|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 8, 2010 0:47:21 GMT -6
Labor is the consumer, but it is also a commodity, See, Free Traders think people are a commodity. Free Traders are modern day Slavers. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 8, 2010 0:49:27 GMT -6
Notice how the Free Trader was surfing the internet, came to this website, found this Topic: Tariffs: The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale (Read 5,815 times), and decided to reply.
The "Smoot-Hawley subect" is the propaganda centerpiece for the Free Traders, even though in the big scheme of things it is small potatoes. This Free Trader didn't reply to any other topic, he came straight to this topic and started typing away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 8, 2010 2:49:41 GMT -6
Nope, your definition of "Beneficial" is where the rich get richer. Completely wrong, and has nothing to back it up. I meant freely working, as employees. At a place of their choice, not as a slave. Complete nonsense. Again, zero-sum fallacy here. Doesn't even make sense. If people start losing their job, a glut of houses ends up on the market, which means NO bubble is going to occur and housing prices will deflate. The housing bubble caused the recession that started job loss, not the other way around. No, they didn't. Why would anyone want deflation? That just hamstrings the economy. Reasonable inflation is natural. This is complete and total nonsense. CERTAIN labor can be defined as slave labor, workers working in South Korea are not slave labor. And you would be against all foreign labor that is cheaper no matter how free the people are. Complete nonsense and not supported by history. We ran a trade surplus during the Great Depression. In every recession, the trade deficit has shrunk. The trade deficit has shrank in this current recession. Complete nonsense. If no one is employed, there are no super-rich. I just wnat people to be free to choose their employer. Total nonsense. That depends on where the labor is being done. Many are. In other words, you have no ability to refute my argument, and resort to the standard tactic of slander. You do not bother to debate the fact that most businesses are small businesses and artificially yanking up the cost of labor for them causes them to have to higher fewer people (i.e. higher unemployment rate), raise their prices, cut benefits, etc...all of which benefits Big Businesses who then can crush them. Unions served a purpose mostly back before there were laws and regulations regarding workplaces, and enforcement of said laws. But they outlived their purpose, many becoming greedy and entitlement-minded and ruining American industry. "Organized labor" and organized crime go together like peas and carrots when you look back into history. Nope, the dollar's value influences trade deficits. I notice you again do not bother to try to refute the argument. Again, backwards. The dollar influences the trade deficit. Strong dollar = large trade deficit. Weak dollar = shrinkig trade deficit. As I said, during the 1990s, the U.S. had a strong dollar, therefore a large trade deficit. it also had a prosperous economy at the time. Nope, because of fluctuations in the global economic system, not the trade deficit. The weaker dollar causes the trade deficit to begin contracting. Wrong. A trade deficit will only occur when we are importing MORE than we export. That means imports must be cheaper, which is why we import them. Imports growing more expensive has to do with the dollar declining in value, which itself then begins to shrink the trade deficit. I said the trade deficit is shrinking, I didn't say it turned into a trade surplus. If we go into a Great Depression-style depression, it could turn into a trade surplus. This again makes no sense. Of course a weak dollar will shrink the trade decficit, because it makes imports more expensive and our own products more attractive, thus more is exported. Thus the trade deficit shrinks. Yes it has. We do not grow cotton with slaves anymore. Of course it has. They are a developing economy. I have said this repeatedly: protectionism helps a developing economy because it allows them to establish their industries. Complete nonsense, and again not supported by any facts. We have a very large industrial base, it is just far more productive today and less in need of human workers. Total nonsense and compeltely contradicted by the facts. The unemployment rate shrank during the 1990s and remained at full employment throughout the 200s except for the very minor recession in the early 2000s. Again, not supported by anything and total nonsense. Businesses and individuals do not engage in trade unless it increases the wealth of both parties. Nope, society's wealth, as in the whole population. Labor IS a form of trade. Workers TRADE their time, effort, skills, services, whatever for money from the employer, who uses them to make products services that said employer then provides to others, who trade them for those products services. The entire system is trade. So yes, trade creates wealth. Human beings engage in voluntary cooperation and free trade with one another, whether that be an employee and employer or two businesses serving each other. Money is medium we use to exchange goods and services. Money is a universally tradeable item we use (to avoid direct barter). You completely missed my point. My point is exactly that the free-market should decide, not someone such as yourself demanding an employer pay somone a high wage because you feel they should be paid such. You're the one acting like you can dictate how much someone earns as opposed to the market. In a free market with free trade, employees are paid according to the value they bring. A relatively unskilled worker is not going to provide much value, and thus is not paid much. It can't if you artificially jack up the cost of something like labor, not to mention the oppressive taxes, bureaucratic regulations, and excessive environmental restrictions many American businesses get stuck with. No it doesn't. Income occurs when the company can sell its product. Again, this is silly. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want a strong dollar, you will end up with a large trade deficit. A weak dollar helps close the trade deficit. Imports have grown more expensive because the dollar is now weak, which will close the trade deficit. It has to do with WEALTH. Americans are only 5% of the global population. But they produce more than anyone else. But they import even more than they produce. That's a sign of a wealthy society. Exporting more than you import is asign of an incredibly poor society, which is why the trade deficit shrinks during recessions and why it was a trade surplus during the Great Depression. So you are saying we run a trade surplus then? Because if we export more than we import, there'd be no trade deficit. Of course it remains, but it shrinks. It will turn into a trade surplus if society grows really poor. Inflation is primarily controlled by monetary policy. More slander. Again also ignoring the actual argument, which is that American products cannot be competitive when American industry is given a bunch of burdens it shouldn't have. Yes, such terrible slavery for the Third World famrers who can make enough money to support their families because they can sell their crops in America. Of course with trade barriers, mostly meant to protect rich corporate farms, they cannot sell them and suffer for it. Also such terrible slavery for the very poor people in developing nations who are able to work in jobs that pay more than anything they've ever earned before making products bought in the First World. Like I said, you want slavery, kill free trade. Uhhh, no. Free traders do not like monopolies and advocate for free trade specifically to PREVENT monopolies. More slander. Prove it. Big corporate farms, Big Steel, all are against free trade. It allows them to protect their businesses and gain monopolies. It's a lot more to compete in an open market. You know, like the Third World farmer who is very poor but can make what to him is big money if he can sell his bananas in America? Only big corporate farms don't like that, they want to monopolize the industry for themselves. Not to those people it isn't, that is why they work those jobs. And as they work them and their economies develop and productivity increases, their pay and wages will naturally increase and they will become a first-world nation. It did. None of those are nations, and I'm talking about economics. Service industries do not depend on industry, and you are ignoring the fact that manufacturing itself is dependent on people to buy the stuff or it doesn't get paid either, so your statement makes no sense. And no, industry was not "destroyed," this is complete and totally false. America doesn't manufacture more than anyone else with a lack of industry. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 8, 2010 2:53:34 GMT -6
See, Free Traders think people are a commodity. Free Traders are modern day Slavers. Again, when you don't want to give an argument, resort to slander. Employees are a form of commodity from an ECONOMIC standpoint. You raise the price of aluminum to a manufacturer of aluminum cans, they will have to purchase less. You raise the price of workers to this same company, they will hire less. Yes, how DARE I engage in debate on an important economic subject to learn the anti-trade point-of-view. BTW, i never said I believe Smoot-Hawley itself caused the Great Depression. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 8, 2010 3:55:40 GMT -6
Completely wrong, and has nothing to back it up. Coming from you, that is funny. Sure beats Free-Trader la-la land theory. Wrong, when people lose their job they don't suddenly fall off the map. You mean cheaper consumer prices like Free Trade is suppose to create? God forbid there is deflation. By American standards, Chinese and Mexicans are earning slave wages, Free Trader. Your definition of "Free" is slave. Oh so your solution is to run up a 100% trade deficit so no American is employed, ok gotcha. Yeah it is complete nonsense. Your definition of "Employed" is enslaved. What comes around, goes around, Kemosabe. Oh so by default you assume American labor is a higher cost labor to business, lazy, produces crap, and inefficient. OK Gotcha, you hate America, anything else you want to add? And in your next breath you are going to talk about removing the minimum wage laws, and workplace safety regulations. Nope, Ronulan, the trade deficit destroys the dollar's value, not the other way around. Wrong Chuck, the trade deficit influences the dollar. Wrong, the trade deficit began to skyrocket during the 1990's, and the dollar began to drop. Nope, the weaker dollar has not shrunk the trade deficit. Nope, imports are not cheaper. No it's not. Oh so your solution is to run a 100% trade deficit where no American is employed, OK Gotcha, since trade deficits are so great, according to you. The weak dollar has not shrunk the trade deficit. If it were up to you people, we would. Uh oh, you are going against Free Trade Dogma, someone get a rope. Wrong, America has a tiny industrial base, in proportion to the entire economy/population. Replacing an upper middle class job with a burger flipping job is not improving employment, it is a process of enslavement of an entire country. Wrong, trading does not increase the wealth of both parties, one party usually gets screwed. ...which you think is a commodity that can be traded like a slave. Wrong, labor creates wealth. You're worse then a "Union Thug", you introduce foreign slave wages into the labor market. How do you sleep at night? "FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE TRADE FREE MARKET!" The Southern Aristocrat Slavers said the same thing before the Civil War, thank god real Americans killed them by the ditch-load. Wrong, income occurs with all labor, efficient and inefficient. Wrong, the US has a weak dollar and a massive trade deficit. Wrong, the US has a weak dollar and a massive trade deficit. And Free Traders like you are hell bent on closing that gap. No, that's a sign of a declining society. Exporting more than you import is a sign of a productive and wealthy society. Wrong, the trade deficit increases during a recession. Duh Oh I see, then your solution would be to run a 100% trade deficit, where no American is employed, cause trade deficits are so good. Gee, didn't you Free Traders claim Free Trade would create price DEFLATION, during the 1990's? The regulation "burden" is nothing compared to 50 cent Chinese wages. Last time I checked, most Mexican farmers lost their jobs to big American Agri-business, and illegally immigrated here. Maybe you should move to a "very poor" country, since you seem to be concerned about their welfare above and beyond the welfare of your own countrymen. Traitor...wait...Free Traitor. Uhhh, no. Free Traders refuse to regulate or break up monopolies; therefore Free Traders love monopolies. Last time I checked, you free traders refuse to break up monopolies. Click your heels together 3 times and say, "Free Trade promotes Democracy." lol Yes they do. Only industry (manufacturing) creates something from nothing, service industries are there to service that. Wrong. Service Industry like Banks are dependent on leeching off industry, industry (manufacturing) is dependent on nobody. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 8, 2010 3:56:51 GMT -6
