Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade

[Chris]

Mankiw looks at the trade deal with Pacific partners historically. He confuses managed trade with free trade but still it's a good wrote up.

Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html?ref=business&_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1)


...Among economists, the issue is a no-brainer....

...Economists are famous for disagreeing with one another...[but] reach near unanimity on some topics, including international trade. (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_d68906VNWqVmiGN)

The economic argument for free trade dates back to Adam Smith, the 18th-century author of The Wealth of Nations and the grandfather of modern economics. Smith recognized that the case for trading with other nations was no different from the case for trading with other individuals within a society.

According to Smith, “it is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.” Just as no sensible person tries to make all his own clothes and grow all his own food, he said, no sensible nation will aim to achieve prosperity by isolating itself from other nations around the world.

Smith was responding to a then-prevalent doctrine called mercantilism. The mercantilists favored exports but were wary of imports. In their view, the revenue from exports allowed the accumulation of gold, whereas the purchase of imports drained a nation’s gold reserves.

Smith turned this perspective on its head. A nation benefits from imports, he argued, because they expand its opportunities for consumption. Exports are necessary only because other nations have the temerity to want to be paid for the goods they provide.

Economists respond that full employment is possible with any pattern of trade. The main issue is not the number of jobs, but which jobs. Americans should work in those industries in which we have an advantage compared with other nations, and we should import from abroad those goods that can be produced more cheaply there....

He goes on to explain three rational ignorance biases for why politicos fail to see this: Anti-foreign bias, anti-market bias, and make work bias.

He concludes with a citation: "The Princeton economist Alan Blinder once proposed Murphy’s Law of economic policy: “Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.”"

[donttread]

How do these economist feel about the house of cards economy created by driving manufacturing off shore?

[Chris]

How do these economist feel about the house of cards economy created by driving manufacturing off shore?

Probably be against overregulation and overtaxation that drives companies offshore and overseas.

[Archer0915]

Free trade with partners that have similar laws and regulations is good. Trade with many of the Asian countries (excluding Korea, Japan and perhaps one or two others) is not free trade it is unbalanced suicide. Economists can shove it up their asses!

[Chris]

Free trade with partners that have similar laws and regulations is good. Trade with many of the Asian countries (excluding Korea, Japan and perhaps one or two others) is not free trade it is unbalanced suicide. Economists can shove it up their asses!

Free trade with unfree traders is to our advantage. Why reject their gift? Say the Chinese government forces their people to work for low wages to sell cheap to us, it would be foolish not to accept it.

[Captain Obvious]

Free trade is a myth.

[Chris]

Free trade is a myth.

And why's that?

[Captain Obvious]

And why's that?

Class entitlement.

[Chris]

Class entitlement.

Explain. What do you mean by that, what's it got to do with the free market?

[Archer0915]

Free trade with unfree traders is to our advantage. Why reject their gift? Say the Chinese government forces their people to work for low wages to sell cheap to us, it would be foolish not to accept it.

If we are bringing in more product than we are sending out that means (in simplest terms) that we are shrinking our wealth. Selling out. We can discuss it but without new wealth generation we have a very bad situation. So tell me how much of the value added situation have these economists addressed?

[Chris]

If we are bringing in more product than we are sending out that means (in simplest terms) that we are shrinking our wealth. Selling out. We can discuss it but without new wealth generation we have a very bad situation. So tell me how much of the value added situation have these economists addressed?


Common misunderstanding about trade: WE are not trading, individuals trade.

If we get imports cheaply, all else equal, we will have gained. Those gains, see OP, can then be used to spend on goods and services, innovations and entrepreneurship--generation of new wealth, where we specialize. So where is the loss? Only to those who make the imported goods.

[Archer0915]

Common misunderstanding about trade: WE are not trading, individuals trade.

If we get imports cheaply, all else equal, we will have gained. Those gains, see OP, can then be used to spend on goods and services, innovations and entrepreneurship--generation of new wealth, where we specialize. So where is the loss? Only to those who make the imported goods.

No misunderstanding here. We as a nation (combining the impact of what WE as individuals do).

