Open Letter to Tennessee Senator Robert Corker
Dear Mr. Corker,
This morning in an interview with CNBC's Joe Curnan you expressed your disappointment with the so-called China Currency Bill.
You said; "this is a terrible piece of legislation, we have a slowing economy, we have a financial crisis in Europe and now we want to create a trade war with the next largest economy in the world. It's terrible public policy... The last thing we need in this country is a trade war. What we need to do is address the issues that we have in this country. We need to do tax reform, entitlement reform, deficit reduction, we need a six-year highway bill (??), we need to look at regulations, we need to address our own issues and our lack of will to do that is leading us to find a boogyman and to try to create other issues that candidly are going to put us into a further downward spiral."
You nailed it!
Sincerely,
Martin L. Mazorra, consumer-at-large
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Letter to Senator Hagan
Open letter to North Carolina senator Kay Hagan...
Dear Ms. Hagan,
Last evening in an interview with CNBC's Larry Kudlow you voiced your support for the so-called China Currency Bill that looks to be receiving overwhelming support in the U.S. Senate.
Dear Ms. Hagan,
Last evening in an interview with CNBC's Larry Kudlow you voiced your support for the so-called China Currency Bill that looks to be receiving overwhelming support in the U.S. Senate.
Letter to Senator Hagan
Open letter to North Carolina senator Kay Hagan...
Dear Ms. Hagan,
Last evening in an interview with CNBC's Larry Kudlow you voiced your support for the so-called China Currency Bill that looks to be receiving overwhelming support in the U.S. Senate. You accuse China of manipulating its currency in a manner that makes its goods cheaper in the U.S. and U.S. goods more expensive in China. You confessed that yours is a manufacturing state and has lost some 100,000 jobs over the past few years... You assign zero blame to the unions, to stifling regulations or to the U.S. corporate tax structure... China is the sole culprit, by your estimation... Am I wrong?
Therefore you support this bill that, by imposing import tariffs, would serve [you believe] to reverse the trend - i.e., make Chinese goods more expensive to U.S. consumers and U.S. goods cheaper to Chinese consumers... Let me get this straight, you honestly believe that we, as a nation, would in some way benefit from legislation that would, as you say, have a direct negative impact on the U.S. consumer's net spendable income? Or are you saying that you're willing to sacrifice the consumer-at-large in what will surely turn out to be a vain attempt to aid manufacturers in your home state? Or is it the obvious - a feeble attempt to distract the voter from the more pressing issue; you and your colleagues' (both sides of the aisle) unbridled misuse of public funds?
Sincerely and Frustratedly Yours,
Martin L. Mazorra, Consumer-at-large...
Dear Ms. Hagan,
Last evening in an interview with CNBC's Larry Kudlow you voiced your support for the so-called China Currency Bill that looks to be receiving overwhelming support in the U.S. Senate. You accuse China of manipulating its currency in a manner that makes its goods cheaper in the U.S. and U.S. goods more expensive in China. You confessed that yours is a manufacturing state and has lost some 100,000 jobs over the past few years... You assign zero blame to the unions, to stifling regulations or to the U.S. corporate tax structure... China is the sole culprit, by your estimation... Am I wrong?
Therefore you support this bill that, by imposing import tariffs, would serve [you believe] to reverse the trend - i.e., make Chinese goods more expensive to U.S. consumers and U.S. goods cheaper to Chinese consumers... Let me get this straight, you honestly believe that we, as a nation, would in some way benefit from legislation that would, as you say, have a direct negative impact on the U.S. consumer's net spendable income? Or are you saying that you're willing to sacrifice the consumer-at-large in what will surely turn out to be a vain attempt to aid manufacturers in your home state? Or is it the obvious - a feeble attempt to distract the voter from the more pressing issue; you and your colleagues' (both sides of the aisle) unbridled misuse of public funds?
Sincerely and Frustratedly Yours,
Martin L. Mazorra, Consumer-at-large...
Monday, October 3, 2011
Where Left and Right Merge (white board lesson)
Plain and simply, the imposition of what the consumer will be fooled to believe are punitive (U.S. job saving) tariffs on foreign imports - per the coming proposal from a bipartisan (left and right merge on this one) band of manipulators (lead by Democrat Shumer and Republican Graham), at the behest of Presidential-wannabes Mit Romney and Michele Bachman - would, if passed, only serve to hurt Americans employed by American exporters, Americans who work for American businesses that benefit from our discretionary spending - and virtually every other American consumer through higher prices of everyday items. I.e., the net result of protectionism is forever the taking of money from the consumer-at-large and the handing it to a select (politically powerful) few.
