View Full Version : Republicans Planning Harsh CUTS To Programs While Children Homeless, Poor
TrueBlue
11-19-2014, 10:48 PM
Child Homelessness and Poverty Are Rising So Republicans Plan Harsh Program Cuts
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/18/child-homelessness-poverty-rising-republicans-plan-harsh-program-cuts.html
"It is the Republican lack of humanity for those least advantaged, particularly America’s children, that Republicans pant to repeat when they take control of Congress."
"In October, 78% of voters said they were worried that their financial situations will continue getting worse while the wealthy, Wall Street, and corporations get richer and richer."
====================================
Yes, and isn't it something not to be believed that despite that high percentage of voters who were worried about their finances, etc. knowing full well that Republicans push only for the rich, those folks who knew that full well continued to vote Republican. That's quite unbelievable and they haven't seen anything yet. Wait till Republicans take control in January then they'll know what poverty is all about. But they'll have no one else to blame but themselves for their Republican votes.
Meanwhile, it is the innocents, the children who will suffer the most from the massive CUTS Republicans have made and will continue to make once January comes. People thought the grass was greener on the other side and didn't like the Democrats during the midterm elections but boy are they going to find out the hard way what not supporting the Democrats is going to mean for them and their family and their future when they come to the realization that they are worst off having voted Republican. Some people never learn until they are in the poor-house while those they put in office celebrate grand style with their extremely wealthy constituents and laugh at the voters who put them there all the while knowing that they do not plan to help them one iota.
Common
11-19-2014, 10:49 PM
This was to be expected but just because they want to doesnt mean they will get it done
Green Arrow
11-19-2014, 10:53 PM
What have the Democrats done about those problems, exactly?
momsapplepie
11-19-2014, 10:56 PM
Is that 78% of Obama voters?
Dark Mistress
11-19-2014, 11:01 PM
Then the Repubs will blame their lack of progress back on Obama and this vicious cycle will continue one. No responsibility, no accountability.
I am growing to hate politics...
iustitia
11-19-2014, 11:38 PM
Your argument is tantamount to holding the disadvantaged for ransom. Vote Democrat or else. I've been very poor in my life. I still consider myself poor. The last thing I want is statists trying to guilt the nation into supporting candidates that suck shit.
Maybe the reason these people will be fucked isn't because Republicans will cut programs. Maybe it's that Democrats have fucked this country up so badly and our economy is so terrible that people even need these programs. Ever think the fact that these programs exist is an indictment on the progressive model?
What was the unemployment rate under Harding/Coolidge when they slashed spending and programs? 2.5% down from Wilson's 11.7%. Turns out, you don't add or multiply wealth by subtracting and dividing it. Basic economics also shows us that higher taxes and more government spending results in lower paychecks. If government programs worked, the real unemployment rate right now wouldn't be 11.8%.
Rather than liberate the poor like me by letting us keep our paychecks, you'd have us willingly give ourselves over to you as human cattle based on false promises and unrealistic dreams of sufficiency. I don't like being used. Not when it comes to being poor, a minority, a soldier or anything else. I don't like it. And I wish statists would stop capitalizing on the general ignorance of people by playing on their fears to pull off the usual progressive milking of the screwed.
Nobody needs unconstitutional federal welfare programs. At best they need jobs will full wages and at worst local charity and community support. Progressivism doesn't help anyone; thanks but no thanks.
TrueBlue
11-20-2014, 12:18 AM
Nobody needs unconstitutional federal welfare programs. At best they need jobs will full wages and at worst local charity and community support. Progressivism doesn't help anyone; thanks but no thanks.
The economy has been vastly improving under President Obama's leadership, fyi. Why aren't you on the bandwagon if you're so poor? The opportunity for you to work is there. Take advantage of it and put your money where your mouth is.
Ignore the Haters: Obama Helped Save the U.S. Economy
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119781/obamas-economic-record-strong-even-though-wages-are-stagnant
US jobless claims fall to 14-year low
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/us-jobless-claims-fall-to-14-year-low/
momsapplepie
11-20-2014, 12:19 AM
vastly? roflmao!
TrueBlue
11-20-2014, 12:21 AM
vastly? roflmao!
Hey hyena, read the two articles given to try to understand things better.
iustitia
11-20-2014, 12:25 AM
The economy has been vastly improving under President Obama's leadership, fyi. Why aren't you on the bandwagon if you're so poor? The opportunity for you to work is there.
Ignore the Haters: Obama Helped Save the U.S. Economy
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119781/obamas-economic-record-strong-even-though-wages-are-stagnant
US jobless claims fall to 14-year low
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/us-jobless-claims-fall-to-14-year-low/
I do work for a living. I'm not a bum. My problem isn't too few handouts, it's too much confiscation of my labor fruit by the state.
And nonsense, messianic fairytails. The real unemployment rate is over 11%. The government no longer counts those who've given up looking for work and dropped out of the labor pool. Obama saved shit. Government doesn't create jobs, it relocates misery and redistributes success. Of course a statist believes made-up government numbers.
Take advantage of it and put your money where your mouth is.Stop taking it and we'll talk.
Green Arrow
11-20-2014, 12:29 AM
The economy has been vastly improving under President Obama's leadership, fyi. Why aren't you on the bandwagon if you're so poor? The opportunity for you to work is there. Take advantage of it and put your money where your mouth is.
Ignore the Haters: Obama Helped Save the U.S. Economy
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119781/obamas-economic-record-strong-even-though-wages-are-stagnant
US jobless claims fall to 14-year low
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/us-jobless-claims-fall-to-14-year-low/
Vastly improving? In what universe? The wealth gap is increasing. The rich are getting richer even as the poor are getting poorer. Wages have actually dropped even though productivity has increased. MORE people are actually out of work now, they just don't appear on the unemployment roles because they've flat out given up on working, because it's so damn hard to find a decent job today.
And before you complain, no, putting Republicans in charge won't solve all our problems.
Professor Peabody
11-20-2014, 12:29 AM
The economy has been vastly improving under President Obama's leadership, fyi. Why aren't you on the bandwagon if you're so poor? The opportunity for you to work is there. Take advantage of it and put your money where your mouth is. Ignore the Haters: Obama Helped Save the U.S. Economy http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119781/obamas-economic-record-strong-even-though-wages-are-stagnant US jobless claims fall to 14-year low http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/us-jobless-claims-fall-to-14-year-low/ http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=20090101&d2=20141231&mean=true
Less than 2% Mean GDP Growth over 6 years of his Presidency. Nothing to write home to Mother about.
PolWatch
11-20-2014, 12:35 AM
we are in year 14 of the bush/obama presidency...we haven't even recovered the ground we lost since they first took office. We've seen nothing but blame games & excuses for all involved...and now we are supposed to think we are in good shape but the other guys are gonna make it worse? Thanx, but I already live in a swamp...I don't need to buy anymore.
momsapplepie
11-20-2014, 12:39 AM
Hey hyena, read the two articles given to try to understand things better.
Don't need any liberal articles to see reality. Why not stop choomin unicorn farts? It'll allow your brain to clear itself out.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 05:45 AM
Your argument is tantamount to holding the disadvantaged for ransom. Vote Democrat or else. I've been very poor in my life. I still consider myself poor. The last thing I want is statists trying to guilt the nation into supporting candidates that suck $#@!.
.
Obama is the enemy of the poor.
Poverty in America is rising because we have more poor people moving here from Mexico and Central America.
With more poor people comes more poverty.
Paperback Writer
11-20-2014, 09:47 AM
I think all nations to a piss poor job of aiding the poor. We've come some better with taking an allotment from our national health budget and putting it towards food, thus improving our overall health. Most don't realise that you Yanks even before the ACA spent more money on health care for Americans than we did and do. You just don't spend it effectively, and you can't really. We have had decades to go down one path, consolidate our records, and establish a system. You're a much larger nation, a titanic sized craft if you will, so to turn now would and will be quite difficult, but I digress.
Aiding the poor does not take large sums of money, but money used effectively. In aiding the poor, even the neds and chavs of this world, you are returning money to you as they participate in the economy by consuming. Therefore, you're not losing money on social programmes the way you would be on environmental ones, for example.
Very few of your programs in the States are efficient. I'm not sure that the even can be given the size of your country. Take Costa Rica, as an example. It is a well run country. It's also small. So is New Zealand. They have social programmes, an economy of sorts, don't fight in wars, etcetera. They're also on the backside of beyond, but you get my point.
Chris
11-20-2014, 09:49 AM
Most nation's helping poor harms them.
But it makes for such wonderful emotional appeal.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 09:52 AM
I think all nations to a piss poor job of aiding the poor. We've come some better with taking an allotment from our national health budget and putting it towards food, thus improving our overall health. Most don't realise that you Yanks even before the ACA spent more money on health care for Americans than we did and do. You just don't spend it effectively, and you can't really. We have had decades to go down one path, consolidate our records, and establish a system. You're a much larger nation, a titanic sized craft if you will, so to turn now would and will be quite difficult, but I digress.
Aiding the poor does not take large sums of money, but money used effectively. In aiding the poor, even the neds and chavs of this world, you are returning money to you as they participate in the economy by consuming. Therefore, you're not losing money on social programmes the way you would be on environmental ones, for example.
Very few of your programs in the States are efficient. I'm not sure that the even can be given the size of your country. Take Costa Rica, as an example. It is a well run country. It's also small. So is New Zealand. They have social programmes, an economy of sorts, don't fight in wars, etcetera. They're also on the backside of beyond, but you get my point.
America has too many poor people now.
We don't need any more from Mexico or other foreign countries.
Polecat
11-20-2014, 10:15 AM
Frankly I don't see a need to have an army of bureaucrats making such a handsome living by administering a "program" to help the hungry and the homeless. I would be far less expensive to just feed and house anyone that asks.
decedent
11-20-2014, 10:17 AM
Is that 78% of Obama voters?
Yes, and we're not going to let them get away with it.
Paperback Writer
11-20-2014, 10:26 AM
Most nation's helping poor harms them.
And shutting them out of the system by sending all the work they could possibly do over to China, who hasn't by the way let down it's knickers to outsiders, just to make a few extra pennies does not? Perhaps, what the poor really needs is for you yanks to remove all trade barriers so that they can watch more jobs sail away as the next third world nation gets the contract, yeh?
Perhaps they need a lecture on what they're doing wrong to motivate them to rush out to apply for jobs at fast food establishments and big box stores that won't even cover the average cost of flat rentals if they should be one of the lucky few to get a non-temporary hire. Tons of job openings now for them to pick from, right?
Do tell what the answer is now, not in some far off libertarian future of peace, love, and bitcoin. Now, what do they do?
But it makes for such wonderful emotional appeal.
Like you libertarians don't appeal to emotions? Liberty, liberty, liberty, give me liberty. Tell you what, I've seen Code and his friends. They're bloody athletic monsters that can shoot. In your libertarian world, Animal Mother would take a software developer such as yourself and offer him protection at rates that are higher than your current tax bracket. Instead of working for the taxman you'd be working to pay off your private security firm.
The Xl
11-20-2014, 10:27 AM
Both parties are basically for redistribution for the rich anyway. It's inherently what happens, programs or not, when you tax the middle class and inflate the lower classes to death.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 10:32 AM
And shutting them out of the system by sending all the work they could possibly do over to China, who hasn't by the way let down it's knickers to outsiders, just to make a few extra pennies does not? Perhaps, what the poor really needs is for you yanks to remove all trade barriers so that they can watch more jobs sail away as the next third world nation gets the contract, yeh?
You have discovered an acorn in the fact that free trade with china has been bad for American workers who used to find gainful employment in US factories.
Then came the double whammy of massive migration of poor people from Mexico to take the few jobs left behind after the factories closed.
why any bleeding heart lib is for open borders and amnesty is a mystery to me.
Paperback Writer
11-20-2014, 10:37 AM
You have discovered an acorn in the fact that free trade with china has been bad for American workers who used to find gainful employment in US factories.
Then came the double whammy of massive migration of poor people from Mexico to take the few jobs left behind after the factories closed.
why any bleeding heart lib is for open borders and amnesty is a mystery to me.
There is a direct correlation in the unemployment rates in the US with the employment rates in China and Indonesia that no libertarian wishes to discuss in an immediate sense.
I've had the old "a rising tide lifts all boats" discussion before. I'm glad that the western boats will be lifted again in another 50 years but until that time what do we do?
I am a bloody British person. I'm a traditionalist, a patriot in my own sense. I love the Queen, I love the countryside, I love our traditions (piss off chavs), and to see it all lost to our wage jobs heading off to foreign lands and the low income retail going to foreign immigrants who never spent a quid in our tax system bothers me.
I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a subject of the British Crown and I'd like to see my people do better now.
Chris
11-20-2014, 10:43 AM
And shutting them out of the system by sending all the work they could possibly do over to China, who hasn't by the way let down it's knickers to outsiders, just to make a few extra pennies does not? Perhaps, what the poor really needs is for you yanks to remove all trade barriers so that they can watch more jobs sail away as the next third world nation gets the contract, yeh?
Perhaps they need a lecture on what they're doing wrong to motivate them to rush out to apply for jobs at fast food establishments and big box stores that won't even cover the average cost of flat rentals if they should be one of the lucky few to get a non-temporary hire. Tons of job openings now for them to pick from, right?
Do tell what the answer is now, not in some far off libertarian future of peace, love, and bitcoin. Now, what do they do?
Like you libertarians don't appeal to emotions? Liberty, liberty, liberty, give me liberty. Tell you what, I've seen Code and his friends. They're bloody athletic monsters that can shoot. In your libertarian world, Animal Mother would take a software developer such as yourself and offer him protection at rates that are higher than your current tax bracket. Instead of working for the taxman you'd be working to pay off your private security firm.
Why is your solution to problems caused by government intervention more government intervention? Protectionism is just another form of welfare, only difference it doesn't go through the poor to the rich, but directly to the rich at the expense of the poor.
But I suppose, if China can do the wrong thing and harm its people why shouldn't other nations, right?
Liberty is not emotional. Where do you get that?
In the libertarian world code and animal would provide private protection in exchange for what it was subjectively valued. In a competitive free market if they charge an arm and a leg, I'd find other private protection. Private protection companies would probably provide their services though insurance companies anyhow for economies of scale.
Free markets beat government monopolies any day.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 10:44 AM
There is a direct correlation in the unemployment rates in the US with the employment rates in China and Indonesia that no libertarian wishes to discuss in an immediate sense.
I've had the old "a rising tide lifts all boats" discussion before. I'm glad that the western boats will be lifted again in another 50 years but until that time what do we do?
I am a bloody British person. I'm a traditionalist, a patriot in my own sense. I love the Queen, I love the countryside, I love our traditions (piss off chavs), and to see it all lost to our wage jobs heading off to foreign lands and the low income retail going to foreign immigrants who never spent a quid in our tax system bothers me.
I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a subject of the British Crown and I'd like to see my people do better now.
For America with a population of 300 million free trade with poor countries numbering 4 billion people means our standard of living is reduced to somewhere just above the poverty level in Bombay or Shanghai.
Paperback Writer
11-20-2014, 11:54 AM
Why is your solution to problems caused by government intervention more government intervention? Protectionism is just another form of welfare, only difference it doesn't go through the poor to the rich, but directly to the rich at the expense of the poor.
And in a world of partial protectionism, open borders for some and not for all is also a form of welfare that goes directly to the rich at the expense of the poor in MY country and yours, as well.
I really give a rats arse if some village in Pakistan is fully employed when you can't walk the streets of Sheffield without being buggered for change.
But I suppose, if China can do the wrong thing and harm its people why shouldn't other nations, right?
That would be what the realist says, yes, Chris.