So what NEW wealth has been generated? Transferral of funds does not generate anything because you must have value added, all else is exchange. Because we have more and more businesses closing doors and new low paid service shit moving up...

[Chris]

No misunderstanding here. We as a nation (combining the impact of what WE as individuals do).

So what NEW wealth has been generated? Transferral of funds does not generate anything because you must have value added, all else is exchange. Because we have more and more businesses closing doors and new low paid service shit moving up...


Nations don't trade, individuals do.

New wealth is generated by the savings being invested in new products and production.

What transfer of funds? If say I'm paying $1 for a widget and find I can get it for 50¢, then I spend only that much. There's no transfer. I keep the rest to spend on other goods and services. I have doubled what I value. That right there is wealth generated.

[Captain Obvious]

Explain. What do you mean by that, what's it got to do with the free market?

The market playing field is raised or lowered to benefit and/or penalize trading partners.

Regulation, cronyism, tariffs, corruption.

On the larger scale that is, small scale trade is probably the only approaching purity free trade there is - and by small scale I mean Ebay and shit like that.

[Chris]

The market playing field is raised or lowered to benefit and/or penalize trading partners.

Regulation, cronyism, tariffs, corruption.

On the larger scale that is, small scale trade is probably the only approaching purity free trade there is - and by small scale I mean Ebay and shit like that.


OK, I see what you're saying, government meddling to the benefit of a privileged few negates the free market. I would say it interferes with the free market.

[Archer0915]

Nations don't trade, individuals do.

New wealth is generated by the savings being invested in new products and production.

What transfer of funds? If say I'm paying $1 for a widget and find I can get it for 50¢, then I spend only that much. There's no transfer. I keep the rest to spend on other goods and services. I have doubled what I value. That right there is wealth generated.

You have transferred assets. Nothing new generated.

And you have lowered expenditures and generated nothing.

And I said the WE was a collective of the people not the nation. You are brainwashed.

[Chris]

You have transferred assets. Nothing new generated.

And you have lowered expenditures and generated nothing.

And I said the WE was a collective of the people not the nation. You are brainwashed.



WE do not trade collectively or otherwise. Set the statistical abstractions aside.


In my example I exchanged something I value less for some imported that I value more--the exported has done the same. Wealth has been generated. Moreover, the money I saved importing is used exchange what I value less for what I value more with another who does the same. Wealth has been generated. Some of that generated wealth is invested in innovative and entrepreneurial enterprise here, which generates wealth and creates jobs.

Wealth is not a pie.

[Archer0915]

WE do not trade collectively or otherwise. Set the statistical abstractions aside.


In my example I exchanged something I value less for some imported that I value more--the exported has done the same. Wealth has been generated. Moreover, the money I saved importing is used exchange what I value less for what I value more with another who does the same. Wealth has been generated. Some of that generated wealth is invested in innovative and entrepreneurial enterprise here, which generates wealth and creates jobs.

Wealth is not a pie.

You really do not get it.

Do you understand how money works and how a dollar moves through the economy? The intended effects of a stimulus package? Do not tell me I do not know what I am talking about in an effort to boost your ego. I assure you, I most certainly do.

Wealth is not savings or revenues or expenditures.

[Chris]

You really do not get it.

Do you understand how money works and how a dollar moves through the economy? The intended effects of a stimulus package? Do not tell me I do not know what I am talking about in an effort to boost your ego. I assure you, I most certainly do.

Wealth is not savings or revenues or expenditures.


Ad hom noted.

Let me know when you can respond to what I said.

[Archer0915]

Ad hom noted.

Let me know when you can respond to what I said.

Dodge noted. You have said nothing, you are a brainwashed automaton when it comes to this. I can not teach a monkey to speak english.

[Chris]

Dodge noted. You have said nothing, you are a brainwashed automaton when it comes to this. I can not teach a monkey to speak english.

More white flag raising ad hom, oh well.

[Archer0915]

More white flag raising ad hom, oh well.

No it is stating fact. Are you capable of actually discussing this?

