with no benefits.  Click here to watch the clip.

He addressed business owners saying, “if you don’t care about anything but making money there will be a giant sucking sound going south.”

The Social Contract

The Wharton School of Business recently published an article by Stefano Puntoni titled “Outsourcing vs. Offshoring: Why Consumers Push Back on Jobs Sent Abroad.”

In it Puntoni states that employees had traditionally believed firms should support the ‘Social Contract.”

“When a company cuts domestic jobs and moves them overseas, consumers often view it as a betrayal of that norm — even if the move makes business sense on paper.”

He added that employees have a more negative view of layoffs due to offshoring than by consolidation, automation or internal restructuring.

“A U.S.-based firm laying off workers in Illinois and opening a facility in Vietnam will likely face more reputational fallout than a Swiss multinational doing the same — even if both decisions are rooted in the same logic of cost control.”

Analysis

Companies have closed shops here and located overseas primarily for one reason: cheap labor. Throughout the decades companies have sought out ways to reduce labor costs.

President Trump has stated his tariffs are in place mainly to pressure companies to relocate to the United States.  So far I have not read of any announcement from Apple or any other manufacturer planning to do this.  Have you? 

In addition, I have read of American companies with domestic operations being hurt by tariffs because parts or supplies coming from overseas.

Solution

What should be done is what Mr. Perot referenced in the 1992 debate:  raise the wages of overseas employees so they are at or closer to parity with American wages.  This also includes benefits.  Use tariffs just to put pressure on companies to improve the wages of their overseas workers.  Do not use the fact that they are technically employed by someone else there as a cover for not doing it.

This is especially with American companies with operations in China.  China is a communist country.  It is technically a worker’s state with doing what is best for the working class and peasants.  Where are the independent unions? What is a communist country doing with millionaires?  Whatever happened to the Marxist wing of the Chinese Communist Party?   Seems hypocritical, doesn’t it?  But these are questions to deal with another day.

The Conflict in Gaza:  The Need for a Moral Compass

A voice to rally Palestinians and speak to the international community

Reports coming out of Gaza are disturbing to me.  It pains me to read/hear that children are not only displaced but are starving or on the brink of starvation.  It also pains me that hostages are still being held, when Israeli citizens have been protesting to their government to pursue their release. 

So where do we look for a future?

In my opinion I still believe in the two-state solution.  Only a few who not only believe in it but even talk about it.  I believe it is the only practical goal for everyone in the region.  If you don’t agree, then, what is the alternative? However, as war rages on it is only microscopic baby steps towards this goal is possibly real at this point.

A Palestinian State

The pursuit of a Palestinian state is something I sympathize with.  One thing that I have heard from right-wing Israeli settlers is that the land of Judea and Samaria was given to the Jewish people by God.  What these same people don’t point out is that the ancient Israelis were surrounded by idol worshippers of Baal, Moloch etc.  God was constantly criticizing His Chosen People for straying towards the golden calf.  Having no other gods before me was written in the very first commandment.  The Palestinians of today also worship God—mostly Muslim, some Christian.  They see themselves as descendants of Ismael—Abraham’s first born.  God also promised the descendants of Ismael a mighty nation.  No one else points this out.

What is Needed

Hamas has rockets.  Israel has more and bigger rockets as well as tanks.  The Palestinians do not have an army.  So how do they realistically pursue this nation-state? 

What the Palestinians lack is their equivalent of a Martin Luther King, Jr.  Rev. King was a moral compass that guided his people and others.  A modern-day Moses.  He used a strategy of non-violence, combined with persuasion represented in speeches and letters, to recruit allies outside of the movement and overcome resistance to superior manpower.  I have yet to see anyone from the Palestinian ranks step up to this role.  Hamas?  Militants may like it that they “stick it to Israel” with bombing raids, but they are morally bankrupt and hide behind their rockets (and even their citizens).  Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen)?  He has been relatively silent since the Hamas raid.  I remember Hamas being voted into the majority in Gaza years ago because of accusations of corruption by the Palestinian Authority.  Palestinians on the West Bank have grumbled about the level of corruption there too. 

A Lone Voice

There is one voice that recently caught my attention.