Liberty is not emotional. Where do you get that?
By all the loving sentiments you espouse towards the concept without a lick of a nod back at reality.
In the libertarian world code and animal would provide private protection in exchange for what it was subjectively valued. In a competitive free market if they charge an arm and a leg, I'd find other private protection. Private protection companies would probably provide their services though insurance companies anyhow for economies of scale.
You'd try to find others, but you might not be able to afford it and he might not let you.
Free markets beat government monopolies any day.
And you'd know that exactly how? Name a moment in history with free markets. I'll wait.
Chris
11-20-2014, 12:14 PM
And in a world of partial protectionism, open borders for some and not for all is also a form of welfare that goes directly to the rich at the expense of the poor in MY country and yours, as well.
I really give a rats arse if some village in Pakistan is fully employed when you can't walk the streets of Sheffield without being buggered for change.
That would be what the realist says, yes, Chris.
By all the loving sentiments you espouse towards the concept without a lick of a nod back at reality.
You'd try to find others, but you might not be able to afford it and he might not let you.
And you'd know that exactly how? Name a moment in history with free markets. I'll wait.
I am completely against any sort of protectionism as it leads to rent seeking and cronyism and corruption.
Interesting, it's realistic to argue two wrongs make a right, and, further, to argue that because China harms its people our government should harm us. Realistic? Hardly rational.
Your use of reality is a cop out. You're just saying my idea good, your idea bad, without giving any rational explanation. Baloney. --How would a Brit say that, bollocks?
In a competitive free market there would always be others. The problem your describing is one of statist monopoly of coercive power. The problem exists in and because of the uncompetitive monopolistic system you advocate.
The free market is that much of the market government don't try to manage, which is most of it.
My position on immigration is this: Immigration by invite only. No one allowed in unless some person or company or group specifically invites the immigrant.
Paperback Writer
11-20-2014, 12:27 PM
I am completely against any sort of protectionism as it leads to rent seeking and cronyism and corruption.
And in theory so am I, however, in theory we could also make the entire world hold hands and sing songs of freedom together. The probability of that happening is slim.
Politics is the art of the possible and what is possible is not free and open trade for every nation. That requires trust that does not exist.
Interesting, it's realistic to argue two wrongs make a right, and, further, to argue that because China harms its people our government should harm us. Realistic? Hardly rational.
It would not harm you to create jobs in your country, Chris. You're being perfectly ridiculous now. Some protectionism would do your lower income class a world of good.
Your use of reality is a cop out. You're just saying my idea good, your idea bad, without giving any rational explanation. Baloney. --How would a Brit say that, bollocks?
My use of reality is reality. You may certainly act the scolded and lean back on philosophy if you wish, but if this is a place for actual solutions then reality must come into play during a discussion.
Reality is an extension of precedence and statistical probability and reality is on my side.
There has never been free trade since governments began, and so we've had nothing for 6,000 years but limited trade.
In a competitive free market there would always be others. The problem your describing is one of statist monopoly of coercive power. The problem exists in and because of the uncompetitive monopolistic system you advocate.
And will continue to do so as long as their are humans, humans with gobs of money, and government with guns.
Chris
11-20-2014, 12:44 PM
And in theory so am I, however, in theory we could also make the entire world hold hands and sing songs of freedom together. The probability of that happening is slim.
Politics is the art of the possible and what is possible is not free and open trade for every nation. That requires trust that does not exist.
It would not harm you to create jobs in your country, Chris. You're being perfectly ridiculous now. Some protectionism would do your lower income class a world of good.
My use of reality is reality. You may certainly act the scolded and lean back on philosophy if you wish, but if this is a place for actual solutions then reality must come into play during a discussion.
Reality is an extension of precedence and statistical probability and reality is on my side.
There has never been free trade since governments began, and so we've had nothing for 6,000 years but limited trade.
And will continue to do so as long as their are humans, humans with gobs of money, and government with guns.
Politics is not about what it but what, as you say, could or, better, what ought to be. Free and open trade is certainly possible. The prosperity resulting from adopting such policies by one nation would lead others to follow suit. It certainly makes much more sense than since the China harms its citizen with managed trade we should harms ours in retaliation!
Protectionism harms especially the poor. What does protectionism amount to? A tariff on goods and services coming into the country. It's just a tax tacked onto the price of those imported products. Moreover, those higher prices on imported products allow producers here to raise their prices. The rich are enriched, the poor made poorer. What a scam!
In all that where were any jobs created? Protectionism doesn't create jobs.
Your use of reality and theory are mere cop outs.
Free trade predates the state. Division of labor, specialization and trade existed from the beginnings of man prior to any state. Primitive tribes even to this day resist development of the state but still trade.
True, "we've had nothing for 6,000 years but limited trade" because of the invention of the state.
Seems to me you're satisfied with what is, not interested in the possible.
Alyosha
11-20-2014, 12:55 PM
I love to dream of a libertarian world but it won't happen without a disaster. That's an unfortunate fact, so I scan morning newspapers hoping some volcano erupted.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 01:00 PM
My position on immigration is this: Immigration by invite only. No one allowed in unless some person or company or group specifically invites the immigrant.
This is the most insane immigration policy I ever heard.
Ethereal
11-20-2014, 01:01 PM
Child Homelessness and Poverty Are Rising So Republicans Plan Harsh Program Cuts
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/18/child-homelessness-poverty-rising-republicans-plan-harsh-program-cuts.html
====================================
Yes, and isn't it something not to be believed that despite that high percentage of voters who were worried about their finances, etc. knowing full well that Republicans push only for the rich, those folks who knew that full well continued to vote Republican. That's quite unbelievable and they haven't seen anything yet. Wait till Republicans take control in January then they'll know what poverty is all about. But they'll have no one else to blame but themselves for their Republican votes.
Meanwhile, it is the innocents, the children who will suffer the most from the massive CUTS Republicans have made and will continue to make once January comes. People thought the grass was greener on the other side and didn't like the Democrats during the midterm elections but boy are they going to find out the hard way what not supporting the Democrats is going to mean for them and their family and their future when they come to the realization that they are worst off having voted Republican. Some people never learn until they are in the poor-house while those they put in office celebrate grand style with their extremely wealthy constituents and laugh at the voters who put them there all the while knowing that they do not plan to help them one iota.
If the Democrats are for the little guy, then it sure hasn't shown in any of their policies. Every city they preside over is full of generational poor people and generational rich people, and the Democrat's two-year window between 2008 and 2010 produced nothing of obvious value to the American middle class.
Ethereal
11-20-2014, 01:02 PM
This is the most insane immigration policy I ever heard.
If you think it's insane, then that means it's as close to sane as you can get.
Professor Peabody
11-20-2014, 01:09 PM
If the Democrats are for the little guy, then it sure hasn't shown in any of their policies. Every city they preside over is full of generational poor people and generational rich people, and the Democrat's two-year window between 2008 and 2010 produced nothing of obvious value to the American middle class.
If they were so determined about "Comprehensive" Immigration Reform why didn't they do it then?
Chris
11-20-2014, 01:10 PM
This is the most insane immigration policy I ever heard.
I'll bet you say that about all things you don;t understand.
Ethereal
11-20-2014, 01:12 PM
The economy has been vastly improving under President Obama's leadership, fyi. Why aren't you on the bandwagon if you're so poor? The opportunity for you to work is there. Take advantage of it and put your money where your mouth is.
Ignore the Haters: Obama Helped Save the U.S. Economy
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119781/obamas-economic-record-strong-even-though-wages-are-stagnant
US jobless claims fall to 14-year low
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/us-jobless-claims-fall-to-14-year-low/
Why credit Obama with what the market has accomplished? I would argue that Obama slowed down the recovery, if anything.
Chris
11-20-2014, 01:13 PM
I love to dream of a libertarian world but it won't happen without a disaster. That's an unfortunate fact, so I scan morning newspapers hoping some volcano erupted.
The problem is this: People hear libertarian ideas and the immediate reaction is a 100% absolute perfect libertarian world may be fine in theory but is unrealistic.
Except no one is talking about a 100% absolute perfect libertarian world.
The point is to move in a libertarian direction rather than the statist direction we're currently headed. More liberty is better than less liberty.
Ethereal
11-20-2014, 01:17 PM
we are in year 14 of the bush/obama presidency...we haven't even recovered the ground we lost since they first took office. We've seen nothing but blame games & excuses for all involved...and now we are supposed to think we are in good shape but the other guys are gonna make it worse? Thanx, but I already live in a swamp...I don't need to buy anymore.
Real median household income is lower now than it was in 1996. The Bush/Obama Presidency has been a disaster!
:grin:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=LU5
Alyosha
11-20-2014, 01:24 PM
The problem is this: People hear libertarian ideas and the immediate reaction is a 100% absolute perfect libertarian world may be fine in theory but is unrealistic.
Except no one is talking about a 100% absolute perfect libertarian world.
No, and that's why I agree that we have to have some protectionist policies as long as we have nation states. Call me selfish but I also don't care about Chinese workers as much as I care about American ones who can contribute to my area, pay taxes to my country to alleviate some of my tax burden, etc.
I'm not Jesus. I want to help people but I'd rather help them at home.
The point is to move in a libertarian direction rather than the statist direction we're currently headed. More liberty is better than less liberty.
And I'd rather start with civil liberties than economic open borders in a world of protectionism.
texan
11-20-2014, 01:26 PM
I gotta tell ya, I laghed out loud at this thread. Not even gonna read it!
So stupid.
Paperback Writer
11-20-2014, 01:27 PM
No, and that's why I agree that we have to have some protectionist policies as long as we have nation states. Call me selfish but I also don't care about Chinese workers as much as I care about American ones who can contribute to my area, pay taxes to my country to alleviate some of my tax burden, etc.
I'm not Jesus. I want to help people but I'd rather help them at home.
And I'd rather start with civil liberties than economic open borders in a world of protectionism.
Hello, lovely. Wot's this with medicine then. Thought we were done with that. :)
Alyosha
11-20-2014, 02:03 PM
Hello, lovely. Wot's this with medicine then. Thought we were done with that. :)
Liver's fine. This is something different.
Polecat
11-20-2014, 02:05 PM
Yeast infection? I should have warned you about Peter.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 02:40 PM
If you think it's insane, then that means it's as close to sane as you can get.
No, open borders and free migration by anyone who wants to be in America is truly INSANE.
Not just a little wackyness from the usual 3 percenters.
But above and beyond.
Chris
11-20-2014, 02:46 PM
No, and that's why I agree that we have to have some protectionist policies as long as we have nation states. Call me selfish but I also don't care about Chinese workers as much as I care about American ones who can contribute to my area, pay taxes to my country to alleviate some of my tax burden, etc.
I'm not Jesus. I want to help people but I'd rather help them at home.
And I'd rather start with civil liberties than economic open borders in a world of protectionism.
So you too want protectionist policies that harm the American people?
Isn't it a civil liberty to trade with whom I want?
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 02:48 PM
So you too want protectionist policies that harm the American people?
the American people are hurt by the loss of jobs and wealth going to china.
Chris
11-20-2014, 03:08 PM
the American people are hurt by the loss of jobs and wealth going to china.
Protectionist policies do not add jobs in America.
I'll repeat. Protectionist policies like tariffs are no more than inflationary taxes that harm the American people. Here's how, again: Say a produced in China sells a product here in competition with a product made by a producer here in the US. The US producer goes to the US government and cries he can't compete, the US government, citing patriot reasons, the government slaps a tariff on the product made by the Chinese producer--note the distinction between producers and governments, governments do not produce nor do they trade. So the US government puts a tariff on the Chinese product. Do the producer in China pay the tariff? No, American consumers pay it in higher inflated prices. So already the patriotic act has harmed Americans. Next, the US produced sees the higher prices on the Chinese product and raises his prices to match. Again the American consumer is harmed.
Why do you want to harm Americans that way?
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 03:12 PM
Protectionist policies do not add jobs in America.
I'll repeat. Protectionist policies like tariffs are no more than inflationary taxes that harm the American people. Here's how, again: Say a produced in China sells a product here in competition with a product made by a producer here in the US. The US producer goes to the US government and cries he can't compete, the US government, citing patriot reasons, the government slaps a tariff on the product made by the Chinese producer--note the distinction between producers and governments, governments do not produce nor do they trade. So the US government puts a tariff on the Chinese product. Do the producer in China pay the tariff? No, American consumers pay it in higher inflated prices. So already the patriotic act has harmed Americans. Next, the US produced sees the higher prices on the Chinese product and raises his prices to match. Again the American consumer is harmed.
Why do you want to harm Americans that way?
We have a $300 billion annual trade deficit with china.
So the two way trade idea is phony.
Chris
11-20-2014, 03:20 PM
We have a $300 billion annual trade deficit with china.
So the two way trade idea is phony.
No we do not.
First off, there is no two-way trade, the US does not trade with China, only individuals trade.
Second, something Adam Smith made abundantly clear, if those in the US get more than those in China in trade, than those in the US gain. Why do you see a gain as a loss.
I see you don't know how to respond to the obvious harm protectionist policies have on American consumers.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 03:26 PM
No we do not.
First off, there is no two-way trade, the US does not trade with China, only individuals trade.
Second, something Adam Smith made abundantly clear, if those in the US get more than those in China in trade, than those in the US gain. Why do you see a gain as a loss.
I see you don't know how to respond to the obvious harm protectionist policies have on American consumers.
Will you please stop with the stupid "only individuals trade" bs.
if you ask the commerce dept for the numbers they will not give you a list with millions of names and transactions.
The basic fact is that America has a $300 bil trade deficit with china.
and that translates to millions of lost jobs for Americans.
Chris
11-20-2014, 03:32 PM
Will you please stop with the stupid "only individuals trade" bs.
if you ask the commerce dept for the numbers they will not give you a list with millions of names and transactions.
The basic fact is that America has a $300 bil trade deficit with china.
and that translates to millions of lost jobs for Americans.
Nations do not trade, only individuals do. There's no getting around that fact. Facts are not stupid or smart or anything else, they're just facts.
Yes, among individual there are millions of names and transactions. That's a fact.
This trade deficit is not a fact, it's a statistical abstraction away from the individuals who trade.
You keep speaking of jobs. Give us some facts, mac, show us some causation. Don't just repeat platitudes.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 03:35 PM
You keep speaking of jobs. Give us some facts, mac, show us some causation. Don't just repeat platitudes.
Most basic manufacturing with the exception of jets and cars has left the US since Clinton signed NAFTA and opened free trade with china.
Chris
11-20-2014, 03:41 PM
Most basic manufacturing with the exception of jets and cars has left the US since Clinton signed NAFTA and opened free trade with china.
It's been chased out by overregulation and overtaxation. See the Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/) for data and explanation.
NAFTA is not free trade, it's managed trade, managed by government, it's protectionist.
It amazes me that you claim to be a conservative and yet you're against the free market and for central planning. Coming out of the closet, mac?
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 03:46 PM
It's been chased out by overregulation and overtaxation.
I won't defend over regulation and over taxation.
But without free trade neither of the "overs" could drive away manufacturing.
they would just make goods consumers purchased more expensive.
more expensive but still made in America.
Alyosha
11-20-2014, 03:49 PM
Nations do not trade, only individuals do. There's no getting around that fact. Facts are not stupid or smart or anything else, they're just facts.
Yes, among individual there are millions of names and transactions. That's a fact.
This trade deficit is not a fact, it's a statistical abstraction away from the individuals who trade.
You keep speaking of jobs. Give us some facts, mac, show us some causation. Don't just repeat platitudes.
Correlation is not causation but it does have implications towards causation. Through observation and correlations over time you can show evidence of causation.
We can run around in circles but we have lost jobs to China. Companies moved their manufacturing there to get cheap labor. Prices temporarily lowered in the US but are now back up again.