Again, when you don't want to give an argument, resort to slander. Employees are a form of commodity from an ECONOMIC standpoint. You raise the price of aluminum to a manufacturer of aluminum cans, they will have to purchase less. You raise the price of workers to this same company, they will hire less. See, Free Traders think people are a commodity that can be bought and sold. What slavers. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 8, 2010 8:09:41 GMT -6
Sure beats Free-Trader la-la land theory. You will never convince anyone of your point of view if you are not willing to actually debate on it. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Of course free-trade is bad if you decide to magically assume the economy is a zero-sum game, but it is not. You specifically said the housing bubble was caused by people losing their jobs. I pointed out this is impossible, that if people start losing their jobs, they will not be able to afford their homes, will end up foreclosed upon, and a glut of houses will end up on the market. On the contrary, the housing bubble occurred because the demand for housing skyrocketed. At the same time, however, housing values began skyrocketing as well. So developers built innumerable homes, leading the bubble to burst, and housing prices came crashing down. With the financial system tied into housing prices supposedly never being able to do this nationwide at once, disaster ensued. Cheaper then what they otherwise would be. Not deflation so much as preventing artificial price inflation. Mexicans are about a third as productive as Americans, so of course they earn far less. No it isn't. Free is free. Just because labor in another country is cheaper does not make it slave labor. Nope, that's not my "solution." I am simply pointing out that to blindly believe a trade surplus is a good thing is wrongheaded. [quote[Yeah it is complete nonsense.[/quote] You will never convince anyone if you are not going to argue your claims. No it isn't. Yes, if you slander people, don't be surprised if someone does it to yourself in the future. I have not slandered you at all. You are putting words in my mouth here. You a CNN reporter? I was talking about things like calls many make for a "living wage" and so forth, and the effects it has on smaller businesses. The minimum wage law should be abolished entirely. Ever since it was passed, we have seen a consistent increase in the teenage unemployment rate, and the unemployment rate among minorities within the inner cities, oftentimes the very thing the minimum wage was intended to help. Our economy is wealthy enough to maintain a minimum wage but still maintain overall full employment, however that is likely changing and the minimum wage may be one of the things keeping unemployment higher right now in this recession. The first thing the Democrats did upon taking over Congress was to raise the minimum wage, an incredibly foolish thing to do. Remember, you cannot artificially increase the price of something. You know, Wal-Mart fights constantly to avoid unionization. They are one of the top five lobbyists on Capitol Hill. But Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage. Now tell me, this company that resists unionization like a cat resists a bath, do you think they support a higher minimum wage because they care about the workers, or because they understand the economics of it in that it will hurt their competitors and especially American small business? Wal-Mart ALSO supports carbon cap-and-trade (tax) legislation, which the entire National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is against. Again, why? Because Wal-Mart cares, or because it is a way to hurt their competitors? As for workplace safety regulations, those are fine and should remain in place. They can feed one another somewhat. The trade deficit cannot really occur in the first place without a strong dollar. Since the dollar has weakened a lot, the shrinking trade deficit we were seeing was helping to re-strengthen the dollar. But a newly strong dollar will then contribute to widening the trade deficit again. The trade deficit ballooned during the 1990s in particular because of the strong dollar at the time. They influence each other. But you cannot have a strong dollar and a constantly shrinking trade deficit. Trade deficit began to skyrocket during the 1990s precisely because of there being a strong dollar. You want a strong dollar, be prepared for a growing trade deficit. The trade deficit shrinks with a weaker dollar (which then has the effect of helping to strengthen the dollar, which then has the effect of helping to grow the trade deficit, and so on). It also tends to shrink with a slowing economy. I just checked the numbers, and the trade deficit has widened some again, however this would be a good thing as it means the economy is starting to grow again and global trade picking up. Although this economic recovery being seen could just be because of the expected tax increases coming next year, thus causing work from next year to be moved to this year. Yes they are. Cheaper than they would be with a strong dollar anyhow. Historically, yes, they are. Now they are not ALWAYS good, it depends, it is like free trade itself, it depends on the state of the economy. A growing trade deficit can stall economic growth, but with the United States, that generally has not been the case. With us, the trade deficit grows during times of economic prosperity and shrinks in times of economic hardship. And what makes you think a 100% trade deficit means no Americans will be employed? Importing 100% of the goods one exports is not a sign of poverty, that's a sign of being very wealthy. It did through much of the 2000s. Nope. Slaves are not free. Yes, I do not adhere to free trade dogma. As I said, with developing nations, they do not necessarilly benefit from free trade at first. Okay maybe I worded that wrong. By "large" I mean our industrial base produces a heck of a lot. We have a tiny farming base too (less than 1% of the population), but we grow more food than anyone else. The United States currently accounts for a larger share of global manufacturing than any other nation on Earth. Despite that, manufacturing is only about 13% of our economy. The Chinese are getting close to surpassing us in manufacturing output, but a few things on that: 1) China's economy relies much more on manufacturing than American (about a third of their economy is manufacturing). 2) Even if they do surpass the U.S. in manufacturing output, that does not stop the United States from still being one of the largest manufacturers in the world. The jobs created then were not flipping burger jobs. Many of the jobs that were outsourced were not upper middle class, they were the equivalent of demanding the burger flippers be paid a high wage, which is why they were outsourced. That can happen, but only if one party is UNAWARE they are being screwed. They will not engage in the trade unless they feel it benefits them somehow. Both parties must mutually benefit through trade and that is how it works for the most part. If you legitimately get screwed, we have these things called courts you can go to to settle the issue. Nope. Workers are not to be treated in the inhumane way one would treat raw materials. BUT, workers ARE subject to the same economics as the materials. As I said, trade creates wealth. Labor is a form of trade, it is people engaging in voluntary cooperation with other people and/or businesses, which trade money for the person's labor (this money itself obtaiend from trading the goods/services produced in part by the labor traded from the employee). One massive system of trading. How are they slave wages when they are higher pay than anything else the people have earned before? You are going completely off-topic here. That is fantasy thinking. If labor is too inefficient and the products are not produced efficiently, or of good enough quality, the company will go under due to lack of revenues. Yes, a massive trade deficit that has been shrinking over the last few years (at least until recently). Nope. Nope, a declining society is one growing poorer, that cannot afford to import so much anymore. History shows otherwise. Again, we ran a trade surplus during the Great Depression. A trade surplus in general means a population is very poor and cannot afford to import much. You are confusing a nation importing more than it exports with say a person who spends more money than they make. A nation importing more than they export is not the equivalent of a person who spends more money than they make. Depends. It depends on the currency's strength and the strength of other economies. With the U.S., it tends to shrink because people will stop importing as much as they used to. So after saying we have a massive trade deficit, you are now claiming we have a trade surplus? I never did. Don't see why anyone else would either, that would mean a hamstrung economy. Deflation is bad. Depends on how those wages are to Chinese workers. However I agree that China is not a free society. Would be interesting to study that some, I don't see why though. Big Agri-business hates free trade. They want trade barriers and also subsidies, because crops grown in foreign countries compete a lot with domestic American crops, which they do not like. However, infringing on trade would: 1) Mean all those Third World farmers who sell their crops in America would get screwed, and 2) The American people, who could have cheaper food, could get stuck with higher-priced food because Big Agriculture would have a monopoly. Yep; it's okay for YOU to show concern for foreign people, calling me a slaver, but if I show concern for foreigners, pointing out how infringing on free trade will hurt them, I am a traitor. You are being a hypocrite here. By your argument, I could say to you, "Why don't you move to China? You obviously are more concerned about the welfare of the Chinese than your own countrymen, because you want your countrymen to be saddled with higher-priced goods. You want to clamp down on trade solely out of concern for foreigners." Free traders break up trusts, a monopoly depends. If it's a monopoly gained by legitimate means (outdoing the competition), then usually the monopoly is WATCHED closely, but isn't per se illegal. Infringing on free trade is one way to create a monopoly. Free trade promotes economic growth, not democracy. Wealth is not created from physical goods, it is created via products AND services. Services are a form of product. If you build a plumbing business that makes $100 million a year and is worth about $150 million, you have created $150 million in wealth for the economy and various jobs. Yes, of course you need physical goods in society, but a nation itself need not make those goods. Manufacturers depend on people to buy their stuff. You are ignoring the argument. You can live in that fantasyworld all you wish, but employees are subject to the laws of economics same as everything else. Doesn't mean a business should treat them the same as say raw materials though. But they are subject to the same economics. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 8, 2010 9:53:13 GMT -6
