Made in America

[muh_roads]

John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock
(MADE IN JAPAN ) for 6 am.


While his coffeepot
(MADE IN CHINA )


was perking, he shaved with his electric razor
(MADE IN HONG KONG )


He put on a dress shirt
(MADE IN SRI LANKA ),


designer jeans
(MADE IN SINGAPORE )


and tennis shoes
(MADE IN KOREA)


After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet
(MADE IN INDIA )


he sat down with his calculator
(MADE IN MEXICO )


to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch
(MADE IN TAIWAN )


to the radio
(MADE IN INDIA )


he got in his car
(MADE IN GERMANY )


filled it with GAS
(from Saudi Arabia )


and continued his search for a good paying AMERICAN JOB. At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day...


checking his Computer
(made in TAIWAN ),


John decided to relax for a while.


He put on his sandals
(MADE IN BRAZIL ),


poured himself a glass of wine
(MADE IN FRANCE )


and turned on his TV
(MADE IN INDONESIA ),


and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA


AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT

MADE IN KENYA

[libertarian4321]

John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock
(MADE IN JAPAN ) for 6 am.



This old thing again? Geez, who keeps dragging up these old chain emails?

This isn't 1880. We live in a global economy.

The USA is still, by far, the largest economy in the world AND the largest manufacturer in the world.

I'll bet that surprises you because you go to Walmart and see a lot of cheap clothes, toys, small electronics, plastic junk, etc made overseas.

However, the USA is still the major producer of high end manufactured items- precision equipment, aerospace equipment, high end tech equipment, drugs, biotechnology, military equipment, robotics, and many others.

BTW, the USA is growing fast in wine production. while production in France, Italy and Spain (the nations currently ahead of the USA) is falling.

[muh_roads]

yeah I copy pasted from this when I read it...just thought it was funny. Look at the Obamabots squirm and defend teh WON.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2231653698&topic=96983

Give it time dude, precision equipment is heading to china at alarmingly fast rates.

[erowe1]

Buying all those cheap foreign-made goods doesn't result in fewer jobs for Americans, it results in more jobs, and better ones. The more our government restricts the trade we can do with other countries, the worse off our economy is.

[tangent4ronpaul]

hmm, this chart says a bunch of countries have more industrial production and doesn't even mention China or India...

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s1309.pdf

-t

[muh_roads]

Buying all those cheap foreign-made goods doesn't result in fewer jobs for Americans, it results in more jobs, and better ones. The more our government restricts the trade we can do with other countries, the worse off our economy is.

A lot of people who have been affected by NAFTA would disagree with you. A lot of small town manufacturing is completely destroyed.

I would still much rather see tariff's than the federal income tax anyway.

[erowe1]

A lot of people who have been affected by NAFTA would disagree with you. A lot of small town manufacturing is completely destroyed.

I would still much rather see tariff's than the federal income tax anyway.

They have the right to disagree. And I don't deny that you can find certain people made worse off by more free trade.. But there are far more who are made better off (i.e. the people who own the cheap alarm clocks, jeans, coffee pots, gas, etc.). In every economic change there are winners and losers. We could adopt the perspective of the Luddites who fought to ban sewing machines because they resulted in tailors losing their jobs. Of course, had the government followed that course it would have done far more harm than good.

I'm definitely against NAFTA, but not because I want the government to erect more trade barriers. What we should do is eliminate all the regulations that make is so much more expensive to run a factory here. Get rid of the minimum wage and all the safety regulations and child labor laws and such and let businesses open up factories that the liberals would consider sweat shops here, rather than having to go elsewhere to do it. Then all those workers that you mentioned would still be able to work here by offering to work in conditions and at a wage rate that could compete with their third world counterparts if they so choose, rather than being forced out of jobs by having wages kept artificially too high by government intervention.

This is, after all, the Ron Paul forums. So it should be no surprise that when you post that kind of protectionist line you will be answered by people who share Ron Paul's free market perspective.

[tangent4ronpaul]

This one agrees that we are #1, but is from 2007

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/

-t

[muh_roads]

This one agrees that we are #1, but is from 2007

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/

-t

What does Shadow Stats say? I believe them far more than teh gubmint.

