Skip to main content

About your Search

2017 6
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
Jan 8, 2017 8:16am EST
use textile company, your summary facing cheap imports from mexico or china or somewhere else. you have two options. you just can't beat the competition so you go out of business. the second possibility is yet to get a lot more productive. you invest in technology, machinery. some of your employees lose their jobs. is that a job loss to technology or to trade? it's a bit of both. my third response is so the people affected it doesn't really matter. and it shouldn't matter. we shouldn't have a trade adjustment assistance program. we should have an adjustment assistance program to a people to get dislocated for an overwrite of reasons to land back on their feet. >> we will come back to what tradition was called trade adjustment assistance. it matters for us as a country carrying out the foreign-policy. the extent you have the causality or attribution to find mostly trade when you're arguing it is more technology. our public policy it's a consistent with your conclusion. >> i wouldn't argue with that and that's one of the reasons we are talking about this at the council on foreign rel
Jan 14, 2017 1:00pm EST
been problems with the rules. i think china in particular, was an enormous shock in the global system because it à because of the size and it is just structured differently. global trade rules were built largely for economies where the bulk of production was in private hands. you know we have a private sector. while in china, that is in state hands and a lot of the companies are heavily subsidized. and in china's entry into the world trade system, against all of the benefits it brought china and by and large it was inevitable that china would come in. it was very distorting for the world economy. it was being pushed back very hard. let the currency stuff go on for too long. i mean we are having this bizarre debate about currency manipulation now at a time when the chinese are trying to prop up their currency. but 10 years ago it was a real issue. you know the chinese were artificially devaluing and gaining competitive advantage. there were rules against that sort of thing and we did very little. so there are issues on that side. but that said, and going back to the memo, he says the
Jan 16, 2017 10:15pm EST
china in the tickler was enormous shock because of science but with the dignity you they are heavily subsidized and for all the benefits it brought china was very distorted we let that currency stuff go on far too long. now at a time when they tried to prop up their currency but it was in issue there were rules against that sort of thing. but that said the biggest part of the challenges the home with research and development. it's health care cost. making sure we are set up to be the most competitive and to be the highest rate. >> back when we did some work on it i remember reading 17 separate adjustments? whenever that is is it is a lot. are we not getting a return on investment quicks but if you look at the active labor market it helps people train for a new career. the average europe is five times that much. but we don't spend very much and technically we don't spend it very well. with those that are creating jobs with a bizarre situation where despite the loss of 6 million manufacturing jobs there are a lot of jobs that cannot be filled because we don't have employees who have th
Jan 29, 2017 12:30am EST
, facing cheap imports from mexico, china, somewhere else. you have to two options. just can't meet the competition so go out of business your employees use this are job. you have to get more productive. bogey vest technology and machinery. some of your employees lose their job but is that a jobless to technology or trade? well, it's a built of both. and then my third response-for-the people effected doesn't married and shouldn't matter. -- doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. we shouldn't have a trade judgment assistance practice we should have an adjustment assays dance assistance program to help people relocated. >> itself doesn't matter to individuals and we'll get back to trade adjustment asince stance, and matters to us as a country carrying out a foreign policy because the extent you have the causality or attribution to fine mostly trained when you're arguing it's more technology. our public policy is inconsistent with your conclusion. >> that's one reason we are talking about that any council of foreign relations. trade is more than an economic issue. it's a critical part of u.s
Jan 8, 2017 11:15pm EST
my book is half about the rules but china in particular both because of it so size and constructed differently. this was built by the economy's and it has nafta and they are heavily subsidized but he said the biggest part of the challenge is that holbrooke go education, today we could say health care costs, to make sure we are set up to be the most competitive investment location of the can be with the highest rate now. . . >> if you are designing, so besides spending more and spending more wisely for adjustment, what would be essential in your cookbook, your recipes for making, for making this a less acute situation? >> i would argue that as a country country we should compete more aggressively for investment. that's why was not entirely sorry to see the entire carrier thing with trump. with trumps and we care about jobs in the united states and we will fight for that. even if we have to pay a small money to carrier. the incentives game is a worldwide game. i think united states needs to compete for investment. i like us to try to negotiate roles to constrain the competition would
Feb 26, 2017 6:30am EST
narrow interest, i made who made investment in china. you're taking advantage of the big opportunity, that big market, find, when you run into problems, the chinese stealing your technology, investment discrimination, who has your back? it's the u.s. government, it's the representative of the american people and so just for your own long-term's health interest, you should by thinking about always looking for opportunity to invest in the united states, expand stake in the united states and make sure you got the american people behind you. it's in the corporate breast. we let the japanese figure that out. we were booshing them in 1980's, what did they do? they started opening car factories in ohio, california, completely changed politics of the issue. companies need to think about what's the stake, i wasn't sorry to see them trump knock them on the head a little bit but we will see where that goes. >> you talked about changes, they were exporting all manufacturing jobs overseas, they responded of a program to use intellectual capital, they created the venture capital business and that'
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6