Chris
11-20-2014, 03:51 PM
I won't defend over regulation and over taxation.
But without free trade neither of the "overs" could drive away manufacturing.
they would just make goods consumers purchased more expensive.
more expensive but still made in America.
But without free trade neither of the "overs" could drive away manufacturing.
Explain, if you can, the causative relationship there.
they would just make goods consumers purchased more expensive.
"They"? as I already explained it's protectionist tariffs like inflation that raise prices.
more expensive but still made in America.
Which harms the American consumer, both poor and middle class. But helps the rich.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 03:55 PM
Which harms the American consumer, both poor and middle class. But helps the rich.
The rich are ok either way.
Today, after opening free trade with china the rich are being vilified for moving jobs overseas.
before they were vilified for trying to keep out foreign competition.
but comparing the two options I would rather the rich get richer by building things in America using American workers.
Chris
11-20-2014, 03:57 PM
Correlation is not causation but it does have implications towards causation. Through observation and correlations over time you can show evidence of causation.
We can run around in circles but we have lost jobs to China. Companies moved their manufacturing there to get cheap labor. Prices temporarily lowered in the US but are now back up again.
Yes, we have lost jobs because of overregulation and overtaxation. Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/) explains that causatively.
Correlation might suggest possible causation but you run into the problem of induction of you think enough correlation eventually proves causation.
What would be the causal chain, do you imagine, starting from individuals in US and China trading, consumers in US getting the better part of the deal, leaving them more wealth to consume more products,...leading to lost jobs?
Chris
11-20-2014, 04:04 PM
The rich are ok either way.
Today, after opening free trade with china the rich are being vilified for moving jobs overseas.
before they were vilified for trying to keep out foreign competition.
but comparing the two options I would rather the rich get richer by building things in America using American workers.
So like Obama you favor gutting the middle and lower classes to enrich the rich. You're more of a statist crony capitalist than I imagined.
Earlier you said:
But without free trade neither of the "overs" could drive away manufacturing.
And I asked you for explanation. You sort of dropped the ball, mac. You have all sorts of claims you don't seem to be able to back up with facts or logic.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 04:08 PM
And I asked you for explanation. You sort of dropped the ball, mac. You have all sorts of claims you don't seem to be able to back up with facts or logic.
Its pretty obvious.
without foreign competition over regulation just makes goods produced in America more expensive.
Chris
11-20-2014, 04:16 PM
Its pretty obvious.
without foreign competition over regulation just makes goods produced in America more expensive.
And you want protectionist policies to eliminate foreign competition. I think you're starting to get the problem with what you advocate. Just think if you increased competition and decreased regulation, iow, got interventionist government out of the way. Think how much Americans would benefit. Oh, wait, though, then the rich would not be enriched and government would not grow!
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 04:41 PM
And you want protectionist policies to eliminate foreign competition. I think you're starting to get the problem with what you advocate. Just think if you increased competition and decreased regulation, iow, got interventionist government out of the way. Think how much Americans would benefit. Oh, wait, though, then the rich would not be enriched and government would not grow!
I'm for competition and I agree that less regulation is better.
But importing cheap goods from china actually decreases competition since it drives the American companies out of manufacturing.
Chris
11-20-2014, 04:47 PM
I'm for competition and I agree that less regulation is better.
But importing cheap goods from china actually decreases competition since it drives the American companies out of manufacturing.
But importing cheap goods from china actually decreases competition since it drives the American companies out of manufacturing.
Explain that causatively--you do understand causation, don't you? This is third time I've asked you to explain that claim.
Paperback Writer
11-20-2014, 05:28 PM
Explain that causatively--you do understand causation, don't you? This is third time I've asked you to explain that claim.
Yes, yes, "correlation is not causation" but it can be. The correlation within a dataset is one piece of evidence towards a cause. Acting off of observation and trends is what people do daily and with enough predictability to make lots of quid off it. Call it "evidence based economics".
We can see the correlation and its implied causation and wish to act strategically off of observation.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 05:49 PM
Explain that causatively--you do understand causation, don't you? This is third time I've asked you to explain that claim.
I keep answering your question.
importing cheaper goods from china "causes" American manufactures to move production overseas.
iustitia
11-20-2014, 06:40 PM
Mac-7 acknowledges that it's our fault - via taxes and regulation - that manufacturing has left the US for places like China.
His solution? Don't let them go somewhere they can actually be competitive; make them endure government burdens in the US until they collapse.
Because nothing says 'made in America' like mandated failure.
Peter1469
11-20-2014, 07:12 PM
Protectionist policies only need to create fair trade, not destroy competition. Free trade, the way some countries practice it (China, for instance) is designed to destroy competition. Just look at America's middle class.
Chris
11-20-2014, 07:15 PM
Yes, yes, "correlation is not causation" but it can be. The correlation within a dataset is one piece of evidence towards a cause. Acting off of observation and trends is what people do daily and with enough predictability to make lots of quid off it. Call it "evidence based economics".
We can see the correlation and its implied causation and wish to act strategically off of observation.
Other way around, causation implies correlation, but correlation doesn't imply causation. What people do everyday is intuition, passion.
Chris
11-20-2014, 07:18 PM
Protectionist policies only need to create fair trade, not destroy competition. Free trade, the way some countries practice it (China, for instance) is designed to destroy competition. Just look at America's middle class.
Protectionist policies run against competition. They tend to create monopolies. Take the sugar industry for example.
China doesn't engage in free trade but managed trade just like the US.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 07:20 PM
Mac-7 acknowledges that it's our fault - via taxes and regulation - that manufacturing has left the US for places like China.
His solution? Don't let them go somewhere they can actually be competitive; make them endure government burdens in the US until they collapse.
Because nothing says 'made in America' like mandated failure.
You have a vivid imagination.
if goods made in china have import tariffs then American companies can and will manufacture here.
But if you have stupid regulations and high taxes AND free trade with china then you are assuring that our factories will close.
Peter1469
11-20-2014, 07:20 PM
Protectionist policies run against competition. They tend to create monopolies. Take the sugar industry for example.
China doesn't engage in free trade but managed trade just like the US.
And my view of protectionism evens things up with the US with regards to their dumping of goods into our markets. And I would likely only worry about higher end items. Especially where safety and reliability is a concern.
If you are going to ignore dumping on some abstract notion that is it fair, you aren't going to win any arguments.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 07:21 PM
Protectionist policies only need to create fair trade, not destroy competition. Free trade, the way some countries practice it (China, for instance) is designed to destroy competition. Just look at America's middle class.
Exactly.
free trade with poor countries like china are destroying the American middle class.
Chris
11-20-2014, 07:45 PM
Exactly.
free trade with poor countries like china are destroying the American middle class.
How's that, mac.
Oh, wait, I've asked you to explain this half a dozen times already. Nevermind.
Chris
11-20-2014, 07:47 PM
And my view of protectionism evens things up with the US with regards to their dumping of goods into our markets. And I would likely only worry about higher end items. Especially where safety and reliability is a concern.
If you are going to ignore dumping on some abstract notion that is it fair, you aren't going to win any arguments.
Yes, just as the Chinese government managed trade harm the Chinese people, US government managed trade evens the score by harming the American people.
Fair trade?
iustitia
11-20-2014, 07:48 PM
You have a vivid imagination.
if goods made in china have import tariffs then American companies can and will manufacture here.
But if you have stupid regulations and high taxes AND free trade with china then you are assuring that our factories will close.
What are you not understanding? The companies leave because THEY CAN'T COMPETE HERE. Your solution is to tell them to fucking deal with it rather than fix the problem here at home. You don't keep jobs in America by fucking with the people that make the jobs. You make it easier for them. Tariffs are nothing more than mercantilist or economic nationalist attempts to corner the market. Protectionism was discredited back in the 1700's.
You're problem as a statist is that you don't believe in self-ownership. You're basically a progressive trying to protect people from themselves. There is no rational reason to prevent people from voting with their wallets. If business can't thrive here, it has every right to move. Trying to tax foreigners because your country is too fucked up to get its shit together is lazy and irrational.
How about stop taxing and regulating businesses period? Businesses would have no reason not to stay in the US if it weren't for economic burdens. It's not Vietnam or China's fault that American economic policies are idiotic. Before you crusade against brown people takin ur jerbs, try cleaning house at home first.
Taxing foreigners isn't helping anyone. Literally. So what, neither foreigners nor Americans should work? You won't make it easy to produce in the US by raising tariffs on competition, you'll just fuck everyone over instead of just those still in the US.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 07:50 PM
How's that, mac.
Oh, wait, I've asked you to explain this half a dozen times already. Nevermind.
And I keep telling you but it never sinks in.
maybe we should explore the "causation" for that.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 07:53 PM
What are you not understanding? The companies leave because THEY CAN'T COMPETE HERE. Your solution is to tell them to $#@!ing deal with it rather than fix the problem here at home. You don't keep jobs in America by $#@!ing with the people that make the jobs. You make it easier for them. Tariffs are nothing more than mercantilist or economic nationalist attempts to corner the market. Protectionism was discredited back in the 1700's.
You're problem as a statist is that you don't believe in self-ownership. You're basically a progressive trying to protect people from themselves. There is no rational reason to prevent people from voting with their wallets. If business can't thrive here, it has every right to move. Trying to tax foreigners because your country is too $#@!ed up to get its $#@! together is lazy and irrational.
How about stop taxing and regulating businesses period? Businesses would have no reason not to stay in the US if it weren't for economic burdens. It's not Vietnam or China's fault that American economic policies are idiotic. Before you crusade against brown people takin ur jerbs, try cleaning house at home first.
Taxing foreigners isn't helping anyone. Literally. So what, neither foreigners nor Americans should work? You won't make it easy to produce in the US by raising tariffs on competition, you'll just $#@! everyone over instead of just those still in the US.
American companies are ok.
they will take their factories wherever they have to go and make money.
it is American workers who are not mobil and cannot compete with Chinese workers earning a dollar a day.
Chris
11-20-2014, 07:53 PM
And I keep telling you but it never sinks in.
maybe we should explore the "causation" for that.
All you do, mac, is repeat your claim. You have yet to explain it with any sort of data or logic. But like I said, nevermind.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 07:55 PM
All you do, mac, is repeat your claim. You have yet to explain it with any sort of data or logic. But like I said, nevermind.
The logic is simple.
the Chinese can produce products cheaper than we can make them in the US.
Chris
11-20-2014, 08:07 PM
The logic is simple.
the Chinese can produce products cheaper than we can make them in the US.
That's not logic, mac, that's an assertion, which needs to be demonstrated true or false logically. The fact that the Chinese government coerces its citizen to produce at a cost to them lower than what they value says production isn't actually cheaper. It also portents eventual economic disaster for the Chinese.
And then you need to connect that logically to your other claim that that kills American jobs.
Peter1469
11-20-2014, 08:08 PM
Yes, just as the Chinese government managed trade harm the Chinese people, US government managed trade evens the score by harming the American people.
Fair trade?
I will ask the VIPs to start a new subforum: theory land. I bet I will agree with you 100% of the time there.
But in the real world, a nation-state ought not allow another nation to dump products into its market for the sole purpose of destroying our businesses.
Peter1469
11-20-2014, 08:09 PM
The logic is simple.
the Chinese can produce products cheaper than we can make them in the US.
Not by much after you consider transportation costs. But the Chinese government subsidies the Chinese governments to cover a lot of their costs.
Doing nothing about that = free trade to Chris.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 08:14 PM
That's not logic, mac, that's an assertion, which needs to be demonstrated true or false logically. The fact that the Chinese government coerces its citizen to produce at a cost to them lower than what they value says production isn't actually cheaper. It also portents eventual economic disaster for the Chinese.
And then you need to connect that logically to your other claim that that kills American jobs.
Now you are making unsupported assertions.
iustitia
11-20-2014, 08:14 PM
American companies are ok.
they will take their factories wherever they have to go and make money.
it is American workers who are not mobil and cannot compete with Chinese workers earning a dollar a day.
Companies include employees, so no, chasing them out of country and giving up employees isn't "companies are ok." The fact is they're pushed out by their own country. The only war on workers is the one by the state that you apparently care nothing of. You're like a progressive seeking to save the US from boogeymen, except instead of homophobic racists it's foreigners who don't have a pot to piss in (and would have even less were it up to you).
Americans can't compete because PEOPLE LIKE YOU BLAME OTHER COUNTRIES FOR YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES.
Problem: US has high taxes and regulations.
Business decision: Move to country that doesn't fuck us.
Rational solution: Lower taxes and cut regs so companies don't need to leave.
National Socialist solution: Ban foreign competition instead of fixing our shitty laws. Now no one has jobs. <-(this is you)
In reality you don't understand economics. As I said protectionism is long-discredited. Look up the law of comparative advantage.
Better yet, throw out the progressive/Keynesian notion that wages are what decide prosperity. Wages don't matter as much as purchasing power. Which we'd have more of if people like you didn't support inflationary policies.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 08:15 PM
Not by much after you consider transportation costs. But the Chinese government subsidies the Chinese governments to cover a lot of their costs.
That may be true.
It is the Chinese way of trying to take over our markets.
But the victim here are American workers.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 08:18 PM
Americans can't compete because PEOPLE LIKE YOU BLAME OTHER COUNTRIES FOR YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES.
our stupid free trade policy is the problem.
iustitia
11-20-2014, 08:26 PM
our stupid free trade policy is the problem.
You're playing hot potato because you're not smart enough to challenge simple concepts anyone would learn in a basic economics course.
Mac-7
11-20-2014, 08:30 PM
You're playing hot potato because you're not smart enough to challenge simple concepts anyone would learn in a basic economics course.
.
my understanding of economics is as good as yours.
you are a one trick pony who seems to think over regulation and over taxation explain everything.
and you are simply full of it.
Dr. Who
11-20-2014, 08:31 PM
Vastly improving? In what universe? The wealth gap is increasing. The rich are getting richer even as the poor are getting poorer. Wages have actually dropped even though productivity has increased. MORE people are actually out of work now, they just don't appear on the unemployment roles because they've flat out given up on working, because it's so $#@! hard to find a decent job today.
And before you complain, no, putting Republicans in charge won't solve all our problems.
You're right there. Doesn't matter which of the two corporate owned brands you vote for, the result is substantially the same, only the rhetoric changes. This is OZ and the wizard is always behind the curtain directing the players. Neocon or neolib, the operative prefix is "neo", code for none of the above.
Chris
11-20-2014, 08:32 PM
Not by much after you consider transportation costs. But the Chinese government subsidies the Chinese governments to cover a lot of their costs.
Doing nothing about that = free trade to Chris.
You two are confusing production cost with sales price. The Chinese are underselling US manufacturers, true, but that doesn't mean the cost of production is less. The difference comes out of the pockets of the Chinese people.
It would be like arguing that Internet Explorer was free to build because M$ gave it away. It probably cost them millions to produce it.
iustitia
11-20-2014, 08:33 PM
.
my understanding of economics is as good as yours.
you are a one trick pony who seems to think over regulation and over taxation explain everything.
and you are simply full of it.
Unlikely considering my understanding isn't nonexistent.
Stop embarrassing yourself and go take a basic economics class at a community college.
Dr. Who
11-20-2014, 08:36 PM
I will ask the VIPs to start a new subforum: theory land. I bet I will agree with you 100% of the time there.
But in the real world, a nation-state ought not allow another nation to dump products into its market for the sole purpose of destroying our businesses.
A nation state only does so when it is on the payroll of global oligarchs.