You will never convince anyone of your point of view if you are not willing to actually debate on it. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is a zero-sum game. Yes it is. ...which is exactly what happened. People lost their jobs, couldn't afford to pay. Well that's your wonderful "Service Economy" you free traders predicted in the 1990's, well enjoy the wonderful "Service Economy." This is your doing. Nope, you free traders said there would be cheaper consumer items and there has not been cheaper consumer items. You lied. No, Mexico is less productive because their country is run by a corrupt oligarchy. Wrong, 50 cents an hour is slave wages in America. Oh I get it, so since you believe trade surpluses are bad, then a 100% trade deficit would be just perfect in your perfect world. See, told you so. First you say, "Unions use to be necessary but now we got things like the minimum wage law." Then in the next breath you say, "Minimum wage laws should be abolished entirely." You're to easy (in Darth Vader voice). Yeah them Chinese earn far less then minimum wage. The minimum wage is a hinderance to the Free Trader's plan to ENSLAVE AMERICANS. Yes you can, once you squeeze out all competition. It's called a monopoly. That's what happens when you Free Traders support a strong American Aristocratic class, they feel guilty about their success. Also your doing. Watch what you say, the Ronulans and Neocons may burn you at the stake for being a heretic. The dollar has weakened, and the trade deficit has not shrunk. No. Free Trade ballooned the trade deficit, then weakened the dollar. Yes you can. Wrong, the trade deficit began to skyrocket during the 1990's because of Free Trade. The dollar is weaker, and the trade deficit has not shrunk. Oh I get it, so since you think a trade surplus is bad and a trade deficit is good, then a 100% trade deficit would be double-plus good. You're a retard. Wrong, the United States no longer accounts for a larger share of global manufacturing, you Free Traders destroyed that just recently. And if one day, the United States finds itself at war with the Communist Republic, then their blood will be on your hands. [/quote]The jobs created then were not flipping burger jobs. Many of the jobs that were outsourced were not upper middle class, they were the equivalent of demanding the burger flippers be paid a high wage, which is why they were outsourced. [/quote] See, the Free Trader traded high paying jobs for minimum wage jobs and is happy about it. Wrong, both parties must not mutually benefit through trade to trade, usually one party gets screwed by people like you. ^^^Pro-Slavery guy^^^ No. Labor creates wealth. You're a slaver who wants Americans to earn 50 cents an hour. Wrong, the massive trade deficit remains. Nope, the trade deficit still remains sky high. Oh so your solution would be to have a 100% trade deficit. OK Gotcha. Gee, didn't you Free Traders claim that Free Trade would decrease the price of consumer items, but the opposite happened? That's a lie. Why would you lie? That's not right. Of course, you are concerned with the welfare of foreign nationals, I am concerned about the welfare of American nationals. Now why don't you get the hell out of MY country, traitor. I don't care about the general welfare of foreign nationals, you want to enslave Americans. Oh the hypocrite speaks. Speak hypocrite! Speak! *woof woof* dog. Free Traders refuse to do anything about trusts and monopolies, they mostly jabber on about Big Government and Free Markets. No, you Free Traders love monopolies. Free Trade promotes slavery. Wealth is created from physical goods, not banks and bureaocrats. If a plumbing business makes $100 million a year, it makes $100 million a year. Yes it does. ....which is why Free Trade is necessary for a slave economy, the slaves are too poor to purchase what they are manufacturing. ...yes and when the employees start earning too much money it's time to bring in the cheap foreign labor to knock them back down into servitude; that's the Free Trader Way. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 8, 2010 11:15:37 GMT -6
The economy is a zero-sum game. The economy is in no way, shape, or form a zero-sum game. For one guy to win, does not mean someone else has to lose. In case you haven't noticed, but the standard of living of the middle-class has risen greatly over the last one-hundred years (we have so many goodies now it is almost insane). Goods and services are the wealth of a nation. People are far wealthier now than ever before because of all of those godos and services (and far more productive). If you build a company and make yourself wealthy, you have created wealth. You did not remove wealth from the rest of society. Bill Gates's $50 billion was not removed from the rest of society, it was created. No, what happened is that a bunch of people who never should have purchased homes in the first place purchased them, and then couldn't afford them when the mortgages reset, plus housing values plummeted due to an oversupply. The economy was BOOMING during the real-estate bubble. No one was losing anything. It wasn't until the housing market crashed that people began to lose jobs. The financial system being tied into housing was not the "service economy." There are plentiful cheap consumer items. And they are a lot poorer with a lot less economic development (which is their own fault), which means the people are a lot less productive. Which is why they aren't paid that little in America. We are too productive for that now. Nope. And I never said trade surpluses are bad unto themselves, I said that they always seem to occur during bad times. I said unions used to be necessary, but now we have regulations and laws. Minimum wage only hurts those who need jobs. If one's plan is to enslave Americans, one needs to support protectionism to allow Big Business to dominate the economy, not free trade. You are now making an argument for free-trade! Because if you block foreign competitors, you have gotten rid of the competition and allow big domestic business interests to take over and monopolize. I talk about Wal-mart and you give an answer totally unelated to the subject. During the 2000s it did. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 9, 2010 1:48:52 GMT -6
The economy is in no way, shape, or form a zero-sum game. Yes it is No, what happened is you outsourced tens of millions of jobs and people could no longer afford to pay their home. Wrong. Finance is a service industry. Wrong, Free Trade has increased the prices of consumer items. And you are destroying those high paying jobs. Wrong, trade surpluses happen during good times, trade deficits happen during bad times. In your first breath you say Unions use to be necessary because there is no regulation and laws. In your second breath you say those regulations and laws need to be abolished. You're a walking-talking contradiction Free Trader boy. Free Trade=Slavery Free Trade promotes monopolies. See, by default the Free Trader thinks American business produces overpriced crap. Are you a foreign agent or something, who spreads anti-American propaganda and hates America. Wrong, there is a massive trade deficit and there is economic chaos. Wrong. Get basic math skills. If the US imports 100% of everything then no American would be employed. Wrong. Trade deficits is a sign of a 3rd world country. And you Free Traders are currently destroying that technological edge. Wrong, one party usually gets screwed in a trade. You're wrong. The Economy is a zero-sum game. Wrong. Trade does not create wealth, labor does. America is declining in wealth because you Free Traders are destroying the country. America is declining in wealth because you Free Traders are destroying the country. Wrong. Free Trade has increased the price of consumer goods. You're a Free Traitor and a foreign agent. All Free Traders are pro-monopoly. Free Trade=Slavery. Economic growth is solely derived from physical goods, and banking is a parasitic industry. Hollow statement from a Free Trader, you have no morals. And when the market determines Americans earn allot of money, you Free Traders come in and water down the labor market with cheap foreign slave wages. Traitor. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 9, 2010 4:26:25 GMT -6
I think you need to do some research into actual economics and how economies function. Also, you say the economy is a zero-sum game, then you say labor creates wealth. If labor creates wealth, then the economy cannot be a zero-sum game. Labor, as a form of trade however, creates wealth, but it is a form of trade. So trade creates wealth. Again, that makes no sense because then a housing bubble never would have occurred in the first place. One among many. Nope. Free trade is what allows the poor to have affordable consumer goods available to them. Actually, most of the jobs that have replaced many of the outsourced jobs were higher-paying then the original jobs. The Great Depression, along with other recessions, proves you wrong. I never said anything such. I said American business cannot be expected to compete it overburdened with regulations. That is a lot different than saying all workplace regulations and laws should be repealed. Repeating something over and over will not make it true. If that was the case, then monopolistic businesses would not push for tariffs and trade barriers. Actually, I never said anything such thing. You said that, not I. What I said is that with a stronger dollar, your exports are more expensive. Economic chaos due to the housing bubble and credit crunch. It has little to do with trade. A 100% trade deficit does not mean the U.S. imports 100% of everything. What this is telling me is you do not even know what a trade deficit is. Nope. Actually, free trade is one of the primary reasons for the technological edge, because it forces American firms to compete and if anything become more productive than foreign nations. Again, you are showing you know nothing of basic economics. And labor is trade. Having your cake and eating it too here I see. All evidence points to the opposite. Nope Economies cannot grow if they are zero-sum  Manufacturing is just one sector of economic growth, and has never made up more than 25% of American employment. Cheap wages cannot be given to American labor that legitimately is high-paying, because such labor requires skill, and such skill is not easy to come by. You cannot just "outsource" such work. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 10, 2010 2:26:48 GMT -6
I meant freely working, as employees. No, people work or they starve. All Free Traders are pro-slavery. Wrong. The economy is a zero-sum game. ...which pops the bubble, even if no bubble had previously existed. That what you Free Traders would claim would happen in the 1990's. You said there would be price deflation, now you claim price deflation is bad, basically you are all liars. By American standards, Chinese and Mexican is slave labor. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 10, 2010 2:38:44 GMT -6
You noob, I can break down every statement you say. My favorite is, "Trade is always beneficial to both parties."
Wrong, in a trade one party usually gets screwed.
How many times have gone to a car dealer, and come back feeling screwed. How many times have you bought some cheap Mexican electronics and it breaks the first time you used it. How many people constantly complain about banking fees, and Usury.
Yup, one party usually gets screwed in a trade, and it's usually the consumer party.
...
