On Investing

Thanks minimac. Nothing is certain. But, there is a very high probability of that cliff coming up and the bridge is out. Read Schiff's book. I'm sure you can get it at the library, or blow the fifteen-ish bucks on a used Amazon copy.

Here's an article covering what I read earlier: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20014563-38.html?tag=topStories1

While I don't agree with everything said, I don't let the pieces I disagree with like detract from the rest of the article. Unlike leftists, I have an open mind. I think that his biatching about not keeping foreign engineers around and not allowing cheap H1B workers in is not in our best interest. Consider: Should iggy be replaced by a cheap H1B worker from India? Would that be in our (U.S.) best interest?

Specifics?

Take factories. "I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States," Otellini said. The rub: Ninety percent of that additional cost of a $4 billion factory is not labor but the cost to comply with taxes and regulations that other nations don't impose. (Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers elaborated on this in an interview with CNET, saying the problem is not higher U.S. wages but antibusiness laws: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, a thousand blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways.")

Anyway, the why is not important right now and to this discussion, except as an explanation and guide for the what-to-do. The what-to-do is what I wish to discuss. I think that the best approach is to diversify as much as possible. Maybe a Brazil fund, Oz fund, China fund, hard currency fund, some foreign dividend paying stocks as outlined above, maybe a few bucks in that PHYS fund. What else? It isn't so much a "I want to invest and make money" as a "I want to just keep the value (purchasing power) of the money I have now." Faced with our (U.S.) current level of debt, the way out has ALWAYS been either inflate it away or re-write the contracts (default). No country ever pays it back. There is frequently a large war involved at some point.

tuna55 wrote: One point, as a guy who is absolutely against democrats (and mostly against republicans) - Clinton was the last guy to have a balanced budget - weird, eh?

It wasn't because he wanted to, by that time he had a Republican congress.

carguy123 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: One point, as a guy who is absolutely against democrats (and mostly against republicans) - Clinton was the last guy to have a balanced budget - weird, eh?

It wasn't because he wanted to, by that time he had a Republican congress.

And when the Rs were in office and had a R congress, still nothing happened - except an expensive war that made Cheneys guys filthy stinkin rich. The the Ds took over and have done nothing to correct it either. WE ARE ALL TO BLAME regardless of which box you check every 4 years. Damnit get over it....finger pointing fixes NOTHING. What do we do NOW as damage control? ARGUING WILL NOT DO ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read the Overton Window. It's faction. Facts presented in a fictional format and then blown out of proportion to make a point - or is it?

One of the definitions of INSANITY is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If you really want to change things then you don't need to just vote the incumbents out, you need to get a totally different type of person in. You need to be a member of the Bull Moose Party (Roosevelt's time), the Tea Party or whatever Ross Perot's party was called.

BUT keep in mind there is currently NO - ZERO - ZIP - NADA way to get a 3rd party elected to the presidency.

We have a 2 party system. ALL the electoral votes come from one party or the other. The electoral voters do not have to vote the way their constituents vote (remember all the hub bub over a couple of younger electoral voters who said they were going to vote for Obama no matter how the vote went in their districts). There is no one or no way to get a 3rd party elected. You can't scare them by suddenly voting everyone out, they have the power and they can pretty much do as they please.

That means we have to start at the grassroots level. Regardless of the new party they will be at an extreme disadvantage even at the local levels simply due to funding. The 2 main parties have all the money in the world if they want to use it to direct at any election at any level in any state or municipality to ensure they win.

Let's suppose a 3rd party does win on something more than a local level now you've put them in Washington trying to work against everyone else up there. You don't think the 2 parties will combine forces to ensure the newbie doesn't get anything done and more importantly looks bad while they are doing it?

It' be like sending 1 Christian into the Roman Games against all the lions.

So let's say we got some sort of 3rd party candidates in place en mass. Then what. We'd still have to get the whole electoral college overturned or a 3rd party added to the college. Which wouldn't be so easy because the college wasn't set up by the people, but by the parties. They don't have to let a 3rd party become a member.

And let's look at what might be happening all the long time it's taking to work your way around or into the system. All it will take is one more election like the last one and there won't a US of A. Well there won't be one that the individuals matter. We'll be a 3rd world country.

ignorant wrote: . Cutting taxes and Doing nothing were already tried at various points in our history. They didn't work.