[muh_roads]

They have the right to disagree. And I don't deny that you can find certain people made worse off by more free trade.. But there are far more who are made better off (i.e. the people who own the cheap alarm clocks, jeans, coffee pots, gas, etc.). In every economic change there are winners and losers. We could adopt the perspective of the Luddites who fought to ban sewing machines because they resulted in tailors losing their jobs. Of course, had the government followed that course it would have done far more harm than good.

I'm definitely against NAFTA, but not because I want the government to erect more trade barriers. What we should do is eliminate all the regulations that make is so much more expensive to run a factory here. Get rid of the minimum wage and all the safety regulations and child labor laws and such and let businesses open up factories that the liberals would consider sweat shops here, rather than having to go elsewhere to do it.

This is, after all, the Ron Paul forums. So it should be no surprise that when you post that kind of protectionist line you will be answered by people who share Ron Paul's free market perspective.

You don't just find certain people you find A LOT of people affected by outsourcing. You sound as if government has too many trade barriers. Do you endorse globalism? America's wealth is really being stripped away. I'm sure there are documentaries on this.

[erowe1]

You don't just find certain people you find A LOT of people affected by outsourcing.

That's correct. Everybody is affected by it. Everybody. When outsourcing happens as a result of free decisions by the participants involved, apart from government intervention either promoting the outsourcing or impeding it, then far more people are affected for the better than those affected for the worse.


You sound as if government has too many trade barriers.

If the government has any trade barriers at all, that's too many.


Do you endorse globalism?

No, I don't. Globalism, like protectionism, is based on central management of our trade. Just like Ron Paul (you know, the guy this site is named after) I'm for the government getting out of that business.

[muh_roads]

That's correct. Everybody is affected by it. Everybody. When outsourcing happens as a result of free decisions by the participants involved, apart from government intervention either promoting the outsourcing or impeding it, then far more people are affected for the better than those affected for the worse.

You need to give a real example of who benefits. Because I only see upper management benefiting. And that is the biggest problem with corporate America. People actually doing the work are rewarded the least while people in a cushy office are rewarded the most.

Outsourcing is being SUBSIDIZED by the government dude. They get tax breaks and incentives. If a company wants to oursource on their own accord that is fine but the government is part of the problem making it easier for them to do it.



No, I don't. Globalism, like protectionism, is based on central management of our trade. Just like Ron Paul (you know, the guy this site is named after) I'm for the government getting out of that business.

If you feel the only thing the government should be paying for is military defense while at the same time disliking the federal income tax then there aren't too many other options to embrace outside of tariff's that will cover the cost. Raising corporate taxes I suppose...

[dannno]

Buying all those cheap foreign-made goods doesn't result in fewer jobs for Americans, it results in more jobs, and better ones. The more our government restricts the trade we can do with other countries, the worse off our economy is.

You are speaking from a free market perspective, and we don't have a free market.

The OP is not saying we should restrict trade with other countries, but he is highlighting a problem that is caused by our monetary policy.

[muh_roads]

You are speaking from a free market perspective, and we don't have a free market.

The OP is not saying we should restrict trade with other countries, but he is highlighting a problem that is caused by our monetary policy.

Yeah I don't want to put trade blocks up like we have with Cuba. I just recognize that this country was originally built on tariffs before 1913 rolled around. I would like to go back to that. A company can outsource on its own accord if they want. They would just find it not as profitable anymore without big daddy, globalist embracing government subsidizing them along the way.

Not as profitable because of the lack of government subsidies.
Actually more profitable hiring domestically.
More jobs for Americans.

Win-Win

Instead of Win-Major Lose as we have it now.

[erowe1]

You need to give a real example of who benefits. Because I only see upper management benefiting. And that is the biggest problem with corporate America. People actually doing the work are rewarded the least while people in a cushy office are rewarded the most.

Outsourcing is being SUBSIDIZED by the government dude. They get tax breaks and incentives. If a company wants to oursource on their own accord that is fine but the government is part of the problem making it easier for them to do it.




If you feel the only thing the government should be paying for is military defense while at the same time disliking the federal income tax then there aren't too many other options to embrace outside of tariff's that will cover the cost. Raising corporate taxes I suppose...

I don't need to give any more real life examples of who benefits from outsourcing (again, if it's the result of free decisions of the participants without government interference either promoting or impeding those decisions). Your initial post gave all the examples I need. Everyone who buys those cheap jeans and coffee pots is benefiting.

I am against government subsidizing of outsourcing or anything else. But when there is a problem created by some government action we should never look for a solution that amounts to another government action designed to balance out the former one. We should instead fight to eliminate the government action that created the problem to begin with.

