Because EE's (emerging economies) seem to be able to do that and China has state subsidized everything.
But I believe EE's have special status, so why China and India have EE status at this point is ridiculous and either the rules of EEs need to change or they need to be kicked out from EE status.
I had discussions with an economist named Ronald Steenblik, who nows works for the OECD, I believe, so he can't comment and post as much. But from what I understand, IF a country subsidizes an industry, it CANNOT demand domestic content for that industry -- UNLESS it's "general infrastructure". So if the US poured hundreds of billions into trains, as general infrastructure, or roads, it would be fine. If it's not subsidized, then you can demand domestic content, I think. There are domestic content laws concerning subway cars in NY, which are made by Kawasaki and Alsthom, but assembled in NY, for instance. Hope this helps (maybe Steenblik has a public email, you could ask him).
Reporting that GM did indeed get some TARP money this past December. So yeah, I guess NOW they don't need it. But they are making some crazy assumptions, mainly that if the economy holds up, they won't need the cash. Now, Robert, I ask you, do you think that they really think the economy will hold up this year?
One wasGM's new plant in China, 'Man' Tuesday' got to big, had to pair it down. Here's a tidbit from that article.
c. 17, 2008 -- Beleaguered automaker General Motors opened up a new joint venture manufacturing plant in northeast China on Dec. 17 which will begin churning out up to 150,000 vehicles annually beginning next year. The joint venture plant in Shenyang city will mass produce the compact Chevrolet Cruze from the second quarter of 2009.
So they just announced they're OK? By any chance did they get the money yet? I read that they were getting the cash on the 16th of January. Something don't smell right.
The question is when an employer demands forced unpaid furloughs do they have to pay unemployment benefits or severance? That's what the article says they do not.
After looking into it, I not only find that for Oregon I'm right, but under the NATIONAL unemployment law, filing in the case of furloughs or unpaid vacations can *reduce* your requirement to look for work. Instead of actually looking for another job, you could be required (depending on your state) to only call in to the shop or union once a week (as opposed to having proof of handing somebody a resume 3 times a week).
In the case of a furlough or unpaid leave that is manager initiated, it's THEIR responsibility to find you another job, not YOURS.
I saw on Lou Dobbs yesterday someone coming out with a book on the Great Depression trying to rewrite history and try to claim all of those innane "limited government" and trickle upon economics, if those had been done, would have curtailed it.
I mean it's just ridiculous how they try to shove their philosophy in the face of people when it's pure economic fiction and the results from trickle upon, which is a redistribution of wealth to a super elite class, is well documented.
just to find out. Costs the worker nothing to file, but in Oregon any drop below 10 hours a week is indeed a layoff, regardless of what management calls it. The only exception to this I know of are worker-initiated sabbaticals and FMLA.
If your management initiates it, file for unemployment. The worst they can do is say no, in which case it goes to arbitration.
I don't know what the laws are in Oregon but I suspect, as the workers accuse, that one is not categorized in a layoff by doing unpaid leaves, or unpaid vacations or "furloughs".
And this is just a guess, laws may vary where you live, but keeping a worker on the books & offering less than 10 hours a week work in Oregon is a layoff- regardless of what they call it.
Most unemployment arbiters would probably agree- and I'd urge any worker in this position to go ahead and file. The worst you can possibly get is nothing....
Any new immigrants- IF they're true immigrants- are *also* new consumers. New consumers who will demand living wages, and spend money on our goods.
That's why I have a lesser problem with them than the guy who sends 4/5ths of his paycheck back to the homeland and will retire in 3-5 years to live like a king.
I want more US consumers- and US Citizens. Now if we can only get ALL US consumers to live within their paychecks....
Is that we'll have to live through the demise and start over. Hope you've got your Mormon-recommended 2 years of food saved up- it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Both parties, or those who control the parties are busy enacting whatever corporate lobbyists want, hence we cannot get what the country needs to stop this demise.
I noticed after I put this up that Paul Krugman is also questioning this move.
Would be when does it STOP dropping. Because that's going to be the microeconomics trigger to buy, buy, buy. I'm just hoping it comes *after* March at this point.
I've never had a better reason to file my income taxes early in my life- and given a 70 year cycle between deflationary periods, never will again. I'm expecting a major refund (due to capital losses over the last 10 years, I've had a major refund since Clinton was in office) to coincide with the bottom of the deflationary cycle.
Is harder than it sounds. Given that four major religions ban usury, you'd think there'd be at least ONE country out there that didn't buy into the modern scandal of the banking industry, but I've yet to find it.
is that just for the United States? ;)
Because EE's (emerging economies) seem to be able to do that and China has state subsidized everything.