Everything a Free Trader says is jargon and creed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 10, 2010 5:36:30 GMT -6
Like I said, you have a very elementary understanding of economics which you continue to regurgitate. And you make serious protectionist arguments look bad in doing so. You will never get anyone to take your argument (that free trade is bad) seriously if you are not going to learn any actual economics.
As for car dealers, no one ever said you CAN'T get screwed in a trade, but trade does not take place unless both parties think they will benefit mutually. If one party lies, and the other party does not know they are being lied to, then yes someone gets screwed, but no trade will occur if both parties think the other is being honest. In our complex modern economy, we have things like regulations, industry watchgroups, and of course courts and laws to keep parties honest and so people can hash things out there.
No one ever goes and buys a car actively thinking they are being screwed. You may be suspicious the dealer might be trying to pull a fast one, that is why you have a mechanic look at the car if it is used and so forth before buying. If you find out the dealer is lying, then you won't buy the vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 10, 2010 15:44:19 GMT -6
Nope, your definition of "Beneficial" is where the rich get richer. Completely wrong, and has nothing to back it up. To the contrary, Kyle, you are completely wrong. There is abundant evidence to back it up. The gap between the rich and poor in this country has been rising steadily since 1980. Free trade has exploded since that time. Free trade is one of the bigger factors (though not the only factor) contributing to the rich getting richer. At a place of their choice, not as a slave. That's only true if you consider starving to death a "choice." Chinese workers have the "choice" of working for 50 cents/hour in a despotic American-owned sweat shop, or not being able to feed or shelter themselves. Some choice. North Korean workers working for South Korean slavemasters in the Gae Song Industrial Park in the DMZ between North and South Korea are actually confined to fenced encampments from which they are not allowed to leave. They're a cheap slave labor bonanza for South Korean industrialists, and will become a bonanza for American free traitors as well if the Korean Free Trade Agreement is ratified. This isn't just slave labor, it's slave trade. The housing bubble caused the recession that started job loss, not the other way around. It certainly did precipitate it. But what it also did was deprive Americans of their credit/loan financed spending power, which laid bare the demand-destroying effects of American wage suppression and replacement by cheap foreign labor--both through outsourcing and illegal immigration (7 million employed illegal immigrants drastically increases the US labor supply and suppresses wages--especially when those workers will work for less than the legal minimum wage.) CERTAIN labor can be defined as slave labor, workers working in South Korea are not slave labor. Though I wouldn't classify most South Korean labor as slave labor, wages most certainly are driven down by competition with 750K slave workers in the Gae Song Industrial Park (mentioned above). And their wages certainly are driven down by Chinese slave labor if South Korean industrialists outsource production to China. And you would be against all foreign labor that is cheaper no matter how free the people are. Yes, I would. But the question makes a false assumption to begin with. If a person is near starvation, and needs immediate employment and income to feed himself and his family, his "freedom" is certainly limited. Though the impoverished Chinese worker may not actually be forced to work at gunpoint, he has little choice but to work for whomever will hire him nonetheless--and at whatever wages the employer wants to pay. Some freedom.  Complete nonsense and not supported by history. We ran a trade surplus during the Great Depression. Not true. In 4 years during the 1930's, we had either no surplus or a trade deficit. In 1931 and 1932 we had a 0.0% trade balance. In 1935 we had a -0.27% deficit. In 1936 we had a -0.12% deficit. In 1930 we had only a +0.32% surplus. In 1933 we had a +0.17% surplus. In 1934 we had a +0.46% surplus In 1937 we had a +0.11% surplus. These numbers are shown in the chart I inserted in the opening post of this thread. Here it is again:  1938 was the 1st year of the Depression when our trade surplus was over 1/2 of 1%, rising to +1.2%. But the trade surplus began declining again after 1938, and had again turned negative by 1942. Many people believe the small, temporary surplus from 1938-41 was due to our biggest trading partners being at war from 38-41. Since war commandeered much of their productive resources (both labor and capital), and necessitated increased production of military supplies, foreigners bought more US imports to supplement their increased demand. Once we entered World War II, our own production demand skyrocketed, consuming all of our production. If no one is employed, there are no super-rich Wrong. There are still super-rich--at least in the short-run, as long as there is someone else's wealth they can steal. (The British did this for almost 2 centuries.) I just want people to be free to choose their employer. Have you ever had a job, Kyle? Assuming you're not a Wall Street banker, you certainly don't have unlimited freedom to choose your employer. If you live in a place where there is only 1 major employer--with no other jobs available, and you don't have the financial resources to move, you aren't "free" to chose your employer. You may be "free" to choose not to work for an employer. But you certainly aren't free to "choose" your employer. But the employer is free to terminate your employment. And he's free to move his company to another state, or to another country—putting you out of work. And he's free to close the business down completely—again putting you out of work. And if you're in an industry that simply disappears, you don't have the "freedom" to choose another employer, as there may not be any other employers. This has happened in industry after industry—including heavy industry like shipbuilding, steel milling, and aluminum milling—and high tech industries like computer technology. Workers in these fields don't have the "freedom" to seek another employer (at least in their own field), because there are very few American employers in their field. Sure, they could try working at McDonald's or Walmart. But they'd be competing for wages with teenagers who don't have any real expenses or financial obligations, who are perfectly happy to accept minimum wage pay with no benefits or job security. And with 8 million jobs lost over the last 2-3 years, and with 4-5 million more workers entering the work force, even those McDonald's and Walmart jobs are harder to get. Believe it or not, Kyle, I actually understand your position on this 1 point. That's because I shared those views in the distant past. But I was wrong back then, and you're wrong at present. Workers do not have unlimited freedom to choose their employers. In contrast, employers do have unlimited freedom to choose their workers—and replace them with the cheapest, most enslave-able labor on the planet. You do not bother to debate the fact that most businesses are small businesses and artificially yanking up the cost of labor for them causes them to have to higher fewer peopleThat's completely illogical. Businesses hire workers when they need them for production, and only when they need them for production. They don't hire any more workers just because they can afford them. They hire them in response to increased demand for production, which increases demand for labor. If a "small" business can meet its production with only 10 workers, it's not going to hire more workers just because they're cheaper. It's not going hire more workers than it needs and produce more goods than it can sell. If a "small" business can sell only $1,000 worth of product, with a cost of production is only $200, of which $100 is the labor cost (for 10 workers @ $10/hour), it's not going to hire additional workers if their wages were suddenly reduced to $5/hour. The company would still employ only the 10 workers it needs to meet the market demand for $1,000 worth of product. The company would just pocket the additional $50 it gains from the labor cost reduction. If this same small business can still only sell $1,000 worth of product, but the cost of labor rose to $20/worker, it would raise the production cost to $300. The business would STILL employ 10 workers. Even though the business is making only $700 instead of $800 on the sale, it is still profitable, and it still needs those 10 workers to meet market demand for it's production. Yes, the firm could drop prices if labor costs were down. But why would they? Assuming they're already selling product at the price that maximizes their sales revenue, there's no reason to drop prices. Businesses don't drop prices unless they anticipate it will increase their total sales revenue (i.e. the maximum $$ amount from Price x Product Sales). Employment rises when demand for production rises. No one hires more workers when there is no increased demand for production--even if wages fall. It would reduce profits to hire more workers than needed, even if those workers cost less. Unions served a purpose mostly back before there were laws and regulations regarding workplaces, and enforcement of said laws. No, they serve exactly the same purpose today. They help reduce the tremendous power advantage that management has over labor, as workers do not have unlimited freedom to find other employment, while management has virtually unlimited power to find other workers. But they outlived their purpose, many becoming greedy and entitlement-minded and ruining American industry. You've got the shoe on the wrong foot. In fact, management has become progressively more greedy, unethical--and especially entitlement minded--feeling that the American taxpayer "owes" them their criminally exorbitant bonuses and opulent lifestyles. If there were ever an argument for Unions, it's the current "entitlement" mentality of America's Corporate plutocrats and financial industry oligarchs. Again, Kyle, have you ever had a job? I mean a real job, where you actually produced something--not just pushing a pen or tapping on a key-board from a rolling chair in an office? A trade deficit will only occur when we are importing MORE than we export. That means imports must be cheaper, which is why we import them. Imports growing more expensive has to do with the dollar declining in value, which itself then begins to shrink the trade deficit. You're half right. But the effect of the falling dollar is only part of what affects the price of American exports. The other part is American consumer price inflation. Since 80-90% of American goods are sold to Americans, it is the American consumer market that determines the price. If American prices rise more than the dollar falls in value, then the price of American exports will still rise. A 10% rise in American prices, with a 5% fall in the value of the dollar in Euros, results in a 5% rise in the price of American exports. (I've elaborated on this concept extensively in another thread.) Complete nonsense, and again not supported by any facts. We have a very large industrial base, it is just far more productive today and less in need of human workers. Do you just pull facts out of thin air? Our industrial base has been decimated. We build almost no ships now in this country, except for the military. We build less automobiles than we did previously. We produce almost no clothes any more, thanks to replacement of American workers with less-productive, but even less-costly foreign labor. We practically no tools any more in this country (Just let me know where I can find a American made Crescent wrench, open-end wrench, or socket set). We produce a fraction of the steel and aluminum we previously produced. We don't make small appliances in this country any more. We don't make computers in this country any more. Kyle, where are you getting your misinformation? Are you just making it up yourself, or is somebody feeding you all this stuff? The unemployment rate....remained at full employment throughout the 200s except for the very minor recession in the early 2000s. Not true. But more importantly, the Unemployment Rate was manipulated