Not true. Look back to 1920... the largest ever loss in GDP at nearly 25%. The administration deregulated as much as possible, cut taxes and reduced the size of government by 50% in two years time. The result was that unemployment dropped to 1.8 percent and the roaring 20s was born. When the "Great" Depression came along what should have been a short correction took us until the 1950s to pay for. You can not spend your way out of a recession rather the economy will recover because of the American Spirit in spite of government interference. We are inventive and resilient.

And yes, there are plenty of us that decried Bush's bailouts as much as Obama's. Look at GM. They should have been allowed to FAIL. They did not have a business model that allowed them to operate profitably. What we the people have been cheated out of is not only the tax dollars that went to the bailout but we have been cheated out of the hundreds or thousands of small companies that would have arisen from the ashes.

carguy123 wrote: One of the definitions of INSANITY is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If you really want to change things then you don't need to just vote the incumbents out, you need to get a totally different type of person in. You need to be a member of the Bull Moose Party (Roosevelt's time), the Tea Party or whatever Ross Perot's party was called. BUT keep in mind there is currently NO - ZERO - ZIP - NADA way to get a 3rd party elected to the presidency. We have a 2 party system. ALL the electoral votes come from one party or the other. The electoral voters do not have to vote the way their constituents vote (remember all the hub bub over a couple of younger electoral voters who said they were going to vote for Obama no matter how the vote went in their districts). There is no one or no way to get a 3rd party elected. You can't scare them by suddenly voting everyone out, they have the power and they can pretty much do as they please. That means we have to start at the grassroots level. Regardless of the new party they will be at an extreme disadvantage even at the local levels simply due to funding. The 2 main parties have all the money in the world if they want to use it to direct at any election at any level in any state or municipality to ensure they win. Let's suppose a 3rd party does win on something more than a local level now you've put them in Washington trying to work against everyone else up there. You don't think the 2 parties will combine forces to ensure the newbie doesn't get anything done and more importantly looks bad while they are doing it? It' be like sending 1 Christian into the Roman Games against all the lions. So let's say we got some sort of 3rd party candidates in place en mass. Then what. We'd still have to get the whole electoral college overturned or a 3rd party added to the college. Which wouldn't be so easy because the college wasn't set up by the people, but by the parties. They don't have to let a 3rd party become a member. And let's look at what might be happening all the long time it's taking to work your way around or into the system. All it will take is one more election like the last one and there won't a US of A. Well there won't be one that the individuals matter. We'll be a 3rd world country.

Even at lower levels this is very true. A friend of ours, Chris Pareja, is running against the shiny happy person Pete Stark in California, as an independent he was required to get over 9000 signatures to get on the ballot while his R and D challengers only needed 400.

The system as we see it today was the founding father's nightmare. It is exactly what they didn't want to happen.

We misunderstand some of the basic tenants they were fighting for because the language has evolved. We understand what a State is. Well, we understand it in today's terms but it will help you understand better if I were to change the name of our country to a present day term that more accurately reflects what our forefathers were fighting for.

The United COUNTRIES of America.

At that time a state wasn't a subset of a bigger all, it was an independent entity that thru necessity was cooperating with other countries around it. Think more like Europe.

All that changed after the Civil War. That actually was what the war was all about, should states have the ultimate power to govern themselves or should a strong federal government have the ultimate power to make a state (Country!) toe the line. It's become PC to think the war was about slavery, but it wasn't. America lost the Civil War.

Read about the excesses that Grant's administration perpetrated on the country just after the war. It's chilling and unfortunately all too familiar because it reads just like today.

Dr. Hess wrote: Thanks minimac. Nothing is certain. But, there is a very high probability of that cliff coming up and the bridge is out. Read Schiff's book. I'm sure you can get it at the library, or blow the fifteen-ish bucks on a used Amazon copy. Here's an article covering what I read earlier: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20014563-38.html?tag=topStories1 While I don't agree with everything said, I don't let the pieces I disagree with like detract from the rest of the article. Unlike leftists, I have an open mind. I think that his biatching about not keeping foreign engineers around and not allowing cheap H1B workers in is not in our best interest. Consider: Should iggy be replaced by a cheap H1B worker from India? Would that be in our (U.S.) best interest? Specifics?