Free trade creates winners and losers. The losers are generally the American workers and this has proven out. Hell yeah prices are lower but there are not as many manufacturing jobs... Industry. Industry supports local economies. Everyone can not sell chinese products.

Are you capable of a real discussion on this or are you of the mindset that those who disagree with you are wrong and you do not need to present anything of your own?

So tell me what the trade deficit has to do with the budget deficit and increases in the national debt?

[Chris]

No it is stating fact. Are you capable of actually discussing this?

Free trade creates winners and losers. The losers are generally the American workers and this has proven out. Hell yeah prices are lower but there are not as many manufacturing jobs... Industry. Industry supports local economies. Everyone can not sell chinese products.

Are you capable of a real discussion on this or are you of the mindset that those who disagree with you are wrong and you do not need to present anything of your own?

So tell me what the trade deficit has to do with the budget deficit and increases in the national debt?


Ad hom is logical fallacy not fact. It will be ignored.

What's saved on cheap imports is spent and invested creating other jobs. But I already explained this and you ignored.

[Archer0915]

Ad hom is logical fallacy not fact. It will be ignored.

What's saved on cheap imports is spent and invested creating other jobs. But I already explained this and you ignored.
Chris the only thing around here to be ignored is you. You lack much understanding and do not seem to be able to think for yourself. Automatons like yourself are part of the problem in the US.

Unless you say kill the Min Wage, unemployment, welfare, all regs... If you say that I can begin to understand where you are coming from but your refusal to understand reality is your downfall.

[Chris]

Chris the only thing around here to be ignored is you. You lack much understanding and do not seem to be able to think for yourself. Automatons like yourself are part of the problem in the US.

Unless you say kill the Min Wage, unemployment, welfare, all regs... If you say that I can begin to understand where you are coming from but your refusal to understand reality is your downfall.



More ad hom. <yawn>

[Archer0915]

More ad hom. <yawn>

More facts. You can not make a sensible reply so you just copy and paste "More ad hom."

You refuse to discuss this and therefore you simply take the Liberal stance of I am right and I do not need to discuss it because you might get past my brainwashing. Try real discussion! Open your mind.

Read this:


It is premature to shift responsibility for the struggles of the manufacturing industry away frominternational trade. Demand for manufacturing output, properly measured, remains in line with the historicalaverage of the past couple of decades. There has been no long-term shift away from the relative share ofmanufacturing goods in total demand. Furthermore, the domestic factors influencing manufacturing employment(demand and productivity) cannot by themselves explain the scale of job loss in manufacturing—risingtrade deficits have made a significant contribution to the industry’s employment decline.

http://libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hamilton/US%20Trade%20Deficits%5CShifting%20Blame%20for%20M anufacturing%20Jobs%20Loss.pdf

You need to look at the big picture here Chris.

[Chris]

More facts. You can not make a sensible reply so you just copy and paste "More ad hom."

You refuse to discuss this and therefore you simply take the Liberal stance of I am right and I do not need to discuss it because you might get past my brainwashing. Try real discussion! Open your mind.

Read this:



You need to look at the big picture here Chris.



You haven't presented facts, some opinion, mostly fallacies.

Big picture? You mean statistical abstractions at a national level that shows we import more than we export. That's meaningless as an abstraction. And superficial. You speak of following money, but only go one step. The money we spend on imports may take an odd twisting trail of exchanges around the world but in the end US dollars can only be spent to purchase US goods and services. Follow the trail far enough, it comes back home to roost. Again to fund investment in innovation and entrepreneurship, meaning more jobs among other things.

Liberal stance? I'm way to the right of you. And what I'm citing in the OP is the fact most economist favor free trade because it's to our advantage. You're arguments are populist.

Try real discussion, you say, where's yours, all I see is logical fallacies, not discussion.

[Chris]

The market playing field is raised or lowered to benefit and/or penalize trading partners.

Regulation, cronyism, tariffs, corruption.

On the larger scale that is, small scale trade is probably the only approaching purity free trade there is - and by small scale I mean Ebay and shit like that.