by falsely claiming that workers had "dropped out" of the labor force. The percentage of working age Americans actually employed dropped throughout the 2000's, and continues to drop to this day. And the % of the total working age population actually employed (as well as those not employed) is what counts--not some concocted, manipulated figure put out by our Corporatist government. Businesses and individuals do not engage in trade unless it increases the wealth of both parties. No matter how many times you barf this soundbite back up, it still doesn't mean anything. American free traitors are more than happy to engage in trade that increases their own wealth, at the expense of reducing the wealth of 99.9% of their betrayed fellow countrymen. The entire system is trade. So yes, trade creates wealth. No, it does not. Production of useful goods produces wealth. Demand for those goods causes them to be produced. Trade has nothing to do with it. Trade allows people to exchange their already-existing wealth for someone else's already existing wealth. Without production there is nothing to trade. Without demand for production there is nothing produced. And without income, consumers and workers create no demand for production. In a free market with free trade, employees are paid according to the value they bring. No, they are not. Workers are going to paid as little as the employer can get away with paying them. And if those workers are living in abject poverty, the employer can get away with paying them almost nothing. And if all the workers in the world have to compete with the starving impoverished slave labor, their wages will sink to that same level. And when that happens, there will be no consumer buying power to create production demand, no goods produced, and no wealth created. The end result of Globally free markets would be a return to feudalism--global feudalism. Free markets, with reasonable regulation, can work within an individual nation. But Global free markets cannot ever work, regardless of regulation--for a host of reasons. Sufficient regulations will never be imposed. Even limited regulations cannot and will not be enforced. And wage arbitrage will always be practiced by global plutocrats. In fact, the only reason the WTO and NAFTA were created was so that global capital could flow out of rich countries (where it had been extracted from that country's higher-paid workers and consumers), and into 3rd world countries with exploitable resources--especially exploitable labor. And as long as financial innovations could artificially maintain American consumer spending power, in the face of wage-deficient spending power, International and American free-traitors could continue to reinvest American consumer spending profits into foreign production markets, essentially robbing American consumers of the very income needed to purchase the foreign-produced goods of American-owned facilities. Americans are only 5% of the global population. But they produce more than anyone else. But they import even more than they produce. That's a sign of a wealthy society. No, it's no such thing. It's a sign of a society that spends more than it earns. It's a sign of a financial system that has created new and innovative ways to create wealth out of thin air, and spend money based on this fictitious wealth. It's a sign of a society that has learned how to create artificial wealth and spending power that can be interchanged with real wealth and spending power. It's a sign of a society that has learned how to create pseudo-wealth through shuffling paper and mathematical buffoonery. American products cannot be competitive when American industry is given a bunch of burdens it shouldn't have. Really? So American industry can't be "competitive" if it has to pay Americans workers enough to purchase goods they produce themselves? That's wrong on a couple of counts. To start with, American industry's main area of competition is for the American consumer market--where it sells 93% of its products (According to Obama's statement in a speech last week.) There is no requirement that we "compete" for our own domestic market. We can simply keep foreign-produced goods out--either embargoing them entirely or putting high Tariffs on them. It is our right, and the government's sworn obligation, to protect this country from harm, be it economic or military. So the notion that we must "compete" for our own market is specious. We don't have to "compete" with slave-labor produced foreign goods. Allowing this competition is a choice made by not by the People of the United States, or at least the lesser affluent 99% of us. It's a choice made by the rich elite. It's simply a choice made by our Corporate plutocracy. Again, it is not a necessity nor a "must" of any kind. Free traders do not like monopolies and advocate for free trade specifically to PREVENT monopolies. Nice soundbite, but not true. In fact, US customs selectively allows large manufacturers to import items that compete with goods produce themselves, while prohibiting the importation of those same goods by individuals or small retailers. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, Big Pharma can import foreign-produced drugs that they also produce themselves. But individuals and pharmacies cannot import those foreign-produced goods. They can only buy them from the American producer, even when the drugs were produced overseas. In this manner, "free" trade actually perpetuates monopolies. And as they work them and their economies develop and productivity increases, their pay and wages will naturally increase and they will become a first-world nation. No, they won't. Free-Traitors will simply move their production to another country with lower labor costs. manufacturing itself is dependent on people to buy the stuff or it doesn't get paid either, so your statement makes no sense. Gee, are you finally accepting this point? Interesting how you acknowledge this point when it's convenient, but elsewhere advocate sending American jobs to 50¢/hour labor markets--which is a wage that will never be able to purchase American manufactures. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 11, 2010 0:56:47 GMT -6
To the contrary, Kyle, you are completely wrong. There is abundant evidence to back it up. The gap between the rich and poor in this country has been rising steadily since 1980. Free trade has exploded since that time. Why is a "gap" between the rich and poor a bad thing? Of course you're going to have a gap. We are not a society based on equality of outcome. What matters is, is the standard of living for everyone else icnreasing as more wealthy people are created. The answer to that is yes. The rich do not get "richer" unless they are helping the poor and middle-class gain in standard of living. As said, the economy is not a zero-sum game. You guys seem to care so much about the plight of foreign workers when you think it suits your argument, but then if I show any such care, I get accused of caring more about foreign workers then Americans. What if I was to say, "Why are you putting the care of foreigners above the ability of Americans to be able to afford things?" It's a silly argument. I care very much about the plight of foreign workers, but that does not mean I do not care about American workers. Anyways, what you are also confusing is that these are just specific examples. They are not how "free trade" overall works. You might as well be pointing out abuses in capitalism to claim "capitalism is evil." As I have said, China is a dictatorship. They have a ways to go. People go to work in the factories though because the money, which may seem like slave wages to us, is pretty high pay for them. Slave labor from North Koreans with South Koreas is wrong as well. However, South Korea, being a liberal democracy itself, developed into a first-world nation that engages much in global trade now. When companies first were started there, the wages were "slave wages" as well, but as the economy developed, and productivity increased, wages went up. Free traders believe in free TRADE, not slavery. Slavery is not trade, it is slavery, and it is wrong. It is using slavery for the production of goods and that is wrong. No it didn't. There has been no American wage suppression due to outsourcing. Wages have consistently gone up. What Americans did was to start spending way beyond their means. Americans did not continue living ordinary prudent lifestyles, just using a lot more debt to finance it because wages had decreased. On the contrary, they started living lifestyles above and beyond what they normally had. Consumer spending shot up to record levels. Illegal immigration, I agree, does need to be stopped. That's South Korea's problem though. As I said, slave labor is wrong. True, but most of these foreigners work at so-called "slave wages" because to them, they are very high wages. Very interesting, had no thought of it that way before. However, we did still run a trade surplus for certain multiple periods of the Great Depression. And historically, the trade deficit tends to shrink during periods of economic recession. It tends to grow during economic prosperity (that is why we have always run a trade deficit pretty much since the GD). Steal? You cannot get rich in a free-market system by stealing wealth. I mean you "can," but it's illegal and you'll go to jail. Wealth creation occurs in a free-market by providing goods and services for people. The wealthy are wealthy because they created their wealth, not because they stole it from society. If you live in an area with only one major employer, that is your choice, and if the business ever leaves or goes under, most people can find a way to move. No one forces anyone in this modern economy to live where there is only one employer nearby. You are very free actually. Again, no one forces one to stay in a small town dependent on one local company for their living. You can choose to move elsewhere if need be and find employment elsewhere. Then you have to find another industry. If one is at the age where they are too old to be hired by another industry, that is what proper social safety nets are for. That is just a natural consequence of economics. Industries are created and other industries die. But new industries create new jobs to replace dying industries. The electric light bulb put the gas-light industry out of business. The automobile put the horse and buggy industry out of business. They need to go and acquire the skills to allow them to work in a new industry. As said, some industries just won't hire an older person anyone, in which case some form of social help can be used. That's because right now we are in an unprecedented recession. Would have to disagree. If you are living in an area where the local industries are dying, then you can move out. That's what people do. Yes, there may occassionally be someone who is financially bootstrapped and cannot move, but they are few and far between. If not, we would see massive quantities of people just remaining in the areas suffering the most economically. Employers do not have unlimited freedom to choose workers. They have to adhere to many various regulations, and they also have to compete with one another for workers. They are not supposed to use slave labor, although I do agree that certain ones probably indirectly do via foreign manufacturers that might, but that is wrong. Yes, what part aren't you getting though? I said if you artificially yank up the cost of labor, businesses will hire fewer workers. That is basic economics. Yes. Now yank up the costs artificially of one of the things the business needs, whether it be a material, gasoline for trucks, or employees. Businesses are going to purchase fewer of that good (or have to make cuts somewhere else, or raise prices). With employees, they "purchase" (i.e. hire) fewer employees. They may also take full-time jobs with benefits and divide them into part-time jobs which have no benefits. Yes, but we're talking about artificially raising a price. A trucking company isn't going to buy more diesel fuel than it needs if the price is cut. But if the price is raised, it will end up having to buy less. It likely isn't going to be able to sell $1,000 dollars worth of product if the cost of labor literally doubles, because the umeployment rate will increase due to lots of firms laying off employees. Also remember, cost of labor is not the only business expense. If the firm is takin in $1,000 and labor is $300, then there's utilities, equipment, rent