Take factories. "I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States," Otellini said. The rub: Ninety percent of that additional cost of a $4 billion factory is not labor but the cost to comply with taxes and regulations that other nations don't impose. (Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers elaborated on this in an interview with CNET, saying the problem is not higher U.S. wages but antibusiness laws: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, a thousand blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways.")

Anyway, the why is not important right now and to this discussion, except as an explanation and guide for the what-to-do. The what-to-do is what I wish to discuss. I think that the best approach is to diversify as much as possible. Maybe a Brazil fund, Oz fund, China fund, hard currency fund, some foreign dividend paying stocks as outlined above, maybe a few bucks in that PHYS fund. What else? It isn't so much a "I want to invest and make money" as a "I want to just keep the value (purchasing power) of the money I have now." Faced with our (U.S.) current level of debt, the way out has ALWAYS been either inflate it away or re-write the contracts (default). No country ever pays it back. There is frequently a large war involved at some point.

to the top point- I still want to know which regulations they want to skirt so badly that they will gladly build things in China vs. the US. What regulations are that bad? And did they not look at other states where tax abatements are being handed out like candy?

To the investment.... the problem with focusing on investments outside of the US is that the largest market for stuff IS the US. So if you invest in some funds in Brazil, hoping that they will recover better since they may have better fiscal policy- that still will ride on the back of the US, since a lot of how most countries make money is selling stuff withing the US.

While our debt seems totally out of hand, I also don't see that the current GDP/debt (or is that upsidedown) is so bad that we will never recover. Again- it's the market size. US and China are the two biggest economies in the world right now- and I'm not all that sure that China is all that sustainable- too many corners are being cut in the name of making money.

Europe is in a slow decline- not becuase of spending problems, but just due to population shrinkage. Still, their two biggest single markets are them and us.

really- the only way we are going to pull out of this funk is if we finally realize that being American does not give us the RIGHT to cheap stuff. That sometimes its better to buy a little more expensive stuff so that the other guy can buy my made stuff. So IMHO, the best investment are for small/mid cap companies within the US. Short term, they are still a risk, but once we figure out that Wall Street doesn't make US rich, but hard work and transformation does, then we will be fully on the recovery line.

One thing to think about- for a long time to come- if we get in an argument about our debt with China- who hurts more? Everything I hear about this recessions had a massive impact on China- so if we cut off their products, yes things will get expensive, but they will be in a rather big world of hurt.

Ironic that the last big Communist country is so intertwined with the largest Capitolistic country, isn't it?

Again, the worst problem for investment is that there are no countries in the world who are not impacted quite hard with the US economy. They will tend to be a derivative away from us (more volitile), and opportunities will always be more limited.

Eric

carguy123 wrote: The system as we see it today was the founding father's nightmare. It is exactly what they didn't want to happen. We misunderstand some of the basic tenants they were fighting for because the language has evolved. We understand what a State is. Well, we understand it in today's terms but it will help you understand better if I were to change the name of our country to a present day term that more accurately reflects what our forefathers were fighting for. The United COUNTRIES of America. At that time a state wasn't a subset of a bigger all, it was an independent entity that thru necessity was cooperating with other countries around it. Think more like Europe. All that changed after the Civil War. That actually was what the war was all about, should states have the ultimate power to govern themselves or should a strong federal government have the ultimate power to make a state (Country!) toe the line. It's become PC to think the war was about slavery, but it wasn't. America lost the Civil War. Read about the excesses that Grant's administration perpetrated on the country just after the war. It's chilling and unfortunately all too familiar because it reads just like today.

Quite right actually, bravo, i didnt see the connection at first. But when it comes to currency exchange etc etc (kind of what Hess was speaking about in the first place - how to move cash around to keep it safe) this is exactly the same issue. The whole CW brewhaha was mainly over State to State commerce (country to country??) with regards to commerce law and CURRENCY exchange (lots of states used different currencies - kinda like using Franks and Deutchmarks and moving to the Euro)...and taxation was a distant third (in the begining). I need to bust out some civil war history text and read up. Carguy, you and I dont typically agree on political/lifestyle threads, but I think you hit this one straight on the head

Here's an illustrative passage from Schiff's book, pp 14-16:

Let's suppose six castaways are stranded on a desert island, five Asians and one American. Their problem is hunger. So they sit down and divide labor as follows: One Asian will do the hunting, another will fish, the third will scrounge for vegetables, the fourth will cook dinner and the fifth will gather firewood and tend the fire. The sixth, the American is given the job of eating. So five Asians work all day to feed one American, who spends his day sunning himself on the beach. The American is employed in the equivalent of the service sector, operating a tanning salon that has one customer: Himself. At the end of the day, the five Asians present a painstakingly prepared feast to the American, who sits at the head of a special table built by the Asians specifically for this purpose. Now the American is practical enough to know that if the Asians are going to continue providing banquets they must also be fed, so he allows them just enough scraps from his table to sustain them for the following day's labor. Modern-day economists would have you look at the situation just described and believe that the American is the lone engine of growth driving the island's economy; that without the American and his ravenous appetite, the Asians on the island would all be unemployed. The reality, of course, is that the American is not the engine of growth, but the caboose, and the best thing the Asians could do would be to vote the American off the island -- decoupling the caboose from the gravy grain. Without the American to consume most of their food, they'd have a lot more to eat themselves. Then the Asians could spend less time working on food-related tasks and devote more time to leisure or to satisfying other needs that now go unfulfilled because so many of their scarce resources are devoted to feeding the American.

He goes on to bring a central banker into the picture and American IOU's to facilitate exchange. The point is that the Asians don't need the American, but they think they do.

As I said, Eric, after the U.S. market/economy tanks fully, the 3rd world economies will tank briefly in a panic, until they realize they were just feeding the American for IOU's.

I get where the author is going with that scenario Hess, and it makes sense.

This is just me thinking aloud - after the all the crashes, the foreign economies will rebound, but probably wont ever see the growth they did like when they were growing to meet the growing consumerism in the US. So after the pop, who is better off? Americans who havent had to feed themselves in decades, but are now in charge of growing to meet our own demand, or Intl economies who no longer have to supply us? I think that the net effect will be null - no winner or loser since the individual economies will grow back in scale to their respective markets.

Dr. Hess wrote: As I said, Eric, after the U.S. market/economy tanks fully, the 3rd world economies will tank briefly in a panic, until they realize they were just feeding the American for IOU's.

Thing is, I don't think our economy will tank that badly. There are a lot of hard working people who work in this country, and they want to keep it that way. I think that illustrative story is very bad, and does not represent most of the US. Perhaps the people who like to gamble on the value of companies- sure. But not the ones working the line every day.

I just don't see how a recovery would be that awesome in the third world, relative to ours, when we are tanking. I also note a lot of creativity in trying times to find ways to make stuff and survive- right now in the ag business- where there's a strong movement (maybe strong is a strong word) to bring more food local- the CSA movement.

And I'm still optimistic based on the fact that the largest companies in this country are still building and making stuff here. We keep feeling upset about all of our IOU's, which we only owe to a few countries, when we also go out of our way to give money and loans to other third world countries to keep them stable and afloat.

What Wall Street (the ones who drive much corporate policy) is a shake up to remember that this whole market based economy is very much based on the purchasing power of the middle, and the middle needs to be solidly employed making stuff to sustain that. The current problem is that stock holders seem to value cutting workers (and then panic about job losses- go figure) to save money and keep the stock price high. Once we stopped paying attention to the demands of the small fish on WS, Ford has done more than its share to re-establish the US as the prime manufacturing market in the world.

But that basically turns it's back on traditional free market people, and knowingly understands that capitolism with a conscience of why it works can and will be self sustaining. That, in this current polical environment, where good public policy is being hung out to dry, is going to be a tough sell. It's a lot easier to claim "gobmnt is forcing me overseas" than to do the right and sustainable capitalism and help the US out in general.

Again, we can't base our economy on banking and value trading, we have to base it on making and selling stuff. That's the only way you will MAKE wealth.

Again, we can't base our economy on banking and value trading, we have to base it on making and selling stuff. That's the only way you will MAKE wealth.

Correct and what do we make in America any more? One place I read said that drywall was our biggest American made product.

You might argue that many cars are made in America but in most cases they are just assembled in America and even that number is dropping.

Bought an American made shoe lately? No, cause there aren't any made in America and they haven't been in a long, long time.

So what can you invest in that's American? The companies that hire out the 3rd world countries to build our products.