Dr. Who
11-20-2014, 08:38 PM
we are in year 14 of the bush/obama presidency...we haven't even recovered the ground we lost since they first took office. We've seen nothing but blame games & excuses for all involved...and now we are supposed to think we are in good shape but the other guys are gonna make it worse? Thanx, but I already live in a swamp...I don't need to buy anymore.
What, you don't want a piece of sterile desert?
Chris
11-20-2014, 08:45 PM
What, you don't want a piece of sterile desert?
Yea but that oceanfront property is priceless.
http://i.snag.gy/xUj1X.jpg
Dr. Who
11-20-2014, 08:50 PM
You two are confusing production cost with sales price. The Chinese are underselling US manufacturers, true, but that doesn't mean the cost of production is less. The difference comes out of the pockets of the Chinese people.
It would be like arguing that Internet Explorer was free to build because M$ gave it away. It probably cost them millions to produce it.
Does it matter that it comes at the cost of Chinese labor? In the end the manufacturing is elsewhere and so are the jobs, leaving millions here out of work. The real question is why the corporate oligarchs would want a decimated USA or any other western country? Perhaps because without a vital economy the citizens can be increasingly dumbed down, enslaved in subsistence paying jobs and welfare. At that point it's easy to control a population. Welcome nations of sheep - all that a New World Order needs. A handful of global players controlling the nations of the world and selling everything that there is to sell, with no competition. A completely captive and docile market.
Chris
11-20-2014, 09:17 PM
Does it matter that it comes at the cost of Chinese labor? In the end the manufacturing is elsewhere and so are the jobs, leaving millions here out of work. The real question is why the corporate oligarchs would want a decimated USA or any other western country? Perhaps because without a vital economy the citizens can be increasingly dumbed down, enslaved in subsistence paying jobs and welfare. At that point it's easy to control a population. Welcome nations of sheep - all that a New World Order needs. A handful of global players controlling the nations of the world and selling everything that there is to sell, with no competition. A completely captive and docile market.
It matter to get facts right. But, no, whether the Chinese government fixes prices, to the detriment of the Chinese, or Chinese manufacturers have innovated to reduce production costs, the lower prices is a gift to Americans and others who import those products, who because of it have more money to spend on other products. It makes no sense to retaliate against the Chinese, place tariffs on those product such that American consumers must pay higher prices--what good does that server, other than to allow US producers to also raise their prices with no increase in efficiency or quality.
How does US consumers accepting this gift of lower prices decimate the US or West?
Does it make sense to hang onto manufacturing when as a percentage of GDP it is in decline:
http://i.snag.gy/DP75n.jpg
(source (http://www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/manufacturing-s-declining-share-gdp-global-phenomenon-and-it-s-something-celebrate/34261))
And as a percentage of employment:
http://i.snag.gy/KwK2Q.jpg
(source (http://lincicome.blogspot.com/2011/02/american-manufacturing-decline.html))
Would it not be better to seek comparative advantage elsewhere while leaving the dregs of manufacturing to the Chinese?
Dr. Who
11-20-2014, 09:41 PM
It matter to get facts right. But, no, whether the Chinese government fixes prices, to the detriment of the Chinese, or Chinese manufacturers have innovated to reduce production costs, the lower prices is a gift to Americans and others who import those products, who because of it have more money to spend on other products. It makes no sense to retaliate against the Chinese, place tariffs on those product such that American consumers must pay higher prices--what good does that server, other than to allow US producers to also raise their prices with no increase in efficiency or quality.
How does US consumers accepting this gift of lower prices decimate the US or West?
Does it make sense to hang onto manufacturing when as a percentage of GDP it is in decline:
http://i.snag.gy/DP75n.jpg
(source (http://www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/manufacturing-s-declining-share-gdp-global-phenomenon-and-it-s-something-celebrate/34261))
And as a percentage of employment:
http://i.snag.gy/KwK2Q.jpg
(source (http://lincicome.blogspot.com/2011/02/american-manufacturing-decline.html))
Would it not be better to seek comparative advantage elsewhere while leaving the dregs of manufacturing to the Chinese?
It's not just manufacturing that is being outsourced, it is everything that can possibly be outsourced, that is being outsourced. Anything to do with support of any kind is being outsourced to the cheapest provider. As time goes on an people become less dependent on local service because computer technology will eventually be imbedded in every product, more service industry jobs will continue to be outsourced, leaving behind only such industry that cannot be done elsewhere. The entire financial industry can be outsourced. As sales become more and more internet based, that can be outsourced. As white collar work becomes less dependent on physical structures and can take place anywhere in the world, it can be outsourced. At some point the only things that won't be able to be outsourced is the guy who paves your driveway, cleans your chimney or does manual labor at your home. With the internet the world is shrinking rapidly. You are no longer just competing with local entrepreneurs, you are competing with the world. This will soon be true of almost the entire job market. Beyond that, anything that can be automated will be. Meh, I'll be retired in the not too distant future. It won't be my worry, but the generations behind me, the kids in school now have a much bleaker future than I faced at the same time of life.
Chris
11-20-2014, 10:00 PM
It's not just manufacturing that is being outsourced, it is everything that can possibly be outsourced, that is being outsourced. Anything to do with support of any kind is being outsourced to the cheapest provider. As time goes on an people become less dependent on local service because computer technology will eventually be imbedded in every product, more service industry jobs will continue to be outsourced, leaving behind only such industry that cannot be done elsewhere. The entire financial industry can be outsourced. As sales become more and more internet based, that can be outsourced. As white collar work becomes less dependent on physical structures and can take place anywhere in the world, it can be outsourced. At some point the only things that won't be able to be outsourced is the guy who paves your driveway, cleans your chimney or does manual labor at your home. With the internet the world is shrinking rapidly. You are no longer just competing with local entrepreneurs, you are competing with the world. This will soon be true of almost the entire job market. Beyond that, anything that can be automated will be. Meh, I'll be retired in the not too distant future. It won't be my worry, but the generations behind me, the kids in school now have a much bleaker future than I faced at the same time of life.
Outsourcing is a completely different issue driven, as I sad much earlier by overregulation and overtaxation
Dr. Who
11-20-2014, 10:25 PM
Outsourcing is a completely different issue driven, as I sad much earlier by overregulation and overtaxation
You'll excuse me if I don't entirely buy that argument in light of the fact that corporate ROI is now vastly greater than it used to be when taxes were lower. It's not taxes per se that is driving business offshore, it's the fact that even with import duty and shipping costs applied, the cost of labor is so cheap elsewhere that it obviates any tax implications. The cost of labor and benefits are the single largest cost of doing business in the western world. There are sufficient tax loopholes and dodges that major corporations can avoid the majority of their tax burden with very little effort. Even if these corporations paid the same tax rate elsewhere as they pay domestically, they are still further ahead because labor is so cheap in the third world and they don't have to pay any benefits or pensions whatsoever. There are no unions, no strikes and they have no labor law to deal with. All they have to do is pay off a few politicians and civil servants.
Chris
11-20-2014, 10:34 PM
You'll excuse me if I don't entirely buy that argument in light of the fact that corporate ROI is now vastly greater than it used to be when taxes were lower. It's not taxes per se that is driving business offshore, it's the fact that even with import duty and shipping costs applied, the cost of labor is so cheap elsewhere that it obviates any tax implications. The cost of labor and benefits are the single largest cost of doing business in the western world. There are sufficient tax loopholes and dodges that major corporations can avoid the majority of their tax burden with very little effort. Even if these corporations paid the same tax rate elsewhere as they pay domestically, they are still further ahead because labor is so cheap in the third world and they don't have to pay any benefits or pensions whatsoever. There are no unions, no strikes and they have no labor law to deal with. All they have to do is pay off a few politicians and civil servants.
And yet the Index of Economic Freedom shows consistently year after year that those countries with less regulation and taxation of business prosper more.
Think about it, if labor is cheaper elsewhere where is that elsewhere but where there is less regulation and taxation.
Think about it, too, it is those countries highest in regulation and taxation where politicians and civil servant are the most corrupt in selling out to special interests. The bigger the target the greater the rent seeking.
Still far from discussing lower prices for Chinese products.
Dr. Who
11-20-2014, 11:13 PM
And yet the Index of Economic Freedom shows consistently year after year that those countries with less regulation and taxation of business prosper more.
Think about it, if labor is cheaper elsewhere where is that elsewhere but where there is less regulation and taxation.
Think about it, too, it is those countries highest in regulation and taxation where politicians and civil servant are the most corrupt in selling out to special interests. The bigger the target the greater the rent seeking.
Still far from discussing lower prices for Chinese products.
Do you really think that America would be better off paying people the starvation wages they receive in China where corruption is imbedded in every aspect of society? Yes, America's corruption is on a grander scale and far more sophisticated. It is imbedded in the electoral process, such that every elected politician is beholding to any number of corporate entities. Nevertheless, your ideal business climate could yet come to pass. As people become more beaten down and grateful for whatever pittance they can earn and fearful of any form of protest, Americans too can become like the poor Chinese peasants working 18 hours a day just for enough food to survive. Will that translate to a truly free market. I say no, because along with the loss of human rights comes a rise in corruption. In order to compete with the third world you have to embrace the reality of the third world. You have to lose the pretence of a civilized society.
In order to do well, you have to lower yourself to being the worst kind of predator because all of the rest of the really determined predators trying to make a living in a corrupt world will do everything in their power to cut you out of the market. Forget contracts and any legal system - it will be thuggery and skull duggery. Much of what you want to eliminate from the system are really the things that make life enjoyable for most people. The security of knowing that you are protected by the law, that you actually have rights and that your life has value in the eyes of the state - the fact that you can rely on the law to actually administer justice and not decide in favor of the party that can pay the larger bribe. The niceties of the western world are a millstone to a free market, which can only exist on an equal playing field. That cannot happen when one party has no rules and another party has a database of rules which governs their business behavior.
Alyosha
11-20-2014, 11:23 PM
China is a real shit hole, I'm sorry to say. The conditions are better there now than they were in 1980 but it would be harder to be worse than 1980 for pretty much any country at the height of the Cold War.
Green Arrow
11-21-2014, 12:40 AM
China is a real shit hole, I'm sorry to say. The conditions are better there now than they were in 1980 but it would be harder to be worse than 1980 for pretty much any country at the height of the Cold War.
If you ask Refugee, they are better than we and Europe are :rollseyes:
Mac-7
11-21-2014, 01:56 AM
Does it make sense to hang onto manufacturing when as a percentage of GDP it is in decline:
It makes more sense to keep American workers employed making products we need than to have them standing around on street corners getting onto trouble.
I remember you are the guy who also wants open borders and unlimited migration with the rest of the world to do the jobs that lazy Americans on welfare refuse to do.
Would it not be better to seek comparative advantage elsewhere while leaving the dregs of manufacturing to the Chinese?
with a annual $300 bil deficit with china you may be seeking comparative advantage but you're not having much luck finding it.
Captain Obvious
11-21-2014, 08:21 AM
Your argument is tantamount to holding the disadvantaged for ransom. Vote Democrat or else. I've been very poor in my life. I still consider myself poor. The last thing I want is statists trying to guilt the nation into supporting candidates that suck shit.
Maybe the reason these people will be fucked isn't because Republicans will cut programs. Maybe it's that Democrats have fucked this country up so badly and our economy is so terrible that people even need these programs. Ever think the fact that these programs exist is an indictment on the progressive model?
What was the unemployment rate under Harding/Coolidge when they slashed spending and programs? 2.5% down from Wilson's 11.7%. Turns out, you don't add or multiply wealth by subtracting and dividing it. Basic economics also shows us that higher taxes and more government spending results in lower paychecks. If government programs worked, the real unemployment rate right now wouldn't be 11.8%.
Rather than liberate the poor like me by letting us keep our paychecks, you'd have us willingly give ourselves over to you as human cattle based on false promises and unrealistic dreams of sufficiency. I don't like being used. Not when it comes to being poor, a minority, a soldier or anything else. I don't like it. And I wish statists would stop capitalizing on the general ignorance of people by playing on their fears to pull off the usual progressive milking of the screwed.
Nobody needs unconstitutional federal welfare programs. At best they need jobs will full wages and at worst local charity and community support. Progressivism doesn't help anyone; thanks but no thanks.
/thread
Chris
11-21-2014, 08:24 AM
Do you really think that America would be better off paying people the starvation wages they receive in China where corruption is imbedded in every aspect of society? Yes, America's corruption is on a grander scale and far more sophisticated. It is imbedded in the electoral process, such that every elected politician is beholding to any number of corporate entities. Nevertheless, your ideal business climate could yet come to pass. As people become more beaten down and grateful for whatever pittance they can earn and fearful of any form of protest, Americans too can become like the poor Chinese peasants working 18 hours a day just for enough food to survive. Will that translate to a truly free market. I say no, because along with the loss of human rights comes a rise in corruption. In order to compete with the third world you have to embrace the reality of the third world. You have to lose the pretence of a civilized society.
In order to do well, you have to lower yourself to being the worst kind of predator because all of the rest of the really determined predators trying to make a living in a corrupt world will do everything in their power to cut you out of the market. Forget contracts and any legal system - it will be thuggery and skull duggery. Much of what you want to eliminate from the system are really the things that make life enjoyable for most people. The security of knowing that you are protected by the law, that you actually have rights and that your life has value in the eyes of the state - the fact that you can rely on the law to actually administer justice and not decide in favor of the party that can pay the larger bribe. The niceties of the western world are a millstone to a free market, which can only exist on an equal playing field. That cannot happen when one party has no rules and another party has a database of rules which governs their business behavior.
You say "In order to do well, you have to lower yourself" and alyosha says "China is a real shit hole" so you all are saying we should level the playing field to that common denominator?
Chris
11-21-2014, 08:28 AM
It makes more sense to keep American workers employed making products we need than to have them standing around on street corners getting onto trouble.
I remember you are the guy who also wants open borders and unlimited migration with the rest of the world to do the jobs that lazy Americans on welfare refuse to do.
with a annual $300 bil deficit with china you may be seeking comparative advantage but you're not having much luck finding it.
It makes more sense to keep American workers employed making products we need than to have them standing around on street corners getting onto trouble.
And, again, for the umpteenth time, that has what to do with trading?
I remember you are the guy who also wants open borders and unlimited migration with the rest of the world to do the jobs that lazy Americans on welfare refuse to do.
And I remember you're the guy who seems to love to lie repeatedly like that lie.
with a annual $300 bil deficit with china you may be seeking comparative advantage but you're not having much luck finding it.
I find it interesting that one of the standard arguments around here seems to be that's abstract, just a theory, in reality. But this deficit is an statistical abstraction based on macro theory and has nothing to do with reality. Nations don't trade, mac, individuals do.
Chris
11-21-2014, 08:29 AM
/thread
OK, this is getting repititiously tiresome anyhow. What was the topic?
Mac-7
11-21-2014, 08:30 AM
You say "In order to do well, you have to lower yourself" and alyosha says "China is a real $#@! hole" so you all are saying we should level the playing field to that common denominator?
You are the one defending free trade with china so you are the one shilling for American workers lowering themselves to compete.
Captain Obvious
11-21-2014, 08:32 AM
OK, this is getting repititiously tiresome anyhow. What was the topic?
Gay cab drivers I think.
Chris
11-21-2014, 08:34 AM
...who participate in Uber no doubt.
nic34
11-21-2014, 10:57 AM
I love to dream of a libertarian world but it won't happen without a disaster. That's an unfortunate fact, so I scan morning newspapers hoping some volcano erupted.
Criticize govt policies while hoping for the worst? Geeezus
Paperback Writer
11-21-2014, 11:28 AM
Criticize govt policies while hoping for the worst? Geeezus
Can you blame them? The world would be better off with a reboot. Most people are daft cunts.
Chris
11-21-2014, 11:41 AM
Disasters disturb the equilibrium.