perhaps, taxes, raw materials, etc... If they have a monopoly, they will not try to cut prices. If they can beat out a competitor however, they will be incentivized to cut prices. This depends of course, but it is the general course of action in a free-market system with competition. Yes, I am not saying firms would hire more workers necessarilly if wages fell. Workers have plenty of freedom to find other employment for the most part in this nation. This is not any nation of scarce jobs during prosperous times. If you are in an area where the industry is declining, you can move. People are not trapped permanently in one area. If you do believe people are trapepd in an area, then why on Earth would you want to enact trade barriers? By doing that, you guarantee all foreign competition will be cut off and the domestic companies can then gain a true monopoly over an area, with the people helpless because they cannot move in this example. That is what happened with the mining companies during the 19th century. As for unions, they serve their purpose still in the private sector in some ways, but private sector unions mostly became a drag on the economy, which is why they declined so much. They also became tied up with things like organized crime. I never said the management of corporations were good and unions bad. Management of those big corporations can be just as corrupted as well. But that does not take away from the fact that the unions grew very greedy and corrupt and entitlement-minded, No it isn't. What we need is more shareholder accountability and better corporate governance. Yes. Although almost everyone produces things, or else they would not get paid. Producing things does not have to mean physically working with tools and building something. That's a very good point, however, price inflation is controlled by monetary policy and we have had a relatively low level of inflation for the past thirty years. We saw double-digit inflation during the 1970s. That doesn't change the fact that we still produce more than any other nation on Earth, and account for the largest share of global manufacturing. Our manufacturing base is more productive than it has ever been before, but it is going the way of farming, as in not needing as many workers. What people rail about is that manufacturing employment is down and that manufacturing as a percentage of GDP has declined, but American manufacturing overall has been at an all-time high and growing. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 11, 2010 4:40:32 GMT -6
you have a very elementary understanding of economics I'm not the one driving the economy into the ground and turning the country into a 3rd world cesspool, you Free Traders are. Most people always think they're getting screwed when they go out to buy something. Get a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 11, 2010 5:06:02 GMT -6
Why is a gap between the rich and poor a bad thing? That's a stupid question. A huge gap between rich and poor is a horrible situation. Wrong, the standard of living for everyone except the wealthy is dropping like a rock, free trader. Wrong, the rich are getting richer, and everyone else is getting screwed. Wrong, it is you free traders who concern yourself of the welfare of foreign nationals over American nationals. See, the free traders put the welfare of foreign nationals over American nationals. You're a traitor to put the welfare of foreign nationals above American nationals, get the hell out of my country. Free Trade=Slavery Wrong Wrong Oh so you're solution is to get Americans to stop living a higher then Chinese lifestyle, gotcha. And then in your next breath you're going to say, "gosh but we need guest workers." Same thing as illegal immigration. Coming from a hypocrite that promotes slave labor, your words mean nothing. Oh I get it, so in your mind trade deficits=good, trade surplus=bad, so in your double-plus good-world there would be 100% trade deficits. Yes you can In today's outsourcing world, the wealthy got wealthy because they hired slaves, basically stole from society. Traitors. Thankfully with the big chain stores that sometimes act like monopolies, the employers move with you. What's the use, you Free Traders would just outsource "another industry". Wrong, burger flipping jobs replace good paying jobs in this "globalized economy". Oh really, so you're saying outsourcing pants production put the pants industry out of business? After all if it's not made in America it must be obsolete, right Free Trader. What for, you Free Traders would just outsource that "new industry". And then in your next breath you say that employers should have unlimited freedom to choose workers, hypocrite. Oh so in your Free Trade Utopia, everyone should be earning slave wages cause business would hire more workers, gotcha. Trucking companies don't have big diesel storage tanks. What are you talking about. You Free Traders refuse to combat monopolies, so by default you are pro-monopoly. Wrong. Wages have fallen, and unemployment is sky high. Wrong, price inflation is caused by Free Trade. Wrong. You free traders annihilated US manufacturing. yes it does. Wrong. Manufacture is the core of an economy, not trade. Wrong, Warren Buffet never built a thing in his life, he's a money changer. Wrong, Free Trade is destroying the wealth of the country. Wrong. Incomes have been dropping for everyone except the rich, and the price of goods has gone up, specifically imports. Of course they couldn't afford housing, you Free Traders destroyed all the good jobs. Wrong. A tight labor market will drive wages up, a loose labor market will drive wages down. You free traders are always driving wages down, poor or middle class. Wrong. There is a fixed number of jobs, and any job can be outsourced. Wrong, the lowest common denominator sets wage rates. Wrong, NAFTA destroyed millions of high paying jobs and replaced them with burger flipping jobs, in addition to creating an illegal immigration problem. Trade causes carbon taxes, well that makes no sense whatsoever. It's a sign that Free Traders, Free Traitors, are running the country. Wrong, foreign goods destroy America, and they are not cheaper. See, the Free Trader thinks American goods are bad quality and not made with slave labor. Well wrong on both counts Free Trader. Free Traders love monopolies, what are you complaining about, hypocrite. Wrong, Free Trade promotes monopolies. |
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jul 11, 2010 11:40:16 GMT -6
There has been no American wage suppression due to outsourcing. Wages have consistently gone up. What Americans did was to start spending way beyond their means. Americans did not continue living ordinary prudent lifestyles, just using a lot more debt to finance it because wages had decreased. On the contrary, they started living lifestyles above and beyond what they normally had. Consumer spending shot up to record levels.
That is about the biggest lie you've spouted yet. Wages have remained stagnant in the U.S. for the last 20+ years when inflation has been taken into account. This fact is accepted by economists and business analysts across the board.
You might try reading some economic stats instead of talking points.
Put simply: American workers have little in true disposable income. What they did have was easy credit as in credit cards and the ability to use their home as a ATM for the last 20 years to compensate for a stagnant wage.
And that's another lie by you Kyle. You don't even know what drives consumer spending here in the U.S.
You ain't gonna hack it as a free traitor propagandist unless you bother to even get the superficial things right.
It's clear all you want is for us to believe Free Trade is good for us and you will use whatever lie or distortion to accomplish that. The problem is we know better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 11, 2010 15:43:54 GMT -6
That is about the biggest lie you've spouted yet. Wages have remained stagnant in the U.S. for the last 20+ years when inflation has been taken into account. This fact is accepted by economists and business analysts across the board. I haven't spouted any lies. The lies that I have seen quite a few lies spouted though, such as that manufacturing is the core of an economy, that free trade promotes monopolies, that trade doesn't create wealth, that the economy is a zero-sum game, etc...and no, taking inflation into account, wages have not remained stagnant. Household incomes have remained stagnant. Incomes per person have risen consistently. Real compensation per hour has also risen consistently: research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFBI don't use talking points. They did have easy credit and their home as an ATM, but they had plenty of disposable income. What they did was to go on a spending binge spending far MORE than they otherwise should have. Nope. You want lies, you might want to start addressing the guy who claims the economy is a zero-sum game or that two people can never benefit from trade, and other such wrong claims. I do not "distort" anything. And actually no, I am not trying to convert a bunch of protectionists into free-traders, what I am doing is pointing out the fallacies in many of your arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 11, 2010 16:25:46 GMT -6
I do not "distort" anything. And actually no, I am not trying to convert a bunch of protectionists into free-traders, what I am doing is pointing out the fallacies in many of your arguments. Actually, all you've done is validate our arguments, and the weakness of your own, as well as those of other free traders. You've provided abundant evidence as to why free trade is bad for the US, and how completely hollow the arguments are in its defense. You've reinforced the forum's readers of how correct our own arguments are. You haven't yet posted a convincing argument against Tariffs, or the harm from the reduction in imports that would result. Your arguments center around "it's not a zero-sum gain," "there's no trade unless both parties benefit," that the additional money saved by replacing American workers with foreign workers will magically create more American jobs than were lost--and that if workers were paid less, it would help everyone. You've done nothing but reinforce the view that arguments in favor of Globalization, offshoring, and free trade are weak-to-nonexistent. Thanks again for the validation.  |
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jul 11, 2010 18:11:56 GMT -6
I haven't spouted any lies. The lies that I have seen quite a few lies spouted though, such as that manufacturing is the core of an economy, that free trade promotes monopolies, that trade doesn't create wealth, that the economy is a zero-sum game, etc...and no, taking inflation into account, wages have not remained stagnant. Household incomes have remained stagnant. Incomes per person have risen consistently. Real compensation per hour has also risen consistently:
Half lies and outright lies.
Free Trade does indeed create wealth for the company that off-shores its workforce to a nation that pays its workers .50$ a hour. And for the sweat shop owner and his buddies.
For everyone else it doesn't.
Dude Household incomes are wages for most Americans.
Wages have remained stagnant despite what the Fed says. It's clear you either don't work for a living or are a college student because if you've been working class like most of us posters here, you would have noticed flat wages. Factories today pay the same wages they did back in 1985 and worse have much less benefits compared to what they were 1985.
They did have easy credit and their home as an ATM, but they had plenty of disposable income. What they did was to go on a spending binge spending far MORE than they otherwise should have.
Bullshit, most manufacturing and service jobs in the private sector don't make anymore now than they did in 2000 in real purchasing power. Without easy credit the American consumer has little purchasing power.
You need to get a job in the service or manufacturing sector and see what Americans get paid. It's certainly not what you think it is.
I do not "distort" anything. And actually no, I am not trying to convert a bunch of protectionists into free-traders, what I am doing is pointing out the fallacies in many of your arguments
You certainly won no over here. Most of your arguments were fatuous to silly with a not so veiled contempt for humanity that would make a Southern slave owner blush with envy. Even Al Gore knew better than say the stuff you do.