China scares the poop out of me from an investment standpoint unless you are extremely knowledgeable &/or have a Chinese partner.

There aren't very many left, but there are still a couple shoe companies building shoes in the USA. Red Wing and Mason come to mind.

Ford and GM are making more US plants.

You may have missed the big battery plants that will be opening in a few years on the west side of Michigan.

The EcoBoost cars are almost entirely made in the US- engines from Cleveland, transmissions from Michigan, and body/assembly in mainly Chicago.

We make large aircraft in multple parts of the US. In spite of what Hess posts, we do make a lot of microchips in the US. We cast steel and make structural steel stuff. You can get American made furniture. etc.

Then there's the tons and tons and tons of grains grown in the middle of the country that goes out to the world.

What do YOU make? I'm in the car business, and we make cars in the US with workers who spend their money in the US.

Stop listening to the talking heads, and find out what's really going on in this country.

ignorant wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: He said that the primary problem was government regulation, taxes and interference.

So, I now work in corporate strategy. Oh all the decisions I've ever heard or seen made none are related to this issue. NONE!.. Not one. We use the cost per hour of work metric plus profit margin. Thats it. period, done... Regulation/taxes/interference are benefits of moving a company overseas but NEVER the primary driver. Never!

Hello? What do you think causes the cost per hour of work to go up?

Duke wrote: Hello? What do you think *causes* the cost per hour of work to go up?

Again, what regulations are you willing to give up? Your worker health and safety? Workers rights? Environment?

Nobody seems to want to answer that.

not gobmnt...but certainly strangling manufacturers today are modern labor unions...Maybe we need a little fewer $29/hr+OT union positions - Manufacturers being forced to pay people tons of money not because they are great at their job or give 110% every day, but simply becuase theyve managed not to get fired. We need to allow meritocracies to flourish with just a little union influence rather than union strong-arming. Seniority is not solely a basis for making a ludicrous hourly wage - ULH and quality are certainly compensation bases, but it appears (to a relative outsider looking in) that Unions have spent more time making sure people HAVE jobs, but not making sure they DO THEM WELL.

flamesuit: engage...

4cylndrfury wrote: not gobmnt...but certainly strangling manufacturers today are modern labor unions...Maybe we need a little fewer $29/hr+OT union positions - Manufacturers being forced to pay people tons of money not because they are great at their job or give 110% every day, but simply becuase theyve managed not to get fired. We need to allow meritocracies to flourish with just a little union influence rather than union strong-arming. Seniority is not solely a basis for making a ludicrous hourly wage - ULH and quality are certainly compensation bases, but it appears (to a relative outsider looking in) that Unions have spent more time making sure people HAVE jobs, but not making sure they DO THEM WELL. flamesuit: engage...

Red herring.

May want to check labor costs as they pertain to actual costs.

In particular, compare 2007 annual reports from GM and Toyota. If Labor costs were as bad as precieved, then the numbers would be a lot different. Labor IS a significant cost. It's not THE significant cost.

(in 2007, GM and Toyota made roughly the same number of cars, but GM was about 3x the number of employees around the world- stunningly, Toyota spends about $5000/car more than GM, but they earn $9000/car- so the loss is more than made up for. If labor was that important, you would think that 3x the labor would have been a bigger player.....)

Also, remember the buying power of a union guy making $70k a year. Maybe, just maybe, they will able to buy the expensive stuff you make (these guys don't save a bunch). Think about that. Maybe, just maybe, if we support each other, we will be able to buy each other's stuff. And thus sustain our own economy.

Y'all do realize our gov't is BROKEN, right? Very few people in Washington are interested in governing, as folks here would interpret that term.

Read THIS if you're really curious what's going on. (You probably won't, though, because actual research into what these clowns are doing in our name would be hard, and it's much easier to sit around and spout opinions or indulge in namecalling.)

If you do actually bother to look into what's going on in Washington, THEN we can start talking about how to change it. (Here's a hint: We can't start debating big ideas until we cover some basics, like a. you jokers work for us; b. we expect you to represent our nation's interests, not your own; and c. participation is NOT optional. Duh.)