Think of it in terms of a hill climbing algorithm, in a fitness landscape of many hills. The rules are simple: Climb up. See illustration below. An individual/a group might evolve climbing up...a low hill, A, when there are higher hills surrounding, B and C. But is stuck because the rule is climb. So you need a disaster, an earthquake, whatever, to shake things up, to knock the individual/group off the hill it's stuck on, A, to a place where it can climb a higher hill, B.
http://i.snag.gy/PLXPf.jpg
Dr. Who
11-21-2014, 05:47 PM
You say "In order to do well, you have to lower yourself" and alyosha says "China is a real $#@! hole" so you all are saying we should level the playing field to that common denominator?
Au contraire, I think that there should be some form of disincentive to outsource. I have no problem with lowering or even eliminating business tax, however that won't be enough to entice business back to the west. There needs to be an equalization factor applied to all manufactured goods coming from the third world equal to the cost of minimum wage labor. Furthermore, to disincentivize companies from outsourcing services to the third world, a special tax should be applied to businesses who use such services, such that they end up paying as much as they would otherwise, if they used local services. This would accomplish two things. Reignite the domestic market and make it possible for wages to rise in third world nations.
PolWatch
11-21-2014, 06:05 PM
I don't understand a lot of the economic theory I read here so I don't usually comment on the subject. However, Dr. Who has bought up a subject I have wondered about often. While the market includes the world, we are a major market for the products sold by those who leave. I think they are just laughing at us for letting them leave and still compete against those who stay with no cost. The same for those who move their money offshore but stay here to reap the benefits of a nation they don't want to support. Sometimes working a mule requires both a carrot & a whip.
Peter1469
11-21-2014, 06:08 PM
I agree with the caveat that the US doesn't need to get back into the business of making low-value items. Let the third worlders do that.
Au contraire, I think that there should be some form of disincentive to outsource. I have no problem with lowering or even eliminating business tax, however that won't be enough to entice business back to the west. There needs to be an equalization factor applied to all manufactured goods coming from the third world equal to the cost of minimum wage labor. Furthermore, to disincentivize companies from outsourcing services to the third world, a special tax should be applied to businesses who use such services, such that they end up paying as much as they would otherwise, if they used local services. This would accomplish two things. Reignite the domestic market and make it possible for wages to rise in third world nations.
Peter1469
11-21-2014, 06:09 PM
They are not laughing at all. They are sad that US regulation and policy forces them to off-shore.
I don't understand a lot of the economic theory I read here so I don't usually comment on the subject. However, Dr. Who has bought up a subject I have wondered about often. While the market includes the world, we are a major market for the products sold by those who leave. I think they are just laughing at us for letting them leave and still compete against those who stay with no cost. The same for those who move their money offshore but stay here to reap the benefits of a nation they don't want to support. Sometimes working a mule requires both a carrot & a whip.
Dr. Who
11-21-2014, 06:22 PM
I agree with the caveat that the US doesn't need to get back into the business of making low-value items. Let the third worlders do that.
The problem with low value items is that they consume as many planetary resources to produce as better quality goods with a longer endurance period. Since most goods are not recycled, or even recyclable, the import of garbage goods should be discouraged. It just fills up the landfill sites and costs all taxpayers. Furthermore, such low quality goods are generally purchased by the poorest of people, but since the goods have no longevity, they must be repurchased frequently, thus actually costing more than better quality items. This makes companies like Wal-Mart very wealthy, but actually results in increasing the cost of welfare and other benefits that must be paid by society.
Peter1469
11-21-2014, 06:27 PM
What I mean is not making low quality crap in America. I don't shop at Wal Mart, etc. and try to buy American cloths as much as possible.
The problem with low value items is that they consume as many planetary resources to produce as better quality goods with a longer endurance period. Since most goods are not recycled, or even recyclable, the import of garbage goods should be discouraged. It just fills up the landfill sites and costs all taxpayers. Furthermore, such low quality goods are generally purchased by the poorest of people, but since the goods have no longevity, they must be repurchased frequently, thus actually costing more than better quality items. This makes companies like Wal-Mart very wealthy, but actually results in increasing the cost of welfare and other benefits that must be paid by society.
Polecat
11-21-2014, 06:29 PM
What I mean is not making low quality crap in America. I don't shop at Wal Mart, etc. and try to buy American cloths as much as possible.
Its nice to have plenty of money. Most of us don't enjoy that security.
Dr. Who
11-21-2014, 06:31 PM
What I mean is not making low quality crap in America. I don't shop at Wal Mart, etc. and try to buy American cloths as much as possible.
I agree it shouldn't be manufactured in America, but I would also add that it shouldn't be imported either. Why should the third world be allowed to dump their garbage goods in America where it's increasingly difficult and expensive to dispose of it? You don't buy it, but you do pay for its disposal.
PolWatch
11-21-2014, 06:33 PM
Its nice to have plenty of money. Most of us don't enjoy that security.
I certainly identify with that idea! However, even on limited income I find that saving until I can buy something worth my $$$ saves me in the long term. If its a necessity at the moment, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. My idea of true wealth? To buy groceries and not have one store brand in the buggy!
Polecat
11-21-2014, 06:35 PM
We don't buy beef anymore. Too much money for one meal. Bacon is next to go.
PolWatch
11-21-2014, 06:38 PM
We had 3 teenage boys to feed at one time. They would come in the kitchen, sniff, and say 'are we having chicken, again" so often, they just started calling it 'again'. People looked at us strange when they would remind me in the store to get another 'again'.
Peter1469
11-21-2014, 06:44 PM
Its nice to have plenty of money. Most of us don't enjoy that security.
I didn't luck into it. I worked hard.
Polecat
11-21-2014, 06:46 PM
I didn't luck into it. I worked hard.
I worked hard all my adult life. Never made more than 35K in a year. Didn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room.
Peter1469
11-21-2014, 06:49 PM
I worked hard all my adult life. Never made more than 35K in a year. Didn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room.
Sorry. That would be tough.
Mac-7
11-21-2014, 08:49 PM
There needs to be an equalization factor applied to all manufactured goods coming from the third world equal to the cost of minimum wage labor.
You are describing a tariff and I am all for them.
Dr. Who
11-21-2014, 08:57 PM
You are describing a tariff and I small all for them.
A very special tariff!
Mac-7
11-21-2014, 09:02 PM
A very special tariff!
No, just a regular tariff.
It equalizes costs and prevents china from running all the American companies out of business.
Dr. Who
11-21-2014, 09:10 PM
No, just a regular tariff.
It equalizes costs and prevents china from running all the American companies out of business.
I think that the formula to calculate it would be a little more complicated than the standard tariff , making it a little special, but certainly not impossible. Unfortunately the powers that be are so far in bed with the corporate powers that be, it is unlikely to ever happen. The Hunger Games have a statistically better likelihood of coming to pass.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 05:48 AM
I think that the formula to calculate it would be a little more complicated than the standard tariff , making it a little special, but certainly not impossible. Unfortunately the powers that be are so far in bed with the corporate powers that be, it is unlikely to ever happen. The Hunger Games have a statistically better likelihood of coming to pass.
It's difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.
American CEO's used to think of their companies as domestic entities.
But now I'm afraid most them see themselves as far superior to that.
We still have the largest economy, so the world needs us more than we need them.
So fair trade is possible if we wake up and move quickly.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 08:36 AM
What have the Democrats done about those problems, exactly?
Democrats are bad but Republican worse.
The best option is a third party.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
kilgram
11-22-2014, 08:46 AM
Your argument is tantamount to holding the disadvantaged for ransom. Vote Democrat or else. I've been very poor in my life. I still consider myself poor. The last thing I want is statists trying to guilt the nation into supporting candidates that suck shit.
Maybe the reason these people will be fucked isn't because Republicans will cut programs. Maybe it's that Democrats have fucked this country up so badly and our economy is so terrible that people even need these programs. Ever think the fact that these programs exist is an indictment on the progressive model?
What was the unemployment rate under Harding/Coolidge when they slashed spending and programs? 2.5% down from Wilson's 11.7%. Turns out, you don't add or multiply wealth by subtracting and dividing it. Basic economics also shows us that higher taxes and more government spending results in lower paychecks. If government programs worked, the real unemployment rate right now wouldn't be 11.8%.
Rather than liberate the poor like me by letting us keep our paychecks, you'd have us willingly give ourselves over to you as human cattle based on false promises and unrealistic dreams of sufficiency. I don't like being used. Not when it comes to being poor, a minority, a soldier or anything else. I don't like it. And I wish statists would stop capitalizing on the general ignorance of people by playing on their fears to pull off the usual progressive milking of the screwed.
Nobody needs unconstitutional federal welfare programs. At best they need jobs will full wages and at worst local charity and community support. Progressivism doesn't help anyone; thanks but no thanks.
Also Republican have make poorer the people. Let's remember the idols of the Republican.
And yes Obama has done a lot of things, too many. But remember that he took a damaged economy inherited from decisions of older presidents.
It is something not easy to say is only fault of a part. It is not.
I bet you a trip to USA for me and a trip to you anywhere of your choice of the same price that if the Republican win won't improve anything.
As the said says, there is not more stupid than a worker voting for a party of rights.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
kilgram
11-22-2014, 08:55 AM
Most nation's helping poor harms them.
But it makes for such wonderful emotional appeal.
That is wrong. It helps to improve the economy.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
Chris
11-22-2014, 09:28 AM
Au contraire, I think that there should be some form of disincentive to outsource. I have no problem with lowering or even eliminating business tax, however that won't be enough to entice business back to the west. There needs to be an equalization factor applied to all manufactured goods coming from the third world equal to the cost of minimum wage labor. Furthermore, to disincentivize companies from outsourcing services to the third world, a special tax should be applied to businesses who use such services, such that they end up paying as much as they would otherwise, if they used local services. This would accomplish two things. Reignite the domestic market and make it possible for wages to rise in third world nations.
My comment had to do with foreign trade. You keep changing topic to outsourcing. If those that outsource do so because of overregulation and overtaxation, increasing those as disincentives will only drive more out. Once they leave the US can't reg or tax them. That would accomplish the opposite of your goal.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 09:30 AM
Republicans have not made people more poor. That was government. Republicans can't do anything on their own.
Also Republican have make poorer the people. Let's remember the idols of the Republican.
And yes Obama has done a lot of things, too many. But remember that he took a damaged economy inherited from decisions of older presidents.
It is something not easy to say is only fault of a part. It is not.
I bet you a trip to USA for me and a trip to you anywhere of your choice of the same price that if the Republican win won't improve anything.
As the said says, there is not more stupid than a worker voting for a party of rights.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
Chris
11-22-2014, 09:39 AM
I don't understand a lot of the economic theory I read here so I don't usually comment on the subject. However, Dr. Who has bought up a subject I have wondered about often. While the market includes the world, we are a major market for the products sold by those who leave. I think they are just laughing at us for letting them leave and still compete against those who stay with no cost. The same for those who move their money offshore but stay here to reap the benefits of a nation they don't want to support. Sometimes working a mule requires both a carrot & a whip.
Here's all you need to understand about economics: People act to attain what they subjectively value over other things. That's it. The rest derives from that.
Well, that, and there are a whole lot of people who want to control how others plan and act. A whole lot of Keynesians who want government to coerce how I act in pursuit of happiness.
Trade: When I purchase something I want the biggest bang for my buck. That might well mean purchasing foreign goods and services. Simply because I subjectively value them over others. I should be free to pursue my happiness as I see fit, so long as I harm no one. But you can see in this thread many who want to take that liberty away.
Outsourcing: Say I make widgets. I want to profit. If country A regulates and taxes me more, cuts into my profits more than country B, where would I reasonable choose to produce those widgets. I should be free to pursue my happiness as I see fit, so long as I harm no one. But you can see in this thread many who want to take that liberty away.
The same basic economics, pursuing what I subjectively value applies to any issue here.
And in each case there are those who think they know better what I should value based on some unexplained but assumed theory related to abstractions like statistical aggregation (trade deficit), fairness between nations (when individuals not nations trade), some sort of vague general welfare (no one can define), or just plain downright emotionalism (China is raping the US!!).
Chris
11-22-2014, 09:44 AM
I certainly identify with that idea! However, even on limited income I find that saving until I can buy something worth my $$$ saves me in the long term. If its a necessity at the moment, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. My idea of true wealth? To buy groceries and not have one store brand in the buggy!
Anyone who understands savings (low time preference, in economic terms) is the road to wealth like you knows more economics than all the theories in the world.
It's savings, putting off immediate return, that purchases capital for future profit.
Chris
11-22-2014, 09:49 AM
Most nation's helping poor harms them.
But it makes for such wonderful emotional appeal.
That is wrong. It helps to improve the economy.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
All it does is make the rich richer.
Think about it.
Where does government get wealth? Not from the poor, the have nots. Not from the rich, the haves who can invest, find loopholes, move outside the country. No, the middle class.
Where does that wealth go? The poor and the rich. The poor who spend it on necessities they purchase mainly from the rich. The rich in the form of crony political favors, like tariffs tp protect their investments. The wealth is redistributed to the rich.
The rich get richer and the poor poorer and the middle class gutted.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 09:50 AM
Many Chinese corporation are owned by the Chinese government, specifically the army....
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 09:56 AM
Many Chinese corporation are owned by the Chinese government, specifically the army....
The Red Army was tied to Bill and Hillary through illegal campaign contributions.
Chris
11-22-2014, 10:00 AM
Many Chinese corporation are owned by the Chinese government, specifically the army....
So if we follow your logic and seek a level playing field the US should do the same, the government should take over US corporations. Absurd.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 10:00 AM
All it does is make the rich richer.
Think about it.
Where does government get wealth? Not from the poor, the have nots. Not from the rich, the haves who can invest, find loopholes, move outside the country. No, the middle class.
Where does that wealth go? The poor and the rich. The poor who spend it on necessities they purchase mainly from the rich. The rich in the form of crony political favors, like tariffs tp protect their investments. The wealth is redistributed to the rich.
The rich get richer and the poor poorer and the middle class gutted.
That is true in free market system.
As European, I can say you that you're wrong. Your theory is absolutely wrong.
Europe is the proof that social policies bring the countries to the top. Helping the poor makes that the poor become richer and middle class. For example, all the Nordic countries are an example of this. Finland, Norway, Denmark... in the 60s were absolutely poor countries, they started to care for their people and became top rich countries of Europe and the world and an example of many. Liberal theory, or Austrian theory is wrong.
All these countries ascended thank you to socialist policies.
Even, let's go more radically, the URSS made its country richer. They passed from a third world country to a potency that competed with USA. Yes, in the end they failed because there is a point that economic policies must change. But socialist policies are the right way for a poor country.
And in a rich country a mix of both can make it work and progress. But eliminate the social aspect of the society. And in statist systems, eliminating the social importance of the state is bringing that society to the decadency and the inequality, eliminating the middle class that you say you care so much.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 10:02 AM
The Red Army was tied to Bill and Hillary through illegal campaign contributions.
Can't Chinese citizens freely give their money to US politicians? It is there money.
An explanation of economics above would say yes. But then enter the concept of the nation-state. That adds on a bit of complexity to the theory espoused above. Just a tad. :smiley:
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 10:03 AM
That is true in free market system.
and yet the communist party leaders in the old Soviet Union lived a life of privilege while the people went without.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 10:08 AM
Republicans have not made people more poor. That was government. Republicans can't do anything on their own.
Republican government ;) and also Democrat government. The policies of the establishment.
And I suppose that if government can make poorer the people, also the government can do the opposite. (That is something that some liberals won't admit).
Chris
11-22-2014, 10:08 AM
That is true in free market system.