Heck your ideal free trading country would be Afghanistan or Somalia by your criteria.
Here's the thing, anyone who does work for a living in either manufacturing or the service (which excludes you) can and does see the deleterious effects of Free Trade every day. Your talking points just don't cut it with those of us operating in the real world.
Reality vs. Kyle and you come out the loser every time.
We've seen the U.S. because of Free Trade, in the last 20 years be gutted like some animal and it's technological and manufacturing sectors almost wiped out. 8 million well paid jobs sent to Asian shit holes; trade deficits skyrocket; our critical IP worth tens of billions stolen by Communist China and bandit India. Our standard of living drop and levels of personal debt reach levels not seen before.
My suggestion go ply your agit-prop at some GOP website or at the CATO Institute. They'll love you.
But beyond the wealthy and business class don't expect to find a friendly audience for your non-sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 11, 2010 20:40:41 GMT -6
Actually, all you've done is validate our arguments, and the weakness of your own, as well as those of other free traders. You've provided abundant evidence as to why free trade is bad for the US, and how completely hollow the arguments are in its defense. You've reinforced the forum's readers of how correct our own arguments are. You haven't yet posted a convincing argument against Tariffs, or the harm from the reduction in imports that would result. Your arguments center around "it's not a zero-sum gain," "there's no trade unless both parties benefit," that the additional money saved by replacing American workers with foreign workers will magically create more American jobs than were lost--and that if workers were paid less, it would help everyone. Actually, I've presented plenty of convincing arguments, I have yet to see any sound rebuttals though. And actually no, my arguments do not center around it not being a zero sum game or that trade doesn't occur unless both parties benefit, it is actually the opposite, the idea of the economy being a zero-sum game, of trade only benefitting one way, etc...seems to lay as the foundation for many protectionist arguments. And protectionism can make a lot more sense with those beliefs, but they are very wrong is the problem. On job creation, no one argued that companies saving money by replacing American workers with cheaper foreign workers just magically leads to more job creation, what leads to job creation is that TRADE has been opened up a lot more, and trade is what leads to economic growth, wealth creation, and job creation. Furthermore, we know for a fact that is irrefutable that we saw massive job creation since the lowering of trade barriers. When dealing with true believers who hold a misunderstanding of certain key issues of economics, than of course. |
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 11, 2010 20:41:44 GMT -6
I don't use talking points. That's the biggest line of bullshit yet. You Free Traders were all giddy about NAFTA and other FTA's in the 1990's, Libertarians and Republicans alike (who I shove into one category called Neocon). "FREE TRADE RAH RAH RAH!" I remember it, because I was both a voting Republican and a voting Libertarian (only one election I voted Libertarian in 1996). I was also a forum troll in the 1990's (AOL). I heard all the chatter. Now while the Republicans haven't changed their talking points on FTA's, you Libertarians have. Gradually you shifted from, "NAFTA, FTA! RAH RAH RAH!" to, "Well NAFTA really isn't really free trade." Every last one of you Ronulan, Libertarian hypocrites, have changed your talking points to mirror each other. I also noticed the Libertarian Party change from total open borders to opposing illegal immigration, however like the Republicans, they are also for Guest Workers (slaves). |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 11, 2010 21:42:14 GMT -6
Free Trade does indeed create wealth for the company that off-shores its workforce to a nation that pays its workers .50$ a hour. And for the sweat shop owner and his buddies. For everyone else it doesn't. You are only paying attention to one side of the argument. Who do you think own many of these companies? Whose pensions, retirement funds, etc...are tied into public companies? Who do you think benefit from the availability of cheaper-priced goods because of outsourcing? Why should consumers be forced to purchase goods that in many cases will be over-priced and of shoddier quality due to a lack of competition? No they aren't. Household incomes are a lousy measurement for income, because households vary in size over time, across different income levels, and across ethnicities. Incomes per person is a far more accurate measurement. Don't know if you have noticed or not, but no one forces you to remain working in a portion of industry that is declining or one that is remaining stagnant. Factory wages it depends on the industry. Without easy credit, the American consumer has a lot less purchasing power than it appeared they had. But they still have plenty of purchasing power for making their living provided they live within their means (which most people don't). Easy credit and a housing bubble allowed consumers to go on a debt-fueled spending binge, spending excessive amounts of money that they should not have been. Incomes per capita have gone up consistently over the years: bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htmThey can seem very fatuous to silly when many people have fundamental misunderstandings about how an economy works. And actually no, I do not have any "contempt" for humanity. IN FACT, whenever I show concern for foreign workers, and point out how free trade can benefit them, I get accused of "putting the interests of foreign workers ahead of my own country." Yeah that's a real hatred for humanity. My ideal free-trading country is one in which people can engage in voluntary cooperation and free trade. In order to have free trade, you must have a free market and widespread access to capital. All of that requires a strong government, banking system, developed financial system, laws, institutions, etc...Afghanistan and Somalia have pretty much zero of the above. By your standards, we should not allow free trade between the states. If businesses in California see that they can make things cheaper by outsourcing production to Texas, then California should enact trade barriers with Texas. We are 50 independent economies that all trade with one another, and it has created the most dynamic and wealthy and advanced economy on Earth. Except they are not talking points, they are stated facts. What people who work in many an industry see simply are that they have to oftentimes compete with foreign labor for their jobs, and they are not willing to change jobs if need be. they think that their industry should be protected, special priviledges given to them, and that Americans should be forced to pay higher prices for goods and services. A complete and total misconstruing of the facts. The reality is that the last twenty years were seen as among some of the most prosperous in the nation. Most hardcore Democrats who do not like the free-trader types remark about how "great" the economy was under Clinton (they apparently never pay attention to the fact that he increased free trade at the time, which led to the creation of millions of new jobs; there was no "sucking sound" of jobs leaving the country as many claimed). The reality is that America's technological and manufacturing sectors are among the most developed and productive and efficient that they have ever been. We have the most technologically-developed economy in the world, and yes we produce more than any other nation on Earth. And people, thanks to modern technology, do not have to work assembly-line jobs the way they used to, just as they do not have to work farming jobs the way so many used to. I would not call South Korea and taiwan, which do a lot of manufacturing, Asian shitholes. You also are ignoring all of the even better-paying jobs that developed to replace many of these jobs. As for trade deficits, as I've shown, trade deficits are a good thing, which is why they almost always enlarge in times of economic prosperity and shrink during times of economic recession. On intellectual property, well you can think President Clinton for giving them some critical technologies, but the Chinese also do not abide by the laws we have in place in certain business dealings. That is not trade, that is theft that they do, and as I have said, I have NO PROBLEM doing certain things to get them to stop it. There are quite a few Big Business interests that love protectionism. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 11, 2010 21:48:11 GMT -6
Now while the Republicans haven't changed their talking points on FTA's, you Libertarians have. Gradually you shifted from, "NAFTA, FTA! RAH RAH RAH!" to, "Well NAFTA really isn't really free trade." Every last one of you Ronulan, Libertarian hypocrites, have changed your talking points to mirror each other. I am not a Libertarian. Personally I find the Libertarian party to be filled with too many crackpots and fringe crazies. I have never been for open borders personally. There are two special interests here: unions and Big Business. The unions want the illegal immigrants to vote (Democrat as they see it), but they do not want them to work, because that labor then competes with unions labor. Big Agriculture want the illegal immigrants to work, as you say, but to not vote. |
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 12, 2010 2:48:12 GMT -6
On job creation, no one argued that companies saving money by replacing American workers with cheaper foreign workers just magically leads to more job creation, what leads to job creation is that TRADE has been opened up a lot more, and trade is what leads to economic growth, wealth creation, and job creation. Furthermore, we know for a fact that is irrefutable that we saw massive job creation since the lowering of trade barriers. OK. So you'll agree that replacing American workers with cheaper foreign workers doesn't magically lead to job creation. And I'm assuming you'd agree that by itself and in isolation, American workers' job losses hurt the economy. So you must be implying that the benefits of trade somehow create more jobs than those that were lost from offshore outsourcing (since you say trade leads to job creation.) So how, exactly, does this happen? How does trade create more jobs than it kills? Give some specific details of how that offset takes place. How do you gain more jobs than you lose from the initial job loss from outsourcing? What's the mechanism? |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 12, 2010 9:33:07 GMT -6
OK. So you'll agree that replacing American workers with cheaper foreign workers doesn't magically lead to job creation. And I'm assuming you'd agree that by itself and in isolation, American workers' job losses hurt the economy. That depends. Job losses from a drop-off in demand can hurt the economy. Job losses from new efficiencies will not hurt the economy. International trade is a form of efficiency. Just as an industry seeing jobs decline from the introduction of new machinery that create lots more efficiency for said industry does not mean the economy is dying or hurting, the economy experiencing increased efficiencies due to international trade, and thus job losses in certain areas, also does not mean the economy is being damaged or net job losses occurring. Increased efficiency in manufacturing is why we produce more than any other nation yet manufacturing employment has declined. Or farming. We grow so much food using so few people. Trade leads to job creation because trade is parties exchanging goods and services. No trade = no demand for goods and services = no jobs. Increased trade = increased demand for goods and services = more jobs. Also, as mentioned above, trade is a form of efficiency. Increasing efficiency creates economic gains that outweigh the losses. What should be asked is, do the jobs protected from protecting certain industries outnumber the jobs lost from those same protections. An example of job losses could be from protectionism taken for the steel industry. During the 1980s, there was a massive loss in jobs in the American steel industry. This led to protectionist measures meant to protect the American steel industry. While such measures may protect jobs in the American steel industry, everyone else in the American economy is stuck having to purchase the higher-priced steel (because the supply was cut). This led to higher costs for all other American industries that purchase steel and hence job losses in all those industries. Well keep in mind that trade does not kill jobs. Increased efficiencies for production, whether in the form of foreign workers or new machines or software, whatever, can lead to job