Margie

alfadriver wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: not gobmnt...but certainly strangling manufacturers today are modern labor unions...Maybe we need a little fewer $29/hr+OT union positions - Manufacturers being forced to pay people tons of money not because they are great at their job or give 110% every day, but simply becuase theyve managed not to get fired. We need to allow meritocracies to flourish with just a little union influence rather than union strong-arming. Seniority is not solely a basis for making a ludicrous hourly wage - ULH and quality are certainly compensation bases, but it appears (to a relative outsider looking in) that Unions have spent more time making sure people HAVE jobs, but not making sure they DO THEM WELL. flamesuit: engage...

Red herring. May want to check labor costs as they pertain to actual costs. In particular, compare 2007 annual reports from GM and Toyota. If Labor costs were as bad as precieved, then the numbers would be a lot different. Labor IS a significant cost. It's not THE significant cost. (in 2007, GM and Toyota made roughly the same number of cars, but GM was about 3x the number of employees around the world- stunningly, Toyota spends about $5000/car more than GM, but they earn $9000/car- so the loss is more than made up for. If labor was that important, you would think that 3x the labor would have been a bigger player.....) Also, remember the buying power of a union guy making $70k a year. Maybe, just maybe, they will able to buy the expensive stuff you make (these guys don't save a bunch). Think about that. Maybe, just maybe, if we support each other, we will be able to buy each other's stuff. And thus sustain our own economy.

Eric, I agree, labor cost is not the definitive cost, but you asked what are we willing to cut - I think that ONE cost cutting measure might be in labor. That is all I am trying to say. Im not calling anyone out or trying to point fingers, so I guess I shouldve rethought the tone of my last post. I dont hate the union, and I think they do still serve an important function, but given the kinds of federally mandated labor laws in the country, I think the Union power needs scaled back is all.

EDIT - perhaps the union is not to blame, but the MFR who signed the deal, so forget I said that...

And just a little more food for thought - if we all make $70k a year, then loaves of bread will cost $50 and avg cars go for $100k...its an economy of scale...if more people make more bucks, then perceived value of money is diminished, and we have inflation all the same. I agree we need to make stuff to make money, and people gotta be able to spend stuff to move money, but all in all, weve been buyin too much stuff for too long, and it boils down to managing your money not managing your stuff.

Again, what regulations are you willing to give up? Your worker health and safety? Workers rights? Environment? Nobody seems to want to answer that.

Whenever I go up to the Syncrude plant in Fort McMurray (thats where all of that dirty oil you guys don't want is ) out of my 8 hour day (if there isn't any overtime), I spend 2 hours dealing with various safety regulations. Now, this is LUDICROUS. I work in instrumentation, I work on fine pieces of equipment. I can not work on said equipment wearing leather gloves. I either need bare hands, or very fine hyflex gloves. Nothing else will do. But if I want to do that, I have to fill it out in a FLRA every morning I get to the plant site. Which is just one of the many safety orientated things I do. And guess what? It affects my safety ZILCH.

He actually already answered your question in a roundabout way, he wants less bureaucracy. That, in and of itself, would chop costs WAY down.

How about the one where a plant has to dump out waste water 100 times cleaner than it takes in? I read that one recently for a proposed new plant somewhere.

That article is frightening, Margie, but not surprising. Our government is BUBAR, Berkeleyed Up Beyond All Recognition. And we can't get rid of them either. Even that loser McCain is going to get re-elected, and nobody likes him, even in his own state. How berkeleyed up is that?

Lets see what happens in November. That's our only chance, as I see it. But that's politics, and this is investing, or capital preservation. Any suggestions?

Duke wrote: Hello? What do you think *causes* the cost per hour of work to go up?

what regulations are you talking about? OSHA? EPA? Labor laws?

What regulations are oppressive? What ones do you want to give up?

Large multinationals enforce those regulations on any factory they build in a foreign land. Look at the E36 M3 storm that nike got into with its child labor problems. No multinational wants that..

How much do I pay top consultant software developers an hour (in india)? $25 an hour. thats the feel the consulting firm charges me. How much would I pay for the same in the US? 3x that.

You know what makes the cost of labor per hour here high, here's the list in no particular order.

1. cost of labor (standard of living stuff)
2. Cost of Energy
3. Cost of land
4. cost of health care and other benefits.

My company "pays me" an extra $20-30k a year in "benefits." (that's there indication).

but whatever.. I'm sure you have plenty of experience in the practice of shuttering plants and moving them.