As European, I can say you that you're wrong. Your theory is absolutely wrong.
Europe is the proof that social policies bring the countries to the top. Helping the poor makes that the poor become richer and middle class. For example, all the Nordic countries are an example of this. Finland, Norway, Denmark... in the 60s were absolutely poor countries, they started to care for their people and became top rich countries of Europe and the world and an example of many. Liberal theory, or Austrian theory is wrong.
All these countries ascended thank you to socialist policies.
Even, let's go more radically, the URSS made its country richer. They passed from a third world country to a potency that competed with USA. Yes, in the end they failed because there is a point that economic policies must change. But socialist policies are the right way for a poor country.
And in a rich country a mix of both can make it work and progress. But eliminate the social aspect of the society. And in statist systems, eliminating the social importance of the state is bringing that society to the decadency and the inequality, eliminating the middle class that you say you care so much.
No, that's true in a managed market system. In a free market system there'd be no government redistributing wealth. European economies are planned and managed by government.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 10:09 AM
and yet the communist party leaders in the old Soviet Union lived a life of privilege while the people went without.
It is statism. It is the corruption.
And the URSS was socialist and by many (me among them) it is considered state capitalism. The state was a big corporation.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 10:10 AM
No, that's true in a managed market system. In a free market system there'd be no government redistributing wealth. European economies are planned and managed by government.
And they work well. Or worked well until the Liberalism started to win.
And Europe is a mixed economy. There is free market in many sectors and in others there are regulations.
In the private market, I don't oppose to pure free market and eliminate many regulations. Only leaving some regulations to protect the rights of the workers like paid holidays,... Concept that in USA you don't have, and it is thing of some corporations if they have the good heart to give to their workers that option.
Chris
11-22-2014, 10:11 AM
And they work well. Or worked well until the Liberalism started to win.
The Great Depression and the Great Recession were pretty much worldwide. Yea, government central planning works so well!
Chris
11-22-2014, 10:12 AM
It is statism. It is the corruption.
And the URSS was socialist and by many (me among them) it is considered state capitalism. The state was a big corporation.
Indeed, government central planning and management of economies is statism. The opposite of free markets. Free in free markets means free from interventionist regulation.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 10:20 AM
Indeed, government central planning and management of economies is statism. The opposite of free markets. Free in free markets means free from interventionist regulation.
Have I ever said the opposite? Captain Obvious I call you.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 10:24 AM
It is statism. It is the corruption.
And the URSS was socialist and by many (me among them) it is considered state capitalism. The state was a big corporation.
Are you saying that communism is a perfect system that is only lacking perfect people to run it?
Chris
11-22-2014, 10:24 AM
Have I ever said the opposite? Captain Obvious I call you.
Yes, just above I described government redistribution of wealth and you replied "That is true in free market system." You're obviously contradicting yourself.
Anyway, argue with mac, I need some entertainment.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 10:29 AM
And they work well. Or worked well until the Liberalism started to win.
And Europe is a mixed economy. There is free market in many sectors and in others there are regulations.
In the private market, I don't oppose to pure free market and eliminate many regulations. Only leaving some regulations to protect the rights of the workers like paid holidays,... Concept that in USA you don't have, and it is thing of some corporations if they have the good heart to give to their workers that option.
Liberals have adopted the fascist economic system of private ownership but state control through regulation.
Progressives, aka liberals, think all the wealth belongs to the state for distribution to the people, but wisely leave the top 10% of the private sector enough rewards to keep them happy and producing more wealth.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 11:34 AM
Yes, just above I described government redistribution of wealth and you replied "That is true in free market system." You're obviously contradicting yourself.
Anyway, argue with mac, I need some entertainment.
?????
I am not contradicting myself. I said that happens in free market system. I've not said that today's system is free market. However it is pretty much. More than 30 years ago.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 11:34 AM
Are you saying that communism is a perfect system that is only lacking perfect people to run it?
Communism is a perfect system when it is not corrupted by authoritarism and it is kept as it should be: horizontal.
Paperback Writer
11-22-2014, 11:37 AM
Communism is a perfect system when it is not corrupted by authoritarism and it is kept as it should be: horizontal.
It's pretty much not as it treats the lazy as well as it treats the go getters and innovators. This is why it's just bloody unrealistic and for unicorn lovers. No one is willing for very long to be kept in one spot. People love to leave the herd and do their own thing.
Chris
11-22-2014, 12:17 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCgg1b5CQ4w#t=137
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 12:48 PM
My comment had to do with foreign trade. You keep changing topic to outsourcing. If those that outsource do so because of overregulation and overtaxation, increasing those as disincentives will only drive more out. Once they leave the US can't reg or tax them. That would accomplish the opposite of your goal.
For truly foreign trade to occur, you have to have something to trade that isn't being made or isn't available more cheaply in the third world, otherwise those third world traders have the edge on American traders. As things stand now, since so much business has moved to the third world, America is now competing with its own ex-pat businesses for market share. As I said, you could eliminate the tax on business and it would make little difference. You could even eliminate some of the regulation, although I don't see eliminating all, since many regs are there to protect the population from the unscrupulous, and you still wouldn't see a return of business to American shores. It's labor costs that are really driving the exodus to foreign shores, although I'm also sure that countries with no rules regarding pollution also become attractive to certain industries. Increasingly America will have nothing but natural resources and food to trade - that and skills/ideas. That won't generate enough money to support the American economy. Better to concentrate on the domestic market and make those foreign goods and services as expensive or more expensive than what can be obtained locally. If all of the western nations did the same, there would be a foreign trade market of countries operating on a level playing field. As things stand now western nations are bleeding money as the means to support their populations are being relocated elsewhere and cheap products are flooding their markets. Even cheap products are of little value if people can't afford to buy them. But rather than making those cheap products more expensive, apparently some feel the solution is to drop our own standards, remove labor protection and let wages fall to third world levels. Well, if you do that you also inherit the lifestyle of the third world and undo about 200 years of history.
Chris
11-22-2014, 12:52 PM
For truly foreign trade to occur, you have to have something to trade that isn't being made or isn't available more cheaply in the third world, otherwise those third world traders have the edge on American traders. As things stand now, since so much business has moved to the third world, America is now competing with its own ex-pat businesses for market share. As I said, you could eliminate the tax on business and it would make little difference. You could even eliminate some of the regulation, although I don't see eliminating all, since many regs are there to protect the population from the unscrupulous, and you still wouldn't see a return of business to American shores. It's labor costs that are really driving the exodus to foreign shores, although I'm also sure that countries with no rules regarding pollution also become attractive to certain industries. Increasingly America will have nothing but natural resources and food to trade - that and skills/ideas. That won't generate enough money to support the American economy. Better to concentrate on the domestic market and make those foreign goods and services as expensive or more expensive than what can be obtained locally. If all of the western nations did the same, there would be a foreign trade market of countries operating on a level playing field. As things stand now western nations are bleeding money as the means to support their populations are being relocated elsewhere and cheap products are flooding their markets. Even cheap products are of little value if people can't afford to buy them. But rather than making those cheap products more expensive, apparently some feel the solution is to drop our own standards, remove labor protection and let wages fall to third world levels. Well, if you do that you also inherit the lifestyle of the third world and undo about 200 years of history.
Right, so we need to discover what areas we have competitive advantage in. As I showed earlier manufacturing as % of GDP and of workforce is in decline around the world. Should we keep making buggies?
America doesn't compete in the market, individuals do.
I love it though when conservatives and liberals are so united in central planning as this thread demonstrates. Much like Resp and Dems, there's really no difference in the two.
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 01:12 PM
Right, so we need to discover what areas we have competitive advantage in. As I showed earlier manufacturing as % of GDP and of workforce is in decline around the world. Should we keep making buggies?
America doesn't compete in the market, individuals do.
I love it though when conservatives and liberals are so united in central planning as this thread demonstrates. Much like Resp and Dems, there's really no difference in the two.
The problem with your rationale is that it does not account for the fact that probably 2/3 of the population is not cerebral, they are people who simply work with their hands or other jobs that don't require a great deal of thinking or intelligence for that matter. So while America does have highly skilled, creative and even brilliant people who will continue to innovate in the fields of engineering, technology, medicine and the arts, that won't translate to the number of jobs that used to support 300M plus people. Accounting for all of the drone jobs in construction, retail and the service industry etc., there will still be a surplus population that will be perpetually unemployed roughly equal to percentage all of the people who used to work in manufacturing. So either they live on welfare, with the State redistributing the money, or you abandon them to their own devices and I guarantee that they will find their own ways of redistributing the money through criminal enterprise OR you do something to bring back manufacturing to American shores, so that these people have some way of making a living.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 01:19 PM
The problem with your rationale is that it does not account for the fact that probably 2/3 of the population is not cerebral, they are people who simply work with their hands or other jobs that don't require a great deal of thinking or intelligence for that matter. So while America does have highly skilled, creative and even brilliant people who will continue to innovate in the fields of engineering, technology, medicine and the arts, that won't translate to the number of jobs that used to support 300M plus people. Accounting for all of the drone jobs in construction, retail and the service industry etc., there will still be a surplus population that will be perpetually unemployed roughly equal to percentage all of the people who used to work in manufacturing. So either they live on welfare, with the State redistributing the money, or you abandon them to their own devices and I guarantee that they will find their own ways of redistributing the money through criminal enterprise OR you do something to bring back manufacturing to American shores, so that these people have some way of making a living.
Well said.
Chris has no reasonable answer for what to do with the other two thirds.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 01:58 PM
It's pretty much not as it treats the lazy as well as it treats the go getters and innovators. This is why it's just bloody unrealistic and for unicorn lovers. No one is willing for very long to be kept in one spot. People love to leave the herd and do their own thing.
Authoritarian people love ti put the feet on other people.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
Chris
11-22-2014, 02:05 PM
The problem with your rationale is that it does not account for the fact that probably 2/3 of the population is not cerebral, they are people who simply work with their hands or other jobs that don't require a great deal of thinking or intelligence for that matter. So while America does have highly skilled, creative and even brilliant people who will continue to innovate in the fields of engineering, technology, medicine and the arts, that won't translate to the number of jobs that used to support 300M plus people. Accounting for all of the drone jobs in construction, retail and the service industry etc., there will still be a surplus population that will be perpetually unemployed roughly equal to percentage all of the people who used to work in manufacturing. So either they live on welfare, with the State redistributing the money, or you abandon them to their own devices and I guarantee that they will find their own ways of redistributing the money through criminal enterprise OR you do something to bring back manufacturing to American shores, so that these people have some way of making a living.
So now you want to change the topic to automation?
People have local, personal, subjective knowledge. It's all we need. No one has more, though many pretend to know more, and know better, and try to control what others do.
Chris
11-22-2014, 02:06 PM
Well said.
Chris has no reasonable answer for what to do with the other two thirds.
Just responded.
BTW, as I said above, it's great to see cons (you) and libs (Who) united on socialist central planning. LOL!
Chris
11-22-2014, 02:07 PM
Authoritarian people love ti put the feet on other people.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
"put the feet on other people"
Must be a Spanish idiom, what's it mean?
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 02:20 PM
So now you want to change the topic to automation?
People have local, personal, subjective knowledge. It's all we need. No one has more, though many pretend to know more, and know better, and try to control what others do.
Where did I mention automation? I didn't. Most people are not inventors and even those who are often are unable to get their inventions to market. The vast proportion of the population need jobs to survive. America is not an agrarian country, and low skilled jobs is what supports the majority of working people. What are they supposed to do, try to sell crocheted potholders, tea cozies and the like on-line to make a living? If what you are suggesting were true, all of the people displaced from manufacturing to date would be happily earning a living, not receiving welfare or welfare subsidies to augment their multiple part-time jobs.
Paperback Writer
11-22-2014, 02:20 PM
Authoritarian people love ti put the feet on other people.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
And lazy sods love to put their feet up and complain about other people.
Paperback Writer
11-22-2014, 02:25 PM
Just responded.
BTW, as I said above, it's great to see cons (you) and libs (Who) united on socialist central planning. LOL!
Central planning is when the entirety of an economy is planned by a centralised regime in the middle. Protectionism is a national policy that by no means can predict results or distribute goods, it simply seeks to elevate and favour the industry of the mother country over that of others.
Libertarians have a distinctly global viewpoint that the rest of the world does not.
I want the UK to do well. I want to have an economy which favours my countrymen and provides jobs for my workers and that is possible if we are able to strategically maneuver trade to our advantage. Yes, the rich will be rewarded. They always are to the detriment of the poor, but I'd rather have the poor at least have the opportunity of jobs in their own country.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 02:38 PM
People have local, personal, subjective knowledge. It's all we need. No one has more, though many pretend to know more, and know better, and try to control what others do.
So why aren't the poor people rich?
And don't tell me its because the mean, evil repubicrats won't let them.
Cause if they've got all that raw talent they would have overcome that hurdle by now.
Chris
11-22-2014, 02:42 PM
Where did I mention automation? I didn't. Most people are not inventors and even those who are often are unable to get their inventions to market. The vast proportion of the population need jobs to survive. America is not an agrarian country, and low skilled jobs is what supports the majority of working people. What are they supposed to do, try to sell crocheted potholders, tea cozies and the like on-line to make a living? If what you are suggesting were true, all of the people displaced from manufacturing to date would be happily earning a living, not receiving welfare or welfare subsidies to augment their multiple part-time jobs.
That's where you went. who, automation. Your response had nothing to do with trade. It's automation will affect "The vast proportion of the population".
Chris
11-22-2014, 02:45 PM
Central planning is when the entirety of an economy is planned by a centralised regime in the middle. Protectionism is a national policy that by no means can predict results or distribute goods, it simply seeks to elevate and favour the industry of the mother country over that of others.
Libertarians have a distinctly global viewpoint that the rest of the world does not.
I want the UK to do well. I want to have an economy which favours my countrymen and provides jobs for my workers and that is possible if we are able to strategically maneuver trade to our advantage. Yes, the rich will be rewarded. They always are to the detriment of the poor, but I'd rather have the poor at least have the opportunity of jobs in their own country.
Again, paper, you stretch what's said to extremes and then criticize your stretching. It's a matter of degrees, how much, not absolutes. Central planning is any planning by government and that includes protectionism.
Libertarians have a distinctly global viewpoint that the rest of the world does not.
Yes, it's realistic. :D
I want the UK to do well....
The UK doesn't trade, only tries to manage the trade of individual British citizens.
I'd rather have the poor at least have the opportunity of jobs in their own country.
And the connection of trade to that is what? No one has articulated this yet.
Chris
11-22-2014, 02:47 PM
So why aren't the poor people rich?
And don't tell me its because the mean, evil repubicrats won't let them.
Cause if they've got all that raw talent they would have overcome that hurdle by now.
Why? Because people are not naturally equal in physical, mental, social skills and abilities. And luck.
Not sure what this has to do with the topic though.
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 03:04 PM
That's where you went. who, automation. Your response had nothing to do with trade. It's automation will affect "The vast proportion of the population".
Sigh. I never used the word automation once and I wasn't even considering it in my argument. We've already had the automation argument several times.
In order for trade to support the economy, which is the focus of this argument, there has to be an equal playing field. So long as that playing field is increasingly becoming unequal, America will increasingly suffer from trade deficit. Whatever is invented in the US will eventually be copied by third world concerns and sold back to Americans for less money. You can try to sue them for patent infringement, but you won't get very far. That only works in nations that respect the laws of other nations. That trade deficit is only compounded by American business that moves manufacturing off shore and/or employs the services of third world enterprise.