Another article on that very thing, somewhat historical, beyond topical politics.

U.S. Capitalism Isn't a 'Free Market' (http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/american-capitalism-vs-the-free-market)


...Libertarians of all people should understand that decades—indeed, centuries—of government intervention have distorted society and the economy considerably. It’s safe to say that both would look different had that intervention not occurred. To pick one American example, the creation of an integrated continent-wide national market in the United States was in large part consciously planned by government officials (most prominently Abraham Lincoln, who embraced Henry Clay’s corporatist American System) and their corporate cronies, especially but hardly exclusively through transportation subsidies. (This is not to say they were able to dictate developments in detail; moreover, zones of entrepreneurial freedom existed, constrained though they were.) This system is American capitalism, which is to be distinguished from the spontaneous, decentralized free market.

Wouldn’t the market have tended toward greater integration if left free? I believe so, but the differences would have been substantial. In a freed market, costs are internalized. Expanding trade across a continent would require private risky investment in the means of transportation—canals, roads, railroads, etc. No government land grants or other subsidies would be available. If a firm wanted to ship its products cross-country, it initially would have to bear the shipping costs, which would be reflected in consumer prices. Consumers, choosing in a competitive marketplace, would then be free to decide if the products were worth the price asked compared to those of more-locally produced products, whose manufacturers did not have high transportation costs to recoup. (They may have disadvantages due to their small size, but diseconomies of scale, as well as economies of scale, exist.) Consumers might be happy to pay the higher prices, but it’s up to them. "National" firms would not have the advantage that government intervention has afforded them historically. (Today, repairs to the taxpayer-financed interstate highways is disproportionately paid for by private automobile operators. Owners of big rigs don’t pay their share of the upkeep.)

The whole point of a government-led effort to create a national market was to impose costs on taxpayers, who had no choice in the matter, rather than have businesses charge consumers, who would have had a choice at the checkout counter. Since national firms’ retail prices don’t have to reflect the full cost of production, consumption is distorted and smaller firms are harmed. We cannot say exactly how things would look had the government not instituted this corporatist policy, but we can say that things would be different. To claim otherwise is to suggest that government interference with economic activity is inert. Libertarians should know better....

[Archer0915]

You haven't presented facts, some opinion, mostly fallacies.

Big picture? You mean statistical abstractions at a national level that shows we import more than we export. That's meaningless as an abstraction. And superficial. You speak of following money, but only go one step. The money we spend on imports may take an odd twisting trail of exchanges around the world but in the end US dollars can only be spent to purchase US goods and services. Follow the trail far enough, it comes back home to roost. Again to fund investment in innovation and entrepreneurship, meaning more jobs among other things.

Liberal stance? I'm way to the right of you. And what I'm citing in the OP is the fact most economist favor free trade because it's to our advantage. You're arguments are populist.

Try real discussion, you say, where's yours, all I see is logical fallacies, not discussion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/the-theory-thats-killing-_b_846452.html

But you see what you want to see. There are no fallacies only clouded vision because you choose not to see all the facets of the topic you claim to understand.

Again please explain to me how a dollar moves through the economy in relation to the production process where we begin with nothing and create a value added product.

Buying and selling are not value added activities. Profits and savings are not the generation of wealth.

[Chris]

Free trade is a myth.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/the-theory-thats-killing-_b_846452.html

But you see what you want to see. There are no fallacies only clouded vision because you choose not to see all the facets of the topic you claim to understand.

Again please explain to me how a dollar moves through the economy in relation to the production process where we begin with nothing and create a value added product.

Buying and selling are not value added activities. Profits and savings are not the generation of wealth.



Ad hom is a logical fallacy, and that's a fact.

I've explained how dollars going out for imports make their way back in the purchase of exports. The loss you see in abstract statistics is imaginary. Furthermore, as I've also explained, the money saved in cheap foreign goods is spent and invested, also generating wealth.

What, are you some sort of Keynesian?

[Archer0915]

Ad hom is a logical fallacy, and that's a fact.