Thus, the mere suggestion that this politically-inspired proposal, were it to pass, would do anything other than severely hurt our already limping economy, is an utter insult to our intelligence. Shumer, Graham and the candidates are either profoundly ignorant or assume so of us.
Of course non-competitive U.S. industries lose jobs to trade, but other (competitive) industries benefit mightily. Here's my rendition of a story Don Boudreaux tells in his book Globalization (a great read):
Imagine there are only two countries in the world, China and the U.S... And China wants absolutely nothing from the U.S.. Therefore, being that U.S. dollars offer them no value, the Chinese refuse to sell U.S. citizens a single item. That's a bummer, cause we really want their tires. However, when a third country, Australia, enters the story, opportunity presents itself. Australians desire U.S. software, while China wants Australian wool. So then:
1. China sells tires to the U.S....
2. China now has U.S. dollars to buy wool from Australia..
3. Australia now has U.S. dollars to buy software from the U.S....
Now I'll add the manipulation: The United Steelworkers Union cries foul (actually happened in '09 by the way), buys favor with a U.S. President (Obama) - who points to the trade deficit with the surely-cheating China - and Voilà! we tariff Tianjin Tires. And, alleluia, we save American (tire manufacturing) jobs. And, alas, we destroy American (tech industry, etc.) jobs.
Here's me illustrating the above:
Thus, the mere suggestion that this politically-inspired proposal, were it to pass, would do anything other than severely hurt our already limping economy, is an utter insult to our intelligence. Shumer, Graham and the candidates are either profoundly ignorant or assume so of us.
Of course non-competitive U.S. industries lose jobs to trade, but other (competitive) industries benefit mightily. Here's my rendition of a story Don Boudreaux tells in his book Globalization (a great read):
Imagine there are only two countries in the world, China and the U.S... And China wants absolutely nothing from the U.S.. Therefore, being that U.S. dollars offer them no value, the Chinese refuse to sell U.S. citizens a single item. That's a bummer, cause we really want their tires. However, when a third country, Australia, enters the story, opportunity presents itself. Australians desire U.S. software, while China wants Australian wool. So then:
1. China sells tires to the U.S....
2. China now has U.S. dollars to buy wool from Australia..
3. Australia now has U.S. dollars to buy software from the U.S....
Now I'll add the manipulation: The United Steelworkers Union cries foul (actually happened in '09 by the way), buys favor with a U.S. President (Obama) - who points to the trade deficit with the surely-cheating China - and Voilà! we tariff Tianjin Tires. And, alleluia, we save American (tire manufacturing) jobs. And, alas, we destroy American (tech industry, etc.) jobs.
Here's me illustrating the above:
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Whataya Do?
Last quarter, after Friday's sell-off, now owns the distinction of being the worst for stocks since Q1 2009... Five months in a row of declines = worst string since the six-month melee that ended in February '09...
While there's scant optimism for Q4 (typically the best quarter of the year), pessimism is clearly the order of the day...
So whataya do? Whataya do when stocks are taking a hit the likes of which we haven't seen since the last bear market bottomed? The likes of which we haven't seen since the last bear market bottomed?? Since the last bear market bottomed?? Since the last bear market bottomed?? Bear market bottomed...... market bottomed..... market bottomed....
OMG!!!!!!! WE SHOULD BE BUYING STOCKS!!!!!
Now calm down tiger! History doesn't always repeat itself - and I'm certainly not forecasting the bottom - the market could very well continue its descent... But make no mistake, when it does bottom it will do so in the midst of extreme pessimism - just like March 2009...
While there's scant optimism for Q4 (typically the best quarter of the year), pessimism is clearly the order of the day...
So whataya do? Whataya do when stocks are taking a hit the likes of which we haven't seen since the last bear market bottomed? The likes of which we haven't seen since the last bear market bottomed?? Since the last bear market bottomed?? Since the last bear market bottomed?? Bear market bottomed...... market bottomed..... market bottomed....
OMG!!!!!!! WE SHOULD BE BUYING STOCKS!!!!!
Now calm down tiger! History doesn't always repeat itself - and I'm certainly not forecasting the bottom - the market could very well continue its descent... But make no mistake, when it does bottom it will do so in the midst of extreme pessimism - just like March 2009...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)