But that's nonsense - you'd cripple the companies that are such a vital component of the economy. If Boeing finds that an Israeli firm has a brilliant new avionics package, why can't they contract that firm to develop a better system for their jets. If Chrysler doesn't have the resources to build a new sports car, but needs a fresher image, why can't it turn to other parts of DaimlerChrysler and get their engineers to develop the Crossfire (excepting of course the 2 Chrysler badges which are made in the USA), just because those engineers happen to be in Eastern Europe.For one, I want heavy penalties levied against companies that off-shore work. Call it an intelectual property terrif if you like. Second, I want the government to establish work programs with that money so that people put out of work by off-shoring are able to have some kind of job available to them.
If Boeing don't - Airbus has a better package and USA loses. If Chrysler don't, then BMW or Acura have the better car, and USA loses.
What about the truly global multi-nationals which are still American companies - IBM, Ford, GE, Texaco, Intel etc. Do they get penalised for the productivity of their workers outside the USA? If they don't why can't every US company set up an Indian office or a Russian office and do the same?
Tarrifs are being abolished because they are a short term gain for long term pain. The simple fact is that there are more consumers outside the USA than within it, and US companies need to be able to sell into those markets. Uncompetitive practices propped up by artificial tarrifs make that difficult, and the tarrifs imposed by trading partners in response make it impossible.A country based on total free enterprise isn't neccessarily a good thing. Moreover, even in the past, our nation had tarrifs so that cheap foriegn imports wouldn't put American businessmen out of business. For one, we can extend the concept of tarrifs so that they protect not only business men, but workers as well.
I think that would require corperate responsability laws restricting (notBut you can't restrict it. If I run a wholesale business and find I can expand into e-commerce, should I be prevented because the three guys who always ran my inventory system don't have the expertise to set up and maintain a full-blown e-tailer system. When I contract an outside firm to replace the computer system, my network administrator is going to see himself as having been outsourced, but as a business owner I won't see it that way. There are all sorts of reasons - PriceWaterhouseCoopers ran a very effective consulting division within their practice, but the facts are that modern consulting requires different ownership structures, risk management, resourcing, insurance and legislative compliance to accounting or audit, so they hived off the consulting division... Should they be penalised that suddenly all those workers were now attached to offices on an outsourced basis?
forbidding, just restricting) all outsourcing (outsourcing of anykind
weakens the strength of unionizing...
I'd really like to know how anyone can stop American companies from giving contracts to foreign companies?
Cheers Russell C.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