I've explained how dollars going out for imports make their way back in the purchase of exports. The loss you see in abstract statistics is imaginary. Furthermore, as I've also explained, the money saved in cheap foreign goods is spent and invested, also generating wealth.

What, are you some sort of Keynesian?

No you have explained nothing, there is no fallacy.

A dollar based on complete domestic production.

Understand the value added process is taking something, working with it and making it something else. What you seem to think is that the rise and fall of prices or turning a profit is the same thing as wealth creation. Commodities exchange (EXCHANGE) aint it.

If I work a job and provide a service, say cleaning and I use my income to buy only imports, paying 1/2 of what I could get a domestic product for I have done what? hey I can spend twice as much!

Now let us look at it. The product was made from Aluminum, copper, silicon and plastic with a few rare earth elements that are found in the US but I bought one made in China. So I have cut out several levels of US profit and taxation because the money I pay goes to the retailer, distributor and perhaps an importer.

If it were US made the money would go to the retailer, distributor, final manufacturer, component manufacturers, refiners, mineral extractors... All paying employees taxable income and all paying taxes...

Ferr unbalanced trade cuts revenues and service sector? Who the hell gets serviced when their are fewer businesses to service?

[Archer0915]

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/fredgraph-3.png

Nafta came in 94!

How does free trade help us again?

Oh those jobs have been replaced? Yeah Fast food, department stores...

I mean income is pretty stagnant... Well depending on the source.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/032813recovery.jpg

[The Sage of Main Street]

Probably be against overregulation and overtaxation that drives companies offshore and overseas. Lame excuses for laziness and incompetence. Outlaw outsourcing and the present crew of inferior people in superior positions will be fired and replaced by intelligent people who can meet the challenges of having to live in a democracy.

Economists are just towel boys for the dumb jock bullies who have taken over control of American businesses and traded our jobs away. For the past 50 years, a degree in Business has been for C students, who shouldn't be allowed in college in the first place. Again, the designated critics have only talked about greed and not about the incompetence that makes cheating the only way for these dummies to make money.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Explain. What do you mean by that, what's it got to do with the free market? Because Heirhead airheads can inherit Daddy's rank in the economy. That wouldn't perpetuate birth-class supremacy unless the rulers made sure that Junior only had to compete with class-climbers who have no talent, or who sheepishly devote their talent in service to the Master Class they worship.

With such leadership, we are incapable of making things competitively and making money honestly, so we have to fly the free trade route until we slam into a mountain.

[Archer0915]

Because Heirhead airheads can inherit Daddy's rank in the economy. That wouldn't perpetuate birth-class supremacy unless the rulers made sure that Junior only had to compete with class-climbers who have no talent, or who sheepishly devote their talent in service to the Master Class they worship.

With such leadership, we are incapable of making things competitively and making money honestly, so we have to fly the free trade route until we slam into a mountain.

Ummmm.... it is not just here. China is really screwy. At least people here can do good for themselves. Many in China are owned. many owned by Americans. American stockholder! 401K owners.

[Chris]

No you have explained nothing, there is no fallacy.

A dollar based on complete domestic production.

Understand the value added process is taking something, working with it and making it something else. What you seem to think is that the rise and fall of prices or turning a profit is the same thing as wealth creation. Commodities exchange (EXCHANGE) aint it.

If I work a job and provide a service, say cleaning and I use my income to buy only imports, paying 1/2 of what I could get a domestic product for I have done what? hey I can spend twice as much!

Now let us look at it. The product was made from Aluminum, copper, silicon and plastic with a few rare earth elements that are found in the US but I bought one made in China. So I have cut out several levels of US profit and taxation because the money I pay goes to the retailer, distributor and perhaps an importer.

If it were US made the money would go to the retailer, distributor, final manufacturer, component manufacturers, refiners, mineral extractors... All paying employees taxable income and all paying taxes...

Ferr unbalanced trade cuts revenues and service sector? Who the hell gets serviced when their are fewer businesses to service?



Ad hom is a fallacy.

Now you read like Marx with his Labor Theory of Value. Value is not added by labor. Value is entirely subjective. We exchange for what we value and in so doing both gain and wealth is generated.