losses in certain industries. Since there isn't a fixed number of jobs, one has to ask when and how are jobs created? Jobs are created by prosperity. When a country becomes more prosperous, it tends to buy more because it has more to buy with. When it buys more, there are more jobs created for workers producing the additional goods and services. If you take two countries, this principle remains the same. Make it any number of countries, and the principle remains the same. Rising prosperity means rising employment. When countries become more prosperous, they all tend to create more jobs. The question is thus does international trade tend to make countries more prosperous or not. There are generally three categories of reasons why countries gain from international trade: absolute advantage, comparative advantage, and economies of scale. Absolute advantage means a country has an ability to produce some things better or cheaper than another. This can be due to climate, geography, a particular mix of skills in the population, etc...whatever the reason, it means a country can produce a given product or service more cheaply or better than another. An example could be bananas grown in the tropics. Bananas can be grown far more cheaply in the tropics than in places where greenhouses and so forth would be needed. In tropical countries, nature provides the warmth needed that will cost money to provide in cooler countries. Foreigners who buy that country's products benefit from the lower costs, while the country itself benefits from the larger market for its products and/or services. Note this rising prosperity then allows this same country, in making more money, to be able to buy more things from the country that buys their products/services as well. Comparative advantage - to illustrate comparative advantage, suppose one country is so super-efficient that it is capable of producing anything more cheaply than a neighboring country. Is there a benefit that the more efficient country can gain from trading with the neighbor? Yes, the reason being because being able to produce anything more cheaply is not the same as being able to produce everything more cheaply. Remember, there are scarce resources with alternative uses, and this means that producing more of one product means producing less of some other product. Take chairs and television sets (a simplified example): A country might be able to produce both, but not without a trade-off somewhere. The question is thus how many chairs does it cost to produce a TV set or how many TV sets does it cost to produce a chair? If the trade-off is different between two countries, then the country that can produce more TV sets by foregoing production of chairs can benefit from trading with the country that gets more chairs by not producing television sets. Let's say the above applies to Canada for chairs and Americans for televisions. Under such conditions, Americans can get more chairs by producing mainly television sets and trading them with the Canadians for chairs. And the Canadians can get more television sets by producing mainly chairs and trading them with America for television sets. Only if say the U.S. produced everything more efficiently than Canada by the same percentage for each product would there be no gain from trade because there would be no comparative advantage. But such a situation is almost impossible to find in the real world. Another example could be the British. Great Britain hasn't produced enough food to feed its people in over a century. The reason the British are able to eat fine is because they have concentrated their efforts in producing those things in which it has a comparative advantage, for example manufacturing, shipping, and financial services, from which it uses the proceeds to buy food from other countries. If Britain tried growing all the food it needed to feed itself, this would mean its production of the things it is truly good at would decline (as the true cost of producing anything are the other thngs one could be producing with the same efforts), meanwhile it would also struggle to grow enough food. Because of free trade, however, the Brits are both better-fed and have more manufactured goods. Too much British industry and commerce would have to be sacrificed to grow enough food to be self-sufficient in food. It is much better for Britain to get food from a country whose comparative advantage is in agriculture, even if that country's farmers are not as efficient as British farmers. British farmers may be more efficient, but the trade-off is too great, as one country, even if it can produce anything more efficiently, cannot produce everything more efficiently. Or look at say when cocoa began to be grown on farms in West Africa, which ultimately produced over half the world supply. African farmers then reduced the amount of food they were growing in order to make more money by planting cocoa trees on their lands instead of food crops. Their earnings enabled them to then live off of food produced elsewhere. Economies of scale - Sometimes a particular product requires such a huge amount of investment in things like machinery, the engineering required for creating said machinery and the product itself, specialized labor force, etc...that the output can only be sold at a competitive price when an enormous amount of said output is produced. Automobiles are a good example. In order to produce these where you can sell them at a competitive price, they must be produced in a massive output. This is not a problem in a country like the U.S. But in a country with a much smaller population (say Australia), there is no way to sell enough cars within the country to be able to produce cars that can compete in price with ones produced in America and Japan. This is where exports come in. Exports allow such countries to achieve economies of scale that would not be possible with domestic sales alone. Some businesses make most of their sales outside their country's borders. Japanese automakers, for example, sell far more vehicles outside Japan than within it. Countries like South Korea and Taiwan also depend on exports to be able to sell products on a far larger scale than what they could domestically. For many countries, international trade thus allows them to achieve the economies of scale necessary to produce products in large enough quantities that they can sell them on the world market at prices competitive with products produced elsewhere. For products requiring massive investments in capital, machinery, etc...only a very few countries are large enough that they can sell domestically enough of a product to achieve the necessary economies of scale. Even for such countries however, international trade benefits by allowing even greater economies of scale from global sales of their products. International trade is thus a form of efficiency, and like all forms of greater economic efficiency, it displaces less efficient ways of doing things. Imports of things in which other countries have a comparative advantage create losses of revenue and jobs in the corresponding domestic industry. However, most of the time, the off-setting economic gains are far greater than the losses in jobs or revenue for said industry (just as with the introduction of new machinery in manufacturing. It creates massive new economic gains). The country is able to focus more on the areas it has a comparative advantage in, both countries prosper from the trade between them, people can get goods more cheaply (and more of them), which also leaves more disposable income available for other things. There are some fallacies regarding international trade as well, for example some may claim a wealthy country cannot compete with countries whose wages are much lower. On the other hand, the poorer countries may say that they have to protect their infant industries from competition from the rich countries until said industries develop enough to be competitive. In certain cases, there is truth with these, but most of the time, such claims are fallacious. An example could be India. India for years had restrictive tariffs to protect domestic Indian industry from foreign goods. Despite this, India has also had very low wages, far lower than developed countries, and their domestic industries remained stagnant, producing high-priced, low-quality goods. Since easing trade restrictions as of late, India's firms have been put into much more competition, in particular from China. Yet, Chinese workers have higher wages than Indian workers. The reason for this fallacy is that it confuses wage rates with labor costs, and labor costs with total costs. Wage rates are measured per hour of work, whereas labor costs are measured per unit of output. And total costs of course include all the other stuff. If workers in a rich country receive wages say twice what workers in a poorer country receive, but the rich country's workers produce three times the output per hour, then it is the higher-wage country that has lower labor costs. In other words, you can get work done more cheaply because it takes less labor, even though that labor is paid more than in the low-wage country. Reasons for this can be that the rich country's workers are more efficiently organized and managed, or have far more or better machinery, or the industries have greater economies of scale, etc...this is after all why the wealthy country is wealthier in the first place. Now of course the above does not mean that a low-wage country cannot gain jobs in certain industries at the expense of those same jobs in a higher-wage country. Low-wage countries with comparative advantages in producing various things will see many of those jobs shift to them. But this does not mean the high-wage country experiences a net loss of jobs, no more so than any other form of efficiency, domestic or international, implies a net loss of jobs for the economy. The job losses are quite real for the individual industries that lose them, whether due to domestic or international competition, but restrictions on either domestic or international markets usually costs jobs because such restrictions reduce trade, which means less demand for goods and services, which means job losses, hence reduced prosperity of the countries, and with reduced prosperity, there is less demand for the goods and services on which all jobs depend. Industries and businesses always have to deal with various efficiencies being developed, which force them to modernize, downsize, or go out of business. But when it is because of foreigners, it is easy to villainize. It would be like saying, "What will happen to all the jobs in industry as new machines are developed that allow a task to be completed with far fewer workers?" New machines, like oftentimes foreign production, is a form of increased efficiency. Infringing on free trade reduces the efficiencies of all economies, which reduces the standard of living. Remember, the reason high wage nations like America have high wages in the first place is because of efficiencies. American workers are far more productive than workers in say Mexico. So per capita income in America is far higher. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Jul 12, 2010 9:45:30 GMT -6
One can also see just how important international trade is for the economic development of most nations. You could pull a lot of protectionism in the United States and while it would damage the economy a lot, it wouldn't outright devastate the economy in the way it could with other nations. The USA is a BIG country, and blessed with abundant natural resources, farmland, and a population large enough that businesses that can only sell a product at a decent price if they produce a massive amount of said product, can get enough demand for the product from the domestic economy.
Most nations simply do not have the population domestically for large-scale industrial development, or sufficient domestic agriculture, or natural resources available, etc...and thus international trade is absolutely necessary for them to develop. Without it, they would remain as very poor nations, their people living in squalid poverty.
For example if America auto companies could not sell outside of the U.S., the American population alone is large enough in general for the Big Three to survive (although profits would decline a lot). On the other hand, if Japan was unable to sell its autos to the rest of the world, it would destroy the Japanese auto industry.
The only exceptions to this, one that is generally accepted by economists, is that temporary protectionism is okay for developing nations with developing industries. South Korea and Taiwan are good examples. They could never be as rich as they are without international trade (they probably would not be very developed at all). But they needed protectionist measures for their domestic industries early on for them to develop.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 12, 2010 11:38:29 GMT -6
Libertarian/Neocon talking points.
|
|