In the December 2024 issue of The Atlantic, Samer Sinijlawi wrote the op-ed, “How To Build A Palestinian State.”  Sinijlawi is described as a Palestinian political activist and founding chair of the Jerusalem Development Fund.  He calls for a complete change of leadership.  Israelis should vote out Benjamin Netanyahu.  He argues that Palestinians want change.  A significant number of them want the Hamas dictatorship out.  Those on the West Bank also want Abbas out.  “As brutal and oppressive as the Hamas regime has been, the people of Gaza don’t want to see Hamas replaced with Abbas,” he writes.

Check his article out.  Click here to get a link to it.

Analysis

So where do we go from here?

I have no problem with Jewish people living in the area some call Judea and Samaria.  I just do not believe that ONLY Jewish people can and should live there.  Property being bought and sold in normal real estate transactions. In a two-state solution you may have Palestinians living in Israel and Jews living in Palestine.  That scenario may bring out a certain stability, reducing terror attacks. It may also bring about a great migration and separation as with India and Pakistan.  Whether Sinijlawi or some other Palestinian arises to be the moral compass for his/her people (and the people of the entire region) is up to the Palestinians to decide.  The alternative seems to be more attacks, revenge and counter-revenge. 

God heard the cries of the Israelites in Egypt and from them came Moses.  I feel sad for the peaceful-loving people of the region who want an end to the violence on both sides.  I also feel sad that no one will either read this or consider it worth sharing. 

Immigration: Back to the Future

Have refugees come by ship. It was once done, and it worked

Why can’t today’s refugees enter by ship like they did 140 years ago?

The Present

The border crisis along the Rio Grande is a definite problem for the United States.  I give credit to Donald Trump for bringing the issue to the forefront at a time when no one else did.  However, Mr. Trump’s main focus/concern is squarely on the quality of the people coming in.  He considers them criminals and has publicly said so.  Some may be, but the majority are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.  IMO, if there are murderers and thugs slipping through it is due both to the large number of people crossing and the process involved. 

The search for a better process in the future has me searching 140 years ago in our nation’s past.

The Past

In the 1880s we also had refugees pouring into our country.  Like the people at the border today, these were people not necessarily wanting to become Americans but were people looking to mostly escape—poverty, oppression, crime—and saw America as the best place to go.

Unlike the refugees of today, these people came from Western and Eastern Europe and by ship.  Early on many arrived at Castle Garden, formerly known as Castle Clinton, at the southern tip of Manhattan.  The number of people coming in overwhelmed this location, so land was acquired nearby at a former munitions site called Ellis Island. 

According to the History Channel website, from 1900 to 1914—the peak years of Ellis Island’s operation—an average of 1,900 people passed through the immigration station every day. Most successfully passed through in a matter of hours, but others could be detained for days.  On April 17, 1907, an all-time daily high of 11,747 immigrants received was reached; that year, Ellis Island experiences its highest number of immigrants received in a single year, with 1,004,756 arrivals.

Learning from experience, the Immigration department later began to prep refugees at the point of departure rather than at the point of entry.  This both sped up the process at Ellis Island and for those who were rejected, they did not have to be shipped back. 

Solution

Why can’t today’s refugees enter by ship in the Gulf of Mexico? They have been coming through the southern borders for decades. Their numbers do not appear to substantially be dropping anytime soon.  An arrangement could be made with Mexico to allow processing and ships to depart.  There are deep water ports in Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Miami to provide entry.  In fact, New Orleans was also used as a destination port in the late 1800s. The U.S. could set up several processing stations so no one city receives them all.  This would allow the United States to take control of the process instead of refugees dictating to us how they enter. 

If an orderly process was set up, we could go ahead and seal the southern border.  Anyone then crossing the Rio Grande and slipping through would then be immediately subject to arrest and deportation, regardless of the reason for coming. Why hasn’t anyone at least looked into the feasibility of this idea?  As of today, no one has come up with any other, have they?  If rerouting their destination is a major inconvenience for the refugees, then so be it.  Those illegals already here could go through, but would have to find a way to get to the processing station.

Having refugees arrive by ship isn’t some made-up scheme; it was actually done a century ago—and it worked.  I don’t see any reason why it should not at least be seriously explored, if not implemented.

This isn’t a rant, but a look at a possible solution without demeaning anyone. If you have taken the time to read this and think it is worth exploring, share it with others.