I've said nothing about prices or profits.

You can't spend twice as much because you haven't doubled your income or saving. You can purchase more buying one product/service cheaper and using the rest of your money to buy other things.



Now let us look at it. The product was made from Aluminum, copper, silicon and plastic with a few rare earth elements that are found in the US but I bought one made in China. So I have cut out several levels of US profit and taxation because the money I pay goes to the retailer, distributor and perhaps an importer.

Actually what you've done is cut out the bigger picture, what I have explained about, how the money spent on imports eventually purchase exports, how the money saved purchases other things or is invested.


If it were US made the money would go to the retailer, distributor, final manufacturer, component manufacturers, refiners, mineral extractors... All paying employees taxable income and all paying taxes...

Again you abstract out a few isolated facts from the big picture.

[Chris]

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/fredgraph-3.png

Nafta came in 94!

How does free trade help us again?

Oh those jobs have been replaced? Yeah Fast food, department stores...

I mean income is pretty stagnant... Well depending on the source.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/032813recovery.jpg



You again abstract and isolate a fact and ignore the bigger picture. Manufacturing is down in the US. OMG!

But it's down everywhere:

http://i.snag.gy/VqR0k.jpg

[Archer0915]

You again abstract and isolate a fact and ignore the bigger picture. Manufacturing is down in the US. OMG!

But it's down everywhere:

http://i.snag.gy/VqR0k.jpg

Chris why dont you take the time to research it. When you have all your ducks in a row get back to me. Honestly this road is a wast of time for both of us. You (in my opinion) refuse to open your eyes.

What is your degree in? I know you are not some dumb ass so I am really interested in getting some perspective here.

[Chris]

Chris why dont you take the time to research it. When you have all your ducks in a row get back to me. Honestly this road is a wast of time for both of us. You (in my opinion) refuse to open your eyes.

What is your degree in? I know you are not some dumb ass so I am really interested in getting some perspective here.


More ad hom. <sigh>

[Archer0915]

More ad hom. <sigh>
Chris I am trying to have a discussion and you do not seem to be able to do that.

Copy, paste, YOU FAIL!

You refuse to discuss anything because you evidently do not want to or can not discuss things in a competent manner.

When you grow up and are capable of discussion, beyond that of Exotix, I may reply. As it is I feel we are thinking on two different levels and you need to go get an education or do some research to competently discuss this with me. Is it Ad Hom to ask a person to discuss something or is it that you are incapable of competently discussing this? You started it and now we find that you actually know nothing about what you are attempting to discuss.

[Chris]

Chris I am trying to have a discussion and you do not seem to be able to do that.

Copy, paste, YOU FAIL!

You refuse to discuss anything because you evidently do not want to or can not discuss things in a competent manner.

When you grow up and are capable of discussion, beyond that of Exotix, I may reply. As it is I feel we are thinking on two different levels and you need to go get an education or do some research to competently discuss this with me. Is it Ad Hom to ask a person to discuss something or is it that you are incapable of competently discussing this? You started it and now we find that you actually know nothing about what you are attempting to discuss.


More ad hom fallacy.

You seem angry.


I, otoh, have discussed the OP and your little subtopic.

[Archer0915]

More ad hom fallacy.

You seem angry.


I, otoh, have discussed the OP and your little subtopic.

Still fail, evolving into:

EPIC FAIL

[Chris]

Still fail, evolving into:

EPIC FAIL


Perhaps if you shouted a little louder.

[Archer0915]

Perhaps if you shouted a little louder.

Loud as it gets:) Perhaps another font.

No we are going to disagree on this and that is that. I will no pollute your thread anymore unless you want to discuss something.

[Chris]

I've been discussing. I've countered everyone of your arguments. You've responded in anger. Example, in last exchange, you argued manufacturing is down because of unfair foreign competition. I countered that manufacturing is down around the world. You got angry. That's not discussion.