Now if you don't give a rat's behind about the economy and your argument is that some people will still do well in this trade environment, I don't deny that some will, but the vast majority of people will increasingly become poorer and the economy will likely eventually collapse and so likely will the union of the States. What arises in place of the former US of A is anyone's guess, but it's likely that you'll have the third world trade environment that supports the growth of new industry and makes robber barons very wealthy. As long as you can hold your nose and ignore the collateral damage.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 03:05 PM
Why? Because people are not naturally equal in physical, mental, social skills and abilities. And luck.
Not sure what this has to do with the topic though.
Your stupid idea of comparative advantage between china and the US is the connection.
We exported jobs to china and imported cheap junk from china and that is killing the living standards for the bottom 2/3 in America.
Chris
11-22-2014, 03:12 PM
Your stupid idea of comparative advantage between china and the US is the connection.
We exported jobs to china and imported cheap junk from china and that is killing the living standards for the bottom 2/3 in America.
My stupid idea? Thought you earlier claimed to know something about economics. The idea comes from Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations:
...What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, no more than that of the above-mentioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is certainly not employed to the greatest advantage when it is thus directed towards an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make. The value of its annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce. According to the supposition, that commodity could be purchased from foreign countries cheaper than it can be made at home. It could, therefore, have been purchased with a part only of the commodities, or, what is the same thing, with a part only of the price of the commodities, which the industry employed by an equal capital would have produced at home, had it been left to follow its natural course. The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation.
By means of such regulations, indeed, a particular manufacture may sometimes be acquired sooner than it could have been otherwise, and after a certain time may be made at home as cheap or cheaper than in the foreign country. But though the industry of the society may be thus carried with advantage into a particular channel sooner than it could have been otherwise, it will by no means follow that the sum total, either of its industry, or of its revenue, can ever be augmented by any such regulation. The industry of the society can augment only in proportion as its capital augments, and its capital can augment only in proportion to what can be gradually saved out of its revenue. But the immediate effect of every such regulation is to diminish its revenue, and what diminishes its revenue is certainly not very likely to augment its capital faster than it would have augmented of its own accord had both capital and industry been left to find out their natural employments.
Though for want of such regulations the society should never acquire the proposed manufacture, it would not, upon that account, necessarily be the poorer in any one period of its duration. In every period of its duration its whole capital and industry might still have been employed, though upon different objects, in the manner that was most advantageous at the time. In every period its revenue might have been the greatest which its capital could afford, and both capital and revenue might have been augmented*42 with the greatest possible rapidity....
We have not exported jobs. We haven't imported junk. Trade benefits all Americans.
Chris
11-22-2014, 03:14 PM
Sigh. I never used the word automation once and I wasn't even considering it in my argument. We've already had the automation argument several times.
In order for trade to support the economy, which is the focus of this argument, there has to be an equal playing field. So long as that playing field is increasingly becoming unequal, America will increasingly suffer from trade deficit. Whatever is invented in the US will eventually be copied by third world concerns and sold back to Americans for less money. You can try to sue them for patent infringement, but you won't get very far. That only works in nations that respect the laws of other nations. That trade deficit is only compounded by American business that moves manufacturing off shore and/or employs the services of third world enterprise.
Now if you don't give a rat's behind about the economy and your argument is that some people will still do well in this trade environment, I don't deny that some will, but the vast majority of people will increasingly become poorer and the economy will likely eventually collapse and so likely will the union of the States. What arises in place of the former US of A is anyone's guess, but it's likely that you'll have the third world trade environment that supports the growth of new industry and makes robber barons very wealthy. As long as you can hold your nose and ignore the collateral damage.
But trade doesn't affect jobs, who, not in the way you imagine, while automation might.
Now you jump to robber barons. Sigh is right.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 03:31 PM
My stupid idea? Thought you earlier claimed to know something about economics. The idea comes from Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations:
We have not exported jobs. We haven't imported junk. Trade benefits all Americans.
Nowhere did Smith say that comparative advantage applies to every situation.
in his day the economies of Europe were roughly equal and living standards not very different.
But I doubt if he would say that it was a good idea for a rich country like America with 300 million people to merge our standard of living with a poor country like china with four times the population.
We are seeing a massive wealth transfer from the US to china thanks to your free trade ideas.
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 03:38 PM
But trade doesn't affect jobs, who, not in the way you imagine, while automation might.
Now you jump to robber barons. Sigh is right.
Trade doesn't affect jobs? Since when? :huh: If trade doesn't affect jobs, why are politicians running around the world working out trade agreements and trying to find markets for American goods and services? It's because international trade is critical to creating markets for goods and services that in turn create jobs for the people who manufacture and or provide those services, which in turn supports the economy. Unfortunately some politicians along the way decided that all trade should be free. Hence the development of the unequal playing field where countries like Mexico that have third world labor rates suddenly become an attractive new home for business to relocate, pay a pittance for labor and still enjoy free access to the American market. No doubt the impetus behind this free trade notion came from the big global players who wanted the best of all possible worlds, with no consideration for human welfare, just profits.
Chris
11-22-2014, 03:44 PM
Trade doesn't affect jobs? Since when? :huh: If trade doesn't affect jobs, why are politicians running around the world working out trade agreements and trying to find markets for American goods and services? It's because international trade is critical to creating markets for goods and services that in turn create jobs for the people who manufacture and or provide those services, which in turn supports the economy. Unfortunately some politicians along the way decided that all trade should be free. Hence the development of the unequal playing field where countries like Mexico that have third world labor rates suddenly become an attractive new home for business to relocate, pay a pittance for labor and still enjoy free access to the American market. No doubt the impetus behind this free trade notion came from the big global players who wanted the best of all possible worlds, with no consideration for human welfare, just profits.
Because politicians think like you all, they want to control, not leave people to their liberty.
You're the nth person to claim direct relationship between trade with China and job loss. You're also the nth person to not establish any link.
It's because international trade is critical to creating markets for goods and services that in turn create jobs for the people who manufacture and or provide those services, which in turn supports the economy.
Then support free trade rather than advocate restricting it.
BTW, now you're arguing what I argue.
Unfortunately some politicians along the way decided that all trade should be free.
Who? --And please dont confused the managed trade that comes from trade agreements with free trade.
Chris
11-22-2014, 03:45 PM
Nowhere did Smith say that comparative advantage applies to every situation.
in his day the economies of Europe were roughly equal and living standards not very different.
But I doubt if he would say that it was a good idea for a rich country like America with 300 million people to merge our standard of living with a poor country like china with four times the population.
We are seeing a massive wealth transfer from the US to china thanks to your free trade ideas.
And the basis of any of that is what, mac, besides, I mean, your mere uninformed opinion.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 03:53 PM
And the basis of any of that is what, mac, besides, I mean, your mere uninformed opinion.
We know comparative advantage does not work for America compared to china because of our $300 bil trade deficit.
your trade policy is bleeding America dry.
Chris
11-22-2014, 03:59 PM
We know comparative advantage does not work for America compared to china because of our $300 bil trade deficit.
your trade policy is bleeding America dry.
Talk to Adam Smith about this matter of comparative advantage that you just now learned about, mac. You still got a lot of learning to do. Smith didn't advocate competitive advange, he described what works and called it that.
your trade policy is bleeding America dry.
Data?
Chris
11-22-2014, 04:09 PM
Trade stimulates economic growth, and that can be good news for employment (http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/10ben_e/10b07_e.htm)
Trade clearly has the potential to create jobs. In practice there is often factual evidence that lower trade barriers have been good for employment. But the picture is complicated by a number of factors. Nevertheless, the alternative — protectionism — is not the way to tackle employment problems.
The Free-Trade Way to Job Growth (http://online.wsj.com/articles/matthew-j-slaughter-the-free-trade-way-to-job-growth-1412250623)
...To many, trade connotes manufacturing exports stamped 100% "Made in America," but trade and trade-connected jobs today are much more diverse. Nearly a third of all U.S. exports this year will be services—everything from higher education to software to tourism. In 2013 America ran its 20th consecutive surplus in services trade with the rest of the world, a record $231.3 billion driven by a record $699.4 billion in services exports according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Exports of goods and services alike are increasingly produced in global supply networks in which companies locate different tasks in different countries linked by trade and investment. The foreign content of U.S. exports has tripled in 40 years, rising from 7% in 1970 to about 23% today, according to a study by Robert C. Johnson and Guillermo Noguera.
In 2011 multinational companies purchased nearly $9 trillion in intermediate inputs from other companies in America—including approximately $1.5 trillion from U.S. small businesses that employ 500 people or fewer. Thus does the supply chain connect even more American jobs to trade. Looking for job creation only in exporters and importers misses the reality that their opportunities often catalyze job creation in supplier companies....
The truth of the matter though is here, trade doesn't create jobs directly, it, as Adam Smith argued, generates wealth, which in tern creates jobs:
The Blessings of Free Trade (http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-briefing-paper/blessings-free-trade)
...This is what I want to talk about today. In the din over trade—NAFTA, WTO, fast track, and the rest—the true and best arguments for trade have not been heard. I believe there are two of those arguments—one is extremely powerful and has been made cogently by economists for more than 200 years; the other is a briefer argument from principle. Neither of these arguments has a thing to do with jobs, jobs, jobs—or exports, exports, exports.
...“Free trade does not create jobs,” writes Melvyn Krauss of the Hoover Institution in How Nations Grow Rich, his excellent book on trade. Instead, “it creates income for the community by reallocating jobs and capital from lower-productivity to higher-productivity sectors of the economy.” In other words, trade allows us to concentrate on what we do best. It may kill jobs in the textile industry, which is labor intensive, but breed jobs in electronics, where ingenious Americans have a “comparative advantage,” in the famous phrase used by David Ricardo in 1817.
...It’s not necessary to go into fancy economic discussions to understand why we trade. We trade for imports. This is the first of two thoughts I want to leave you with today: not exports, imports.
No one said it better than Adam Smith more than 200 years ago: “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy… . If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them.”
...Milton and Rose Friedman wrote years ago: A “fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports are bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports.”
In exchange for imports, we offer other countries the things we produce cheaper or better: computers, chickens, movies, power generators....
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 04:10 PM
Because politicians think like you all, they want to control, not leave people to their liberty.
You're the nth person to claim direct relationship between trade with China and job loss. You're also the nth person to not establish any link.
Then support free trade rather than advocate restricting it.
BTW, now you're arguing what I argue.
Who? --And please dont confused the managed trade that comes from trade agreements with free trade.
You ignore the elephant in the room. If company A in America makes widgets and has to pay minimum wage to his employees cost of production is going to be higher than company B located in the the Peoples Republic of China who is only paying his employees pennies. Hence company B's products will be more competitive than company A. Unless the tariffs for importing company B's products into America at least equalize the cost imbalance, company A will soon be driven out of business, even if his product is better made. Without methods of equalizing the cost imbalance, America will always be on the losing end of trade.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 04:15 PM
Data?
We have a $300 billion trade deficit with China and $1.2 bil overall.
Professor Peabody
11-22-2014, 04:27 PM
Child Homelessness and Poverty Are Rising So Republicans Plan Harsh Program Cuts http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/18/child-homelessness-poverty-rising-republicans-plan-harsh-program-cuts.html ==================================== Yes, and isn't it something not to be believed that despite that high percentage of voters who were worried about their finances, etc. knowing full well that Republicans push only for the rich, those folks who knew that full well continued to vote Republican. That's quite unbelievable and they haven't seen anything yet. Wait till Republicans take control in January then they'll know what poverty is all about. But they'll have no one else to blame but themselves for their Republican votes. Meanwhile, it is the innocents, the children who will suffer the most from the massive CUTS Republicans have made and will continue to make once January comes. People thought the grass was greener on the other side and didn't like the Democrats during the midterm elections but boy are they going to find out the hard way what not supporting the Democrats is going to mean for them and their family and their future when they come to the realization that they are worst off having voted Republican. Some people never learn until they are in the poor-house while those they put in office celebrate grand style with their extremely wealthy constituents and laugh at the voters who put them there all the while knowing that they do not plan to help them one iota. Your first problem is reading the crapola spewed by left wing propaganda websites.
Chris
11-22-2014, 04:56 PM
You ignore the elephant in the room. If company A in America makes widgets and has to pay minimum wage to his employees cost of production is going to be higher than company B located in the the Peoples Republic of China who is only paying his employees pennies. Hence company B's products will be more competitive than company A. Unless the tariffs for importing company B's products into America at least equalize the cost imbalance, company A will soon be driven out of business, even if his product is better made. Without methods of equalizing the cost imbalance, America will always be on the losing end of trade.
Transportation costs are higher.
Don't compete with more cheaply made products elsewhere, find our competitive advantages.
Chris
11-22-2014, 04:58 PM
We have a $300 billion trade deficit with China and $1.2 bil overall.
That theoretical abstraction is not data and doesn't support your claim.
Trade among individuals (remember, contries don't trade, individuals do) comes in two forms, exchange of goods, outright purchases. The latter with US dollars redeemable only in the US, so they come home eventually in the purchase of US goods.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 05:32 PM
That theoretical abstraction is not data and doesn't support your claim.
Trade among individuals (remember, contries don't trade, individuals do) comes in two forms, exchange of goods, outright purchases. The latter with US dollars redeemable only in the US, so they come home eventually in the purchase of US goods.
Countries do trade in spite of what you think.
We sent our jobs to china and they gave us cheap cell phone in trade.
Now those phones are obsolete and we are giving China the city of Detroit in exchange for the next generation of cheap cell phones.
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 05:40 PM
People are also not an abstraction. They depend on trade for employment and it's not just individuals who trade, it's more often corporations (I'll skip the legal nonsense of corporations being individuals). The cost of shipping is significant on large/heavy trade goods like cars and large machinery, not so much on smaller items which may nevertheless be expensive to produce. What has happened to the North American steel industry? Apparently it's not too expensive to ship crushed demolished cars and the like to places like Japan where it can be turned back into cars or refrigerators. It also doesn't appear to be too expensive to ship sheet steel from China to elsewhere for manufacture into products. How is it that GM can buy imported steel for less than it can be made in N. America? How is it that raw materials can be shipped from N. America to be returned as manufactured goods? It should be of interest to you that the American Iron and Steel Institute website has the following caption: A more effective U.S. trade policy is needed to level the playing field as well as preserve and strengthen our nation’s manufacturing basehttp://www.steel.org/About%20AISI/Statistics.aspx
From the same website:
Since 2000, 5.6 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost because of the lack of aggressive policies to promote manufacturing here in America. A concerted pro-manufacturing policy agenda is needed to reverse this troubling trend.
To meet these critical goals, the North American steel industry strongly supports the implementation of a national pro-manufacturing agenda to ensure U.S. manufacturers are able to compete in today’s global economy. The key aspects of this vision are presented in our 2014 Public Policy Agenda.
The United States cannot continue to lose its manufacturing base due to market distorting foreign competition or government policies that discourage domestic investment in productive capacity. Should this happen, millions of additional jobs would be lost and our economic strength as a nation would be further damaged. In addition, the U.S. military and our civilian national security agencies would lose their principal source of strategic materials and our nation would become dangerously dependent upon foreign sources of supply.
Industry Position: Steel and other manufacturers in the U.S. are facing significant trade and competitiveness challenges from foreign government trade-distorting policies and practices, including in particular China’s unique state-owned form of capitalism. A more effective U.S. trade policy is needed to combat these foreign unfair trade practices, level the playing field, and preserve and strengthen our nation’s manufacturing base. The U.S. Government must keep our laws against unfair trade strong; strictly enforce trade laws and agreements; use all means to prevent and address unfair trade and injurious import surges; and expand rules-based trade through existing and new trade agreements.
The policy statement also goes on to criticize tax and various other regulatory impediments, but it invariably comes back to the unequal playing field.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 06:44 PM
Communism is a perfect system when it is not corrupted by authoritarism and it is kept as it should be: horizontal.