But I believe EE's have special status, so why China and India have EE status at this point is ridiculous and either the rules of EEs need to change or they need to be kicked out from EE status.
I had discussions with an economist named Ronald Steenblik, who nows works for the OECD, I believe, so he can't comment and post as much. But from what I understand, IF a country subsidizes an industry, it CANNOT demand domestic content for that industry -- UNLESS it's "general infrastructure". So if the US poured hundreds of billions into trains, as general infrastructure, or roads, it would be fine. If it's not subsidized, then you can demand domestic content, I think. There are domestic content laws concerning subway cars in NY, which are made by Kawasaki and Alsthom, but assembled in NY, for instance. Hope this helps (maybe Steenblik has a public email, you could ask him).
JR on Grist
Reporting that GM did indeed get some TARP money this past December. So yeah, I guess NOW they don't need it. But they are making some crazy assumptions, mainly that if the economy holds up, they won't need the cash. Now, Robert, I ask you, do you think that they really think the economy will hold up this year?
One wasGM's new plant in China, 'Man' Tuesday' got to big, had to pair it down. Here's a tidbit from that article.
So they just announced they're OK? By any chance did they get the money yet? I read that they were getting the cash on the 16th of January. Something don't smell right.
They just announced they might be ok.
This is hard to believe.
I've read that manufacturing is in a global depression and without a revamp, kiss any recovery Goodbye.
I have yet to find a quote by Solis where she specifically mentions H-1B. Please contact me if anyone that sees this has a quote.
She signed the STRIVE act so surely she has said something somewhere.
The question is when an employer demands forced unpaid furloughs do they have to pay unemployment benefits or severance? That's what the article says they do not.
After looking into it, I not only find that for Oregon I'm right, but under the NATIONAL unemployment law, filing in the case of furloughs or unpaid vacations can *reduce* your requirement to look for work. Instead of actually looking for another job, you could be required (depending on your state) to only call in to the shop or union once a week (as opposed to having proof of handing somebody a resume 3 times a week).
In the case of a furlough or unpaid leave that is manager initiated, it's THEIR responsibility to find you another job, not YOURS.
I saw on Lou Dobbs yesterday someone coming out with a book on the Great Depression trying to rewrite history and try to claim all of those innane "limited government" and trickle upon economics, if those had been done, would have curtailed it.
I mean it's just ridiculous how they try to shove their philosophy in the face of people when it's pure economic fiction and the results from trickle upon, which is a redistribution of wealth to a super elite class, is well documented.
just to find out. Costs the worker nothing to file, but in Oregon any drop below 10 hours a week is indeed a layoff, regardless of what management calls it. The only exception to this I know of are worker-initiated sabbaticals and FMLA.
If your management initiates it, file for unemployment. The worst they can do is say no, in which case it goes to arbitration.
I don't know what the laws are in Oregon but I suspect, as the workers accuse, that one is not categorized in a layoff by doing unpaid leaves, or unpaid vacations or "furloughs".
And this is just a guess, laws may vary where you live, but keeping a worker on the books & offering less than 10 hours a week work in Oregon is a layoff- regardless of what they call it.
Most unemployment arbiters would probably agree- and I'd urge any worker in this position to go ahead and file. The worst you can possibly get is nothing....
First time to stumble upon this tool. This is a great help. Thanks for the heads-up Robert!
Any new immigrants- IF they're true immigrants- are *also* new consumers. New consumers who will demand living wages, and spend money on our goods.
That's why I have a lesser problem with them than the guy who sends 4/5ths of his paycheck back to the homeland and will retire in 3-5 years to live like a king.
I want more US consumers- and US Citizens. Now if we can only get ALL US consumers to live within their paychecks....
Is that we'll have to live through the demise and start over. Hope you've got your Mormon-recommended 2 years of food saved up- it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Both parties, or those who control the parties are busy enacting whatever corporate lobbyists want, hence we cannot get what the country needs to stop this demise.
I noticed after I put this up that Paul Krugman is also questioning this move.
Would be when does it STOP dropping. Because that's going to be the microeconomics trigger to buy, buy, buy. I'm just hoping it comes *after* March at this point.
I've never had a better reason to file my income taxes early in my life- and given a 70 year cycle between deflationary periods, never will again. I'm expecting a major refund (due to capital losses over the last 10 years, I've had a major refund since Clinton was in office) to coincide with the bottom of the deflationary cycle.
Is harder than it sounds. Given that four major religions ban usury, you'd think there'd be at least ONE country out there that didn't buy into the modern scandal of the banking industry, but I've yet to find it.
Pages