Sugar Farmers hope for help from Congress

i cant imagine why i would care one bit who gets my 2 cents. i just want the coke. i have nothing against the sugar industry or the coke people. i wish them both the best. they can decide amongst themselves who gets what.

yes but i asked about what you are advocating. what are you advocating?

 

The sugar industry is good for Louisiana- CAFTA will take jobs away from it. Coca-cola is a non-factor for Louisiana- CAFTA will not bring any jobs to it.
CAFTA hurts the sugar industry, helps coca-cola, and will not make sugar cheaper for consumers.

So, in a matter that does not change the price I am paying for a coke, I would rather the extra 2 cents go to the sugar industry, since I have more of a connection to it (in a sense that it is a big industry for the state, although I do know many people in the industry).

If I were from the Northeast I wouldn't care about the sugar industry and would support CAFTA because it would help out the textile industry in my state and not take away any sugar jobs. But I live here and a boost in textile sales doesn't really do **** for me.

 

i still cant make heads or tails of what you are saying, although i get the impression you favor some sort of weird protectionism, but i can be wrong, i find your writing to be indecipherable.

 

Yes, ditto all that.

Selfishness is the greatest good. Not being sarcastic, just matter of fact.

 

I think you're trying to read too much into this. I am not talking about my overall view on trade, or even my overall view on sugar trade.

All I am doing is looking at first how CAFTA sugar trade will affect me, then how it will affect the state, then deciding whether I should be for it or against it.

Since CAFTA brings me no personal benefit from importing sugar (I still pay the same price for a coke), I would rather it benefit an industry located in my state rather than a company not in my state, so I am against it. That is all I am saying.

 

i want there to be a tax that the government collects and then pays to me. i would favor it because i look at how that policy would affect me, see that it would be good for me, then favor it.

i am not quite certain, but as far as i can tell, your opinion on this is terrible.

 

I simply don't understand the fear of open markets. So some people w/o a pot to pee in get to make some money, and protected idiots in the US don't. And the rest of the country gets to allocate their resources more efficiently. Where exactly is the problem?

 

i guess people are afraid they cant compete and want to force us to pay them extra instead of paying the poor chumps from other countries.

oh, and frogleg, wake up, ayn rand would be for free trade. read your copy of "virtue of selfishness" again, it doesnt mean you should use the government to screw taxpayers so your favorite industry stays atificially afloat.

so if i am not mistaken, your argument is that we need our government to artificially keep the cost higher, so companies will have to pay higher costs for sugar, because the lower prices would mysteriously not benefit consumers or stockholders in the companies using sugar in their products.

what you want is to close down the free market, to restrict our freedom to buy lower priced foreign sugar. hey thats a great idea if you are a communist and you think people should not be free to exchange money for goods and services as they please.

lets assume coke doesnt reduce prices (which i dont necessarily buy), what about the people who work for coke, or the extra people they could hire with the increased profits? what about the grandmas who have coke stock in their retirement funds? why should we screw them because your favorite industry cant compete?

i guess it is good to be in favor of freedom until the government stops paying your bills and your local industry cant freeload anymore.

central america sells below their production cost? how do they stay in business, magic? that sounds made up. if it is true, count me in for the cheap sugar.

you compete with it by selling something they dont have.

well you should remind them they can work somewhere else or enact their own reforms if they dont like their jobs. i dont care what they do. if they are smart they will sell us sugar.

who is forcing you to race? of course wretched companies have cheap labor, thats because they are wrethed. why cant we take advantage of it by buying the cheap products they produce with that sweet cheap labor?

lets free up trade, other countries hate us enough already.

 

the "workers" don't have to realize anything, they have no oppurtunity to do so. if the Corp can go overseas and lower their cost of production, they don't need to waste time negotiating contracts. why do so? Greed has them spinning their wheels in foreign dirt long before any "labor negotiations" could take place.

They know that workers could never negotiate down to 3 bucks an hr. like the labor rate overseas, three bucks an hr is illegal, under our minimum wage law. GM doesn't overpay it's workers, it over estimated it's stock, and over paid it's CEO and board, just like all the other American Corps did. and now as the proverbial economic "sine" wave dips below the dead even line......now that the dance is over......ie wall street woke up..... it's time to pay for the fiddler

You can tell the autoworkers to get " re-trained" if you want, but the fact is the service industry cannot support the same number of workers as a manufacturing base. The real answer is produce a competitive product for domestic & foriegn markets and pay workers a fair wage, INCLUDING corp. officers, while expecting 3-4% return above the prime rate.....NOT dictating 15-16% return on net like so many of the "new" block investors demand. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. All going overseas will do is lower our standard of living to theirs. Wait 5-8 years and come back to this post and see if it isn't so.

answer me this> A dentist is a good profession. It's a service. he has plenty of teeth to fix. Population is growing. Now let's suppose he has a SET rate for whatever procedure. let's suppose the area around him is in economic decline because a factory went overseas with it's labor force. Now he can still find people who will pay his cost, but they are fewer and fewer. what does he do? Lower his prices? Move somewhere he can have clients that can pay for his services?

the manufacturing base IS the base of the economy. It's hard to export a service, possible but hard.

the offset is this, Our government spends a huge portion of what should be left in our pockets, those workers could afford to negotiate a labor contract if 1/3 of their paycheck didn't go to Uncle Sam.

Any U.S. based company that Imports foreign goods should be taxed to the point that it would be economical to build it here. U.S. Steel should be the same price as foreign steel so it would attract buyers overseas, but foreign steel should be taxed if it is imported. China has been doing this with success for years. There are things we have they want, the problem is we give it away. Our technology has pulled nations like China into the manufacturing base. How nice. Personally I could give a rip about chinamen, I'd like to see Americans do well. We CAN charge for our technology.

The truth is Automation/technology has done just as much harm to the american worker as has foreign labor. However, there is an argument that foriegn labor is even cheaper than automation. You lose 50 Koreans in a factory fire, so what? but if you lose Half a million in Automated process machinery... OMG ...... you see how they think?

the risk is unstable foreign Gov.'s and the threat of asset seizure. if you get the profit margin for US goods to within 1% of foriegn made goods, the US will win out every time due to our stable secure government.
Some companys manufacture here becuase of our strong automation support and information infrastructure. The "few" workers they hire is offset by the bulk of automated machinery.

I am not sure what the answer is but the biggest problem is our ever increasing tax burden. You'd see a bunch of corporations stay here if they could cut salarys across the board by 1/5. Most people would take a pay cut if they got to keep a full 1/3 rd more of their pay check.

 

For the record... Coca-Cola is sweetened with high fructose CORN syrup... not cane sugar.