Comments about ‘Keeping America competitive globally’

Interesting read.... but wrong conclusion.

It is interesting that the author's first example of how China is doing things faster and better than we are - convention center vs escalator - but then argues that it is through individualism that we will be able to compete.

It used to be that when you opened up a business, you were competing against the shop down the street. Take book stores for example. Then the nationals moved in like Barnes and Noble. Next Amazon came in, and rocked B&N world - killing of Borders in the process. Now we have Apple changing the way we buy our reading material (and Amazon).

There is no amount of American gumption that is ever going to make the local bookstore competitive again. Like wise with the millions of other jobs that moved elsewhere - because location no long matters. Fooling yourself that if we just return to our pioneer roots we can beat this thing is simply wishful thinking in a global (flat) world.

The US economy will only return to full strength when construction returns. And that will not return until we have real regulatory changes in the financial markets.

Nice piece, wrong conclusion.

We are not keeping America competitive globally when we shut down our oil and coal industries, when we let china come here and purchase whole industries such as steel manufacturers, and ship them back to china. Where did the jobs go? Where are the oil rig jobs in the gulf. Its as if our government is trying to commit national suicide. Wait, maybe they are. Cloward & Piven.

It wasn't the mediocrity of our educational system that sent American jobs overseas, it was the greed of American business that put profits ahead of patriotism for America. It is the lack of opportunity and jobs that has brought mediocrity to our educational system. What good is an education if you can't use it.

Previously I was an opponent of the isolation of America, however now I am very much for the notion of isolating America from the rest of the world.

If American business only sold products and services that were made in America there would be plenty of jobs for Americans. If the American economy was only the economy of the United States of America, we would not care what the rest of the world did.

Thanks for the pep talk, nice article. A return to the value of hard work is certainly a begin. So would be the ending of the Federal Governments program, which I think called "every child held back" or something like that. America is still very competitive, in fact each american worker is 1.23 x as productive as the next closes nation. China is way, way behind, as is India. And, the bulk of their workers are way, way less edcated than ours. But, they work hard, very hard and for much less. Guess that is what is so attractive to the employers, because it certainly is not the regulatory environment, productive, advanced infrastructure, which if you have recently been their you know. Of course, they can build a building quicker, because everyone knows who the payoffs need to be made to. Here that takes some time and effort.

KM - hold on a second. In one breath, you claim to be a free market proponent, anti regulation, pro business - then in the next you think the government should interfere in who owns what and who sells what to who.

Which is it. You can't have it both ways.

And there in lies the whole problem, you can't be half fish, half fowl when it suites your purpose.

If you want free markets untethered to regulation, then you need to hold the corporations responsible for their actions. BUt there is a huge conflict of interest there. Also, check your facts too. America is a net exporter of distillates, not an importer. I don't blame anyone for not being clear, because both sides haver really muddied the pool with misleading information.

We have to get to the point that we stop blaming government for deregulating to the point where American companies ship jobs overseas IF we really believe in deregulation. Companies and conservatives wanted free markets - and that is exactly what we have. Where the jobs landed was simply an unintended outcome of that demand.

UtahBlueDevil,

Regulation is regulation. We have a method to keep corporations honest; it is called the court system. If they build a harmful product, then they get sued. We don't need government to wring its hands and think of all the possible ways that people might hurt themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if they required us to dig a foam filled moat around our houses just in case someone slipped off the roof!

Government is not the answer to productivity or efficiency or excellence. Government keeps us from being productive. Mr. Obama wants to stop Boeing from producing airplane parts in North Caroline, where they can do it cheaper and faster than they can in Washington State. You can judge for yourself whether there is excellence in government the next time you see how many people it takes to fill a pot hole or how many police officers are needed in a town that has no crime.

If government got out of the way and let the law of supply and demand work without interference, we would have a productive society and lower prices.

I here ya mike..... I have no problem being one way or the other.... but you need to be consistent. You can't say regulation is the problem for poor growth, but also be mad that because industry has the choice to do what they like, that they choose to ship jobs overseas.

And by the way, Boeing was never going to do anything in North Carolina, it is South Carolina. And I am very intimately familiar with the Boeing situation as they are a client of mine. Cheaper - perhaps. Faster, not sure how in the world you jump to that conclusion, particularly when you consider the lag time in how long it takes the subassemblies to get from Charleston to Kent or Everett. You are dramatically underestimating the complexity of the issue.... particularly when government funds are being used to subsidize either of these options. Boeing is a poster child for companies that benefit from government intervention and subsidies.

But anyway.... if there is no regulation, there is no rules to be broken, and there are no law suites. It doesn't work both ways. Define "harmful"? If tobacco products aren't harmful, then what is?