But that has never occurred outside of extremely small groups of like minded people.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 06:56 PM
We have not exported jobs. We haven't imported junk. Trade benefits all Americans.
Really? (http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/09/chinese_drywall_brings_katrina.html)Screw the people harmed. They got the dry wall cheap.
Operation Helping Hands (http://www.ccano.org/programs/operation-helping-hands/learn-about-the-program/), the Catholic ministry that employed thousands of volunteers to rebuild nearly 200 homes after Hurricane Katrina (http://www.nola.com/katrina/), said Wednesday it will shut down next summer, sooner than expected, because of its disastrous encounter with toxic Chinese drywall (http://topics.nola.com/tag/chinese%20drywall/index.html).
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 06:57 PM
Theory is great. But we must apply it to the real world....
Nowhere did Smith say that comparative advantage applies to every situation.
in his day the economies of Europe were roughly equal and living standards not very different.
But I doubt if he would say that it was a good idea for a rich country like America with 300 million people to merge our standard of living with a poor country like china with four times the population.
We are seeing a massive wealth transfer from the US to china thanks to your free trade ideas.
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 07:04 PM
Really? (http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/09/chinese_drywall_brings_katrina.html)Screw the people harmed. They got the dry wall cheap.
Not to mention the thousands of pets that died because of imported ingredients from China containing Teflon to artificially boost the protein count. They even added it to their own domestic baby formula and poisoned their own infant citizens. Lets not also forget all of the imported chinese children's toys that were found to be coated with lead paint. Trading with a country with absolutely no standards or oversight is a matter of caveat emptor.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 07:18 PM
Not to mention the thousands of pets that died because of imported ingredients from China containing Teflon to artificially boost the protein count. They even added it to their own domestic baby formula and poisoned their own infant citizens. Lets not also forget all of the imported chinese children's toys that were found to be coated with lead paint. Trading with a country with absolutely no standards or oversight is a matter of caveat emptor.
We don't need no stinking regulations. :smiley:
iustitia
11-22-2014, 07:39 PM
I must say Chris is doing a great job holding his own here and deflecting attacks based on myth and sentiment. I'd like to see a debate topic between him and everyone else on economics.
I'll leave with this: With rare exceptions, countries do not trade; trade involves individuals.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 07:44 PM
I must say Chris is doing a great job holding his own here and deflecting attacks based on myth and sentiment. I'd like to see a debate topic between him and everyone else on economics.
I'll leave with this: With rare exceptions, countries do not trade; trade involves individuals.
1. Which country does not regulate trade? None of course. Theory and practice, again.
2. If the majority of Chinese companies that trade strategic products (not cheap clothing/crap) are owned by the Chinese military, can we still claim that only individuals trade? Theory and practice again.
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 07:56 PM
I must say Chris is doing a great job holding his own here and deflecting attacks based on myth and sentiment. I'd like to see a debate topic between him and everyone else on economics.
I'll leave with this: With rare exceptions, countries do not trade; trade involves individuals.
What is a country but the sum of its individual citizens. It's not a collection of lone wolves. There is an inter-dependency that seems to be lost in much economic theory.
kilgram
11-22-2014, 08:37 PM
What is a country but the sum of its individual citizens. It's not a collection of lone wolves. There is an inter-dependency that seems to be lost in much economic theory.
Austrian school is unrealistic and lacks of social analysis of the consequences of their receipts exactly for this reason.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
Paperback Writer
11-22-2014, 08:41 PM
If the world were starting over from scratch then, yes, I suppose the Austrian school would be workable, but it's not. There are already billionaires several times over who won't relinquish fuck all and own most of the resources. Getting rid of all regulations, all barriers on trade, just makes them more money.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 08:52 PM
If the world were starting over from scratch then, yes, I suppose the Austrian school would be workable, but it's not. There are already billionaires several times over who won't relinquish fuck all and own most of the resources. Getting rid of all regulations, all barriers on trade, just makes them more money.
Right. And no worries. The current system of nation-states is ending due to its corruption and reliance on debt spending.
Dr. Who
11-22-2014, 09:04 PM
If the world were starting over from scratch then, yes, I suppose the Austrian school would be workable, but it's not. There are already billionaires several times over who won't relinquish $#@! all and own most of the resources. Getting rid of all regulations, all barriers on trade, just makes them more money.
Right. And no worries. The current system of nation-states is ending due to its corruption and reliance on debt spending.
Bingo. The corruption that is supporting the end of regulations is benefiting no one but those few global players who are hoarding the world's resources and empowering them to reshape the world as they see fit. Their ideal world has no middle class, just the wealthy elite ruling the desperate and ignorant poor.
Paperback Writer
11-22-2014, 09:09 PM
Yes, I see the hands that have been dealt and it's almost time to "call". I've thought of moving to the States for this reason. Quite honestly, I'd fall on the mercy of my friends who have land and hard resources. When the western currency either collapses or devalues low enough there will be violence and I'd rather be standing behind other violent people when that happens.
Newpublius
11-22-2014, 09:16 PM
This was to be expected but just because they want to doesnt mean they will get it done
Size of government will not decrease one iota.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 09:27 PM
I must say Chris is doing a great job holding his own here and deflecting attacks based on myth and sentiment. I'd like to see a debate topic between him and everyone else on economics.
I'll leave with this: With rare exceptions, countries do not trade; trade involves individuals.
Chris doesn't know enough about applied economics to know when he's beaten.
iustitia
11-22-2014, 09:32 PM
Chris doesn't know enough about applied economics to know when he's beaten.
You don't know anything about anything to know when anything is anything.
Peter1469
11-22-2014, 09:36 PM
You don't know anything about anything to know when anything is anything.
We have a tPF record. A 12 word sentence with anything used 4 times. Wow.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 09:51 PM
We have a tPF record. A 12 word sentence with anything used 4 times. Wow.
Once you see one "anything" you've seen them all.
iustitia
11-22-2014, 10:00 PM
Once you see one "anything" you've seen them all.
Replace 'anything' with 'neocon'.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 11:05 PM
Replace 'anything' with 'neocon'.
Why do you think I'm a neocon?
iustitia
11-22-2014, 11:15 PM
Why do you think I'm a neocon?
You're a statist, nationalist and militarist pretending to be a conservative?
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 11:19 PM
You're a statist, nationalist and militarist pretending to be a conservative?
Which makes you an anarchist and an anti American who does not believe in national defense.
iustitia
11-22-2014, 11:29 PM
Which makes you an anarchist and an anti American who does not believe in national defense.
Except that being an anarchist isn't evil. And anti-American is subjective. And national defense is neocon talk for imperialism. Regardless, you're a statist, nationalist and militarist pretending to be a conservative.
Mac-7
11-22-2014, 11:51 PM
Except that being an anarchist isn't evil. And anti-American is subjective. And national defense is neocon talk for imperialism. Regardless, you're a statist, nationalist and militarist pretending to be a conservative.
Ok, if you say so.
iustitia
11-23-2014, 03:36 AM
I do say so, and there's no reason to say otherwise.
kilgram
11-23-2014, 04:35 AM
You're a statist, nationalist and militarist pretending to be a conservative?
That is conservatism ;)
Peter1469
11-23-2014, 05:59 AM
That is conservatism ;)
Not in the modern American political sense of the word. :smiley:
Less taxes, less government, more freedom.
Mac-7
11-23-2014, 06:58 AM
I do say so, and there's no reason to say otherwise.
Anarchists are very evil.
Being anti American makes you the enemy of more than half of the county - the folks who are not libs like you.
and as far a national defense goes if the rest of us didn't believe in it you would not have the freedoms you enjoy today.
Chris
11-23-2014, 09:49 AM
I must say Chris is doing a great job holding his own here and deflecting attacks based on myth and sentiment. I'd like to see a debate topic between him and everyone else on economics.
I'll leave with this: With rare exceptions, countries do not trade; trade involves individuals.
Thanks. But with economics I'm a mere amatuer. Facts and logic always defeat myth and sentiment.
What do nations trade? Laws, treaties, agreements, none of which generate any wealth and only restrict prosperity.
Chris
11-23-2014, 09:54 AM
1. Which country does not regulate trade? None of course. Theory and practice, again.
2. If the majority of Chinese companies that trade strategic products (not cheap clothing/crap) are owned by the Chinese military, can we still claim that only individuals trade? Theory and practice again.
1 Theory and practice are not opposites, peter. Your misuse of words is astounding. The fact nations regulate and restrict trade implies nothing whatsoever whether they should. Nations once condomed slavery, are we then to assume slavery was justified? Hardly.
2 You're back to arguing the purpose of regulating and restricting trade is for war. In theory, makes sense, in practice, death and destruction. As you said earlier: "Screw the people harmed."
Chris
11-23-2014, 09:58 AM
What is a country but the sum of its individual citizens. It's not a collection of lone wolves. There is an inter-dependency that seems to be lost in much economic theory.
Does a country think? Feel? No. A country is not (A) the utilitarian sum of individuals, who, but (B) the social order that emerges from the interaction of individuals. (A) is the predominant Keynesian economics you argue from, where interdependency is lost in aggregates, (B) is Austrian Economics, where it's key.
Chris
11-23-2014, 10:02 AM
If the world were starting over from scratch then, yes, I suppose the Austrian school would be workable, but it's not. There are already billionaires several times over who won't relinquish fuck all and own most of the resources. Getting rid of all regulations, all barriers on trade, just makes them more money.
What do you even mean there by "workable"? I could understand it if you said it, say, about Marxism, which prescribes how an economic system must work, but the Austrian School doesn't do that, it explains and predicts. One might ask thus does Marxism work but not the Austrian School.
Chris
11-23-2014, 10:04 AM
Anarchists are very evil.
Being anti American makes you the enemy of more than half of the county - the folks who are not libs like you.
and as far a national defense goes if the rest of us didn't believe in it you would not have the freedoms you enjoy today.
How are anarchists evil? My guess is you have no clue either what anarchism is.
Chris
11-23-2014, 10:11 AM
Not in the modern American political sense of the word. :smiley:
Less taxes, less government, more freedom.
How do protectionist regulations fit in with "Less taxes, less government, more freedom"? Oops. It's funny sometimes how people, for the mere sake of argument, argue themselves into corners the opposite of where they think they stand.
Mac-7
11-23-2014, 10:23 AM
How are anarchists evil? My guess is you have no clue either what anarchism is.
Anarchists are destructive.
Take Back Wall Street for instance.
Chris
11-23-2014, 10:43 AM
Anarchists are destructive.
Take Back Wall Street for instance.
I didn't think you understood anarchism. Thanks for confirming.
OWS wasn't anarchistic.
Mac-7
11-23-2014, 10:50 AM
I didn't think you understood anarchism. Thanks for confirming.
OWS wasn't anarchistic.
Of course it was.
anarchists crave chaos.
Peter1469
11-23-2014, 11:07 AM
Chris, when you get rattled you forget to capitalize names. :smiley:
I will let you know when the nation-state system collapses so your theory can be applied. OK?
You really belong in academia.
1 Theory and practice are not opposites, peter. Your misuse of words is astounding. The fact nations regulate and restrict trade implies nothing whatsoever whether they should. Nations once condomed slavery, are we then to assume slavery was justified? Hardly.
2 You're back to arguing the purpose of regulating and restricting trade is for war. In theory, makes sense, in practice, death and destruction. As you said earlier: "Screw the people harmed."
Peter1469
11-23-2014, 11:09 AM
How do protectionist regulations fit in with "Less taxes, less government, more freedom"? Oops. It's funny sometimes how people, for the mere sake of argument, argue themselves into corners the opposite of where they think they stand.
Not very many people are advocating for no government. If you want China to rape you, that is fine with me. Don't speak for other citizens.
You are a straw-man machine these days.
Mac-7
11-23-2014, 11:12 AM
You really belong in academia.
i think there are too many like Chris in academia already.
We need more people with practical sense teaching - not misleading - the next generation.
Chris
11-23-2014, 11:15 AM
Of course it was.
anarchists crave chaos.
Like I said, you don't know what anarchism is.
Chris
11-23-2014, 11:16 AM
Chris, when you get rattled you forget to capitalize names. :smiley:
I will let you know when the nation-state system collapses so your theory can be applied. OK?
You really belong in academia.
When you get rattled you play these personal games, peter, you abandon any sense of rational argument and stoop to the level of mac.
Chris
11-23-2014, 11:18 AM
Not very many people are advocating for no government. If you want China to rape you, that is fine with me. Don't speak for other citizens.
You are a straw-man machine these days.
Don't speak for other citizens.
You're the one advocating national protectionism, peter, not me. You're the one arguing that an elite few central planners know better and dictate what people value.
Arguing for argument's sake, peter, seems to back you into corners and contradictions.
Peter1469
11-23-2014, 12:01 PM
When you get rattled you play these personal games, peter, you abandon any sense of rational argument and stoop to the level of mac.
You are incorrect. Me not repeating my argument over and over is not that.
You are wrong, I told you why, what more is there to say?
You don't agree. I am OK with that.
Peter1469
11-23-2014, 12:03 PM
The only contradictions are in your head.
I explained my position and you don't like it. But, pay attention to the policies enacted by governments in the real world. Then review what I advanced here. It might shock you that no nation follows your advice and are pretty much doing what I described.
You're the one advocating national protectionism, peter, not me. You're the one arguing that an elite few central planners know better and dictate what people value.
Arguing for argument's sake, peter, seems to back you into corners and contradictions.
Chris
11-23-2014, 12:10 PM
The only contradictions are in your head.
I explained my position and you don't like it. But, pay attention to the policies enacted by governments in the real world. Then review what I advanced here. It might shock you that no nation follows your advice and are pretty much doing what I described.
Right, no nation does, they follow what you adovcate. Yet every now and then you'll burst in with they're on a path to self-destruction.
Chris
11-23-2014, 12:12 PM
Right. And no worries. The current system of nation-states is ending due to its corruption and reliance on debt spending.
Bump so you don't misrepresent me as posting a strawman.
Peter1469
11-23-2014, 12:19 PM
Right, no nation does, they follow what you adovcate. Yet every now and then you'll burst in with they're on a path to self-destruction.
Yes, because of debt spending. Glad to see you pay attention at times.
Peter1469
11-23-2014, 12:19 PM
Bump so you don't misrepresent me as posting a strawman.
I only accuse you of posting strawmen when you do. Which is fairly regularly.
kilgram
11-23-2014, 12:22 PM
I didn't think you understood anarchism. Thanks for confirming.
OWS wasn't anarchistic.
OWS had many anarchistic roots. They didn't demand an anarchist model but the organization was anarchist.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
kilgram
11-23-2014, 12:23 PM
Of course it was.
anarchists crave chaos.
That is wrong.
Well, it is true for libertarians like Chris, but not for anarchism.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
Chris
11-23-2014, 12:45 PM
OWS had many anarchistic roots. They didn't demand an anarchist model but the organization was anarchist.
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk
OWS initially demanded government take over Wall Street. That's not anarchy. It was only when government came down on them that they also turned against government. That's reactionary.
Chris
11-23-2014, 12:55 PM
Yes, because of debt spending. Glad to see you pay attention at times.
And why are we spending ourselves into dept but because in part for protectionist policies that hamper prosperity.
Peter1469
11-23-2014, 12:56 PM
And why are we spending ourselves into dept but because in part for protectionist policies that hamper prosperity.
Limited protectionist policies have nothing to do with Congress spending more money than it collects in tax revenue.
Chris
11-23-2014, 01:03 PM
Limited protectionist policies have nothing to do with Congress spending more money than it collects in tax revenue.
Of course they don't have to do with spending, peter, they have to do with revenue.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.