As to your point about tariffs, I agree. Tariffs are less objectionable than the income tax, which isn't saying much. If we were to pass a revenue neutral tax reform that replaced the entire income tax with an equivalent amount of tariffs, I'd take that. But I would continue to fight to decrease those tariffs as much as possible. We wouldn't be able to get rid of the income tax without significantly reducing the size of out government, military included.

[__27__]

Yeah I don't want to put trade blocks up like we have with Cuba. I just recognize that this country was originally built on tariffs before 1913 rolled around. I would like to go back to that. A company can outsource on its own accord if they want. They would just find it not as profitable anymore without big daddy, globalist embracing government subsidizing them along the way.

Not as profitable because of the lack of government subsidies.
Actually more profitable hiring domestically.
More jobs for Americans.

Win-Win

Instead of Win-Major Lose as we have it now.

Win-Lose.

The price you pay for every single product will go up. You don't understand economics very well. If a worker in China is willing to work a factory job for $4/hr. GOOD! The more better for America that he does. The same product can now be purchased by the old worker for a LOWER price, while the American worker is now free to pursue more specialized work for a higher wage. As America's factories for "cap guns" and "toaster ovens" have moved overseas for DECADES, what has the American worker done? Sat at home and sulked? Of COURSE not, and would he have he deserved the fate. The American worker has moved on to bigger and better things, seeing his wage increase, and the price of products DECREASE. Only a simpleton, or someone using emotion not logic to fuel their rage would call that a bad thing.

Protectionism is a disastrous, emotional game that is played to the detriment of EVERY SINGLE PERSON involved.


What happened to the blacksmiths of the world? What happened to the workers who tended to horse & buggy repair? What happened to the typewriter manufacturer and worker with the advent of the word processor?

The notion that increasing the end price of goods to the consumer through domestic protectionism is somehow a net gain to the economy is no more rooted in reality than are Unicorns. The reality is that in the case of sugar tariff's, not only did we simply raise the price to consumers, we actually pushed business away from domestic sugar producers when manufacturers decided instead to use other products such as high fructose corn syrup due to the very high prices which were themselves supposed to guarantee the domestic sugar producer the market. Your shortsighted, while well intentioned, intervention has not only resulted in higher prices and inferior products, it has NOT even protected the very jobs which it professed it would. Had the cheaper imported sugar been imported with no tariff the consumer would have had a higher quality product at a lower price, and the domestic sugar producer would have put his labor and his land to better use by growing a crop with which he did not need a price control to gain his profit. Through shortsightedness you have shorted EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that process, the consumer gets an inferior product, the importer doesn't import because it is too costly, the manufacturer must pay a higher rate or use a substitute, and the domestic producer still loses ground on where he would be had his labor and resources been allowed to be properly allocated by the market.



http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html


I borrow from Bastiat above, and as well from a friend of mine below:


Tell me, when shopping, do you choose the more expensive or the less expensive of two otherwise equal goods? Leave aside nationality for the moment; we can even assume that we're looking at the same US-made item, available in two different stores. A common enough occurrence, is it not? Well, which do you pick? Do you pick the more expensive or the less expensive one?

To ask it is to answer it. You economize. No sophistry can obscure this fundamental fact of human action: faced with scarcity, the fact that we do not live in an Eden of immediate and total satisfaction of all our whims, we must economize. And for what reason? So we can satisfy more of our wants. Trivially: that which is left over after the satisfaction of one want may be applied to the satisfaction of another want.

I shan't go into economizing with quality, except to say that the same principle holds true. You could devote your whole yearly income to buying a Mercedes (or Aston-Martin or Bugatti or whatever - fill in your pay grade as applicable), but you don't; you are happy enough to make do with 'good enough' satisfaction of one want in order to be able to satisfy others alongside it.

There can be no objection to any of the above, for merely to raise an objection is to prove my point: it cannot be done without economizing your use of scarce resources.

The application to international trade should be immediately obvious, but just in case, I shall belabor the point.

At once, on the face of the above, it's clear that buying a cheaper foreign good allows more immediate want satisfaction than buying a more expensive domestic good. Perhaps you can buy your wife a cheap foreign shiny and take her to a swanky dinner, or you can buy your wife an expensive domestic shiny and sit at home and hope she doesn't mind ramen.

Ah, but you object, this ignores the longer-term consequences! Domestic shiny makers will go out of business, and those unemployed shiny makers will quit buying and will starve and the whole economy'll...

Yes, they'll go out of business? So what? If they go out of business and then just sit on their thumbs, well, they deserve to starve to death. Good riddance! But why should they have to sit on their thumbs and starve to death? For god's sakes, man, turn off the television and think! It doesn't hurt that much! Jobs? What is the point of a job? Do we have jobs just for the hell of it? No! Jobs exist not because we like them, but because they produce the things we want. Jobs are means to ends, not ends in themselves! When foreigners make shinies more cheaply than we can, they free us from having to make shinies ourselves, and give us the opportunity to produce other things to satisfy other wants! As such, where before we could have only shinies, trade allows us to have shinies and whatever else we can produce!

If we don't take the opportunity, we've nobody to blame but ourselves. And in fact that's precisely what's happening. Our government, and nothing else, makes it difficult - often impossible - to re-employ factors of production.

Trade restrictions and 'defense of domestic industry' do not increase want satisfaction; they limit it. They enforce poverty, in other words. They can do nothing else.

[muh_roads]

Win-Lose.

The price you pay for every single product will go up. You don't understand economics very well. If a worker in China is willing to work a factory job for $4/hr. GOOD! The more better for America that he does. The same product can now be purchased by the old worker for a LOWER price, while the American worker is now free to pursue more specialized work for a higher wage. As America's factories for "cap guns" and "toaster ovens" have moved overseas for DECADES, what has the American worker done? Sat at home and sulked? Of COURSE not, and would he have he deserved the fate. The American worker has moved on to bigger and better things, seeing his wage increase, and the price of products DECREASE. Only a simpleton, or someone using emotion not logic to fuel their rage would call that a bad thing.

Protectionism is a disastrous, emotional game that is played to the detriment of EVERY SINGLE PERSON involved.


What happened to the blacksmiths of the world? What happened to the workers who tended to horse & buggy repair? What happened to the typewriter manufacturer and worker with the advent of the word processor?

The notion that increasing the end price of goods to the consumer through domestic protectionism is somehow a net gain to the economy is no more rooted in reality than are Unicorns. The reality is that in the case of sugar tariff's, not only did we simply raise the price to consumers, we actually pushed business away from domestic sugar producers when manufacturers decided instead to use other products such as high fructose corn syrup due to the very high prices which were themselves supposed to guarantee the domestic sugar producer the market. Your shortsighted, while well intentioned, intervention has not only resulted in higher prices and inferior products, it has NOT even protected the very jobs which it professed it would. Had the cheaper imported sugar been imported with no tariff the consumer would have had a higher quality product at a lower price, and the domestic sugar producer would have put his labor and his land to better use by growing a crop with which he did not need a price control to gain his profit. Through shortsightedness you have shorted EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that process, the consumer gets an inferior product, the importer doesn't import because it is too costly, the manufacturer must pay a higher rate or use a substitute, and the domestic producer still loses ground on where he would be had his labor and resources been allowed to be properly allocated by the market.



http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html


I borrow from Bastiat above, and as well from a friend of mine below:

Where did you get the notion I wanted higher prices for consumer goods? Maybe it is you who doesn't understand economics very well. Domestic production isn't going to increase products if competing domestic products being made are also available. The cheaper product will win.

Also the horse buggy repair industry changing into auto mechanics isn't a good analogy. Factories are shutting down in small towns leaving people with NOTHING to switch over to. Mom & Pops are closing down because Wal-Marts are moving in leaving them with no alternative other than to go work for them at minimum wage.

Seriously stop with these assy comparisons as if the outsourcing that has been going on is entirely 100% free market causing.

[Deborah K]

Buying all those cheap foreign-made goods doesn't result in fewer jobs for Americans, it results in more jobs, and better ones. The more our government restricts the trade we can do with other countries, the worse off our economy is.

Trade deficits don't help us, they hurt us. We can't have a healthy economy if all we are doing is consuming and not producing.

[__27__]

Where did you get the notion I wanted higher prices for consumer goods? Maybe it is you who doesn't understand economics very well. Domestic production isn't going to increase products if competing domestic products being made are also available. The cheaper product will win.

No, actually it won't. You're keeping the cheapest product off of the market by force. You are forcing consumers to buy the more expensive product.


Also the horse buggy repair industry changing into auto mechanics isn't a good analogy. Factories are shutting down in small towns leaving people with NOTHING to switch over to. Mom & Pops are closing down because Wal-Marts are moving in leaving them with no alternative other than to go work for them at minimum wage.

Actually, it's a great analogy. Perhaps instead of sitting on their thumbs, mom and pops should be finding a way to bring the low price and convenience of WalMart to their customers. If they don't, they have no one to blame but themselves. Again, do you want to force your consumer to buy the more expensive product? And that is a GAIN to the economy how?


Seriously stop with these assy comparisons as if the outsourcing that has been going on is entirely 100% free market causing.

Seriously, stop discussing economics if you don't have at least an elementary grasp of the subject matter. Protectionism forces consumers to pay higher prices, and narrows the products available in the marketplace, both by eliminating the import competition, and denying the market of the produce that worker might have made after the market bought from his imported competition.


Aside from the economic absurdity of protectionism, none of this covers the base question that must be asked of protectiontists. Why is an American worker entitled to make a higher wage for the exact same labor than any other worker in the world? Protectionism reeks far more of Fascism than it does of freedom and capitalism. It is certainly no friend to liberty.

[__27__]

Trade deficits don't help us, they hurt us. We can't have a healthy economy if all we are doing is consuming and not producing.

Care to explain how? What you're describing is either myth, or misunderstanding. You cannot consume without producing, you must produce something first before it can be traded for anything to consume, if not that would mean that someone was giving you something for free. We should be so lucky.

What I think you are really getting at, is not trade deficits, but credit living. Produce and consume all you want, trade deficits do no harm to anyone. The trade you make is mutually beneficial, otherwise you would not make the trade. However, where America has run into problems is living on credit. THAT is consuming without producing, and THAT is what is dangerous. Without credit, it is physically impossible to consume something without first producing, unless as stated someone was gifting you, and in that case, you would complain?


As Bastiat asked:

If we exported nothing and imported everything, why would this be bad? You either really hate receiving Christmas gifts or you don't really believe that trade deficits, if they exist, are bad. And what reason do you have to believe that foreigners are, or have ever, been inclined to give us something and take nothing in return? None, that's what.

[Lord Xar]

So it should be no surprise that when you post that kind of protectionist line you will be answered by people who share Ron Paul's free market perspective.

Stop your "LABELING" bullshit. You are starting to irritate me. I find it rather funny that you always throw an insult, then insinuate that you are Ron Paul supporter of some kind within the same breath.

[erowe1]

Stop your "LABELING" bullshit. You are starting to irritate me. I find it rather funny that you always throw an insult, then insinuate that you are Ron Paul supporter of some kind within the same breath.

It's not an insult. It's an accurate label. I share Ron Paul's free market principles. I realize a lot of protectionists also support him and I'm glad they do. I don't mean any offense by that.

[Deborah K]

Care to explain how? What you're describing is either myth, or misunderstanding. You cannot consume without producing, you must produce something first before it can be traded for anything to consume, if not that would mean that someone was giving you something for free. We should be so lucky.

What I think you are really getting at, is not trade deficits, but credit living. Produce and consume all you want, trade deficits do no harm to anyone. The trade you make is mutually beneficial, otherwise you would not make the trade. However, where America has run into problems is living on credit. THAT is consuming without producing, and THAT is what is dangerous. Without credit, it is physically impossible to consume something without first producing, unless as stated someone was gifting you, and in that case, you would complain?


As Bastiat asked:

If we exported nothing and imported everything, why would this be bad? You either really hate receiving Christmas gifts or you don't really believe that trade deficits, if they exist, are bad. And what reason do you have to believe that foreigners are, or have ever, been inclined to give us something and take nothing in return? None, that's what.


Bastiat's Christmas analogy is not only a stupid one, it doesn't apply. If we produce nothing to trade then what would the rest of the world need us for? Our useless dollar?

[Lord Xar]

That's correct. Everybody is affected by it. Everybody. When outsourcing happens as a result of free decisions by the participants involved, ......

You love to throw around preposterous assumptions without any data. You are just stating an opinion as fact. At my job, over 45+ people will disagree with you here. They were laid off, and replaced by cheaper outsourcing. How can you quantify who this benefits more? The american citizen? From my view, our production is down, our quality is down, the product price is the same.... and they didn't ask those laid off for "their decision", as they are certainly participants involved.

The problem here is, the same as the "Open border apