Authored by William Robert Barber
Outsourcing seems to be the bone of contention between the political clans Obama and Romney. For inexplicable reasons (well, it seems inexplicable only to me), the idea, concept, and practice of outsourcing is anti-American or counter to the working peoples of America… or something like that. The supposition is that outsourcing is counter to America’s economic interest. My assumption is that (obviously I am wrongheaded) every able bodied individual with an 8th grade education would understand that trade is international. That American companies are in every geographic sector of the world and correspondingly, international (non-American) companies are operating in America; outsourcing is not only commonplace, it is the international business norm.
American companies operating in a United Europe can only operate in those countries if they are duly licensed and compliant to domicile rules and regulations. So in Germany, IBM is a German company. The currency is €uro and the labor force is predominately German. Such is the circumstance for every country that for example Procter and Gamble operates within the global economy… Is that outsourcing?
This entire argument is totally stupid. The president willfully and with purposeful intent internationally outsource(d) stimulus funds: he invested in Brazilian oil exploration, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund; besides the State Department spends billions in foreign aid supposedly to garner commercial support, and through the UN’s corruptive means & ways the US sends billions of dollars, willy-nilly, all over the world.
Rome is burning and Obama wants to discuss when Romney left Bain Capital… and in his defense, Romney cannot muster up the truth of the matter.
The problem within the EU is not whether austerity or growth is the answer; the problem is its policy of social solidarity since post WWII. The issue at hand is satisfying an addiction to a belief that entitlement is a basic human right. The enormous social security and entitlement promises made over successive political administrations was founded on the premise that borrowing into the future was the god sent economic surety. People wanted to believe that lifelong protection was feasible, and most importantly that such an entitlement would not infringe on their personal liberty and freedom. So they baked the cherry pie à la mode and ate it all… now what? Wait a minute, isn’t that the issue at hand here in the good ole USA?
There are those that believe that the financial burden must now fall on those that have. No matter if you attained your wealth by the sweat of one’s brow and the risk of one’s own monies, the wealthy are to share their wealth with those that have less. Ideally, this dividing of wealthy resources should go on until everyone is denominated to less rather than more. For the liberal progressives this is the perfect example of fairness…let’s call it righteous fairness.
If spreading the wealth is slowed down by those nasty conservatives, there is always inflation. Negating the U. S. Congress Act of 1792 that declared currency debasement a felony punishable by death because it constituted theft from the citizenry. These very same suggest that inflation is an alternative that either is commensurate with spreading the wealth or certainly an economic model valued enough to implement at will.
Obama and Romney both graduated from Harvard with a degree in something or other; nevertheless, one blast (knowing otherwise) outsourcing as counter to America’s economic interest and the other can’t seem to grasps the reins of deductive logic to declare outsourcing; simply put, in the interest of America as well as a by-product of international trade. I think both should sue the university and get their tuition money refunded. Neither one has learned anything at Harvard…