[Archer0915]

I've been discussing. I've countered everyone of your arguments. You've responded in anger. Example, in last exchange, you argued manufacturing is down because of unfair foreign competition. I countered that manufacturing is down around the world. You got angry. That's not discussion.

No, I got tired of you not discussing and dismissing with the Ad Hom bull. I did not get angry and you constantly avoided any real discussion so I am finished here until such time that you decide to discuss instead of deny.

[The Xl]

At some point though, with machines and foreign workers taking so many jobs, it's going to have an impact on American workers bottom line outside of the highest classes, it's inevitable.

There are positive and negative elements to free trade. Hard to say whether or not its ultimately worth it

[Chris]

No, I got tired of you not discussing and dismissing with the Ad Hom bull. I did not get angry and you constantly avoided any real discussion so I am finished here until such time that you decide to discuss instead of deny.

You keep saying you're finished.

[Chris]

At some point though, with machines and foreign workers taking so many jobs, it's going to have an impact on American workers bottom line outside of the highest classes, it's inevitable.

There are positive and negative elements to free trade. Hard to say whether or not its ultimately worth it

People keep saying that^^ as more and more is automated yet the number of jobs keeps increasing.

Keep in mind, too, that if ever we were able to automate everything and a post-scarcity society arise, the capitalism would collapse and communism be the order of the day.

[The Sage of Main Street]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) I am trying to have a discussion and you do not seem to be able to do that.

Copy, paste, YOU FAIL!

You refuse to discuss anything because you evidently do not want to or can not discuss things in a competent manner.

When you grow up and are capable of discussion, beyond that of Exotix, I may reply. As it is I feel we are thinking on two different levels and you need to go get an education or do some research to competently discuss this with me. Is it Ad Hom to ask a person to discuss something or is it that you are incapable of competently discussing this? You started it and now we find that you actually know nothing about what you are attempting to discuss.
Welcome to the Charismatic Christal Experience.

[The Xl]

People keep saying that^^ as more and more is automated yet the number of jobs keeps increasing.

Keep in mind, too, that if ever we were able to automate everything and a post-scarcity society arise, the capitalism would collapse and communism be the order of the day.

How are the number of jobs increasing when you consider the amount of people out of the workforce? Not to mention, the growing disparity in wages? Now I know there are many factors, but it's hard to believe this isn't at least one.

[Chris]

How are the number of jobs increasing when you consider the amount of people out of the workforce? Not to mention, the growing disparity in wages? Now I know there are many factors, but it's hard to believe this isn't at least one.

If you look at it in the short term, jobs are down right now, but that's because we're still in the prolonged tail of the Great Recession. In the long run jobs are increasing despite the fact we have always been importing.

http://i.snag.gy/cy56L.jpg

From http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2012/05/us-jobs-fall-shows-demographic/


Wages are determined by subjective values of employers and employees.



The argument here, one that has existed since Adam Smith again mercantilist protections, is that free trade is not doing the harm protectionists think it is. Free trade generates wealth.

[Chris]

Follow up with Arnold Kling, The Central Principle of Economics (http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/the-central-principle-of-economics/)


Trade is almost always good.

I want to propose that as the central principle of economics. More on that in other posts. In this post, I want to talk about how trade might be bad or might be perceived to be bad.

1. If you hold a gun to my head and demand something, that is bad. In fact, I would say that does not even count as trade.

2. If I buy on the basis of fraud or deception, then the trade is bad. Florida swampland. Snake oil.

3. What if I was not deceived, but afterward I regret the trade? ...there is nothing unfair or morally wrong about trades that someone later regrets making.

4. What if you are in the desert in danger of dying of thirst, and I offer to sell you a bottle of water for $1000. Is that a bad trade? ...

5. Is it bad to trade with people whose cultural or political views you dislike? ...Suppose that you choose to trade solely on the basis of profit....

6. In fact, trade is probably best when it is impersonal....

7. Trade involving a person’s body makes people squeamish....

8. It could be that one of the reasons that we rely heavily on third-party payments in health care is that we are squeamish about trade that pertains to the body. We prefer to think of the doctor as offering the gift of healing rather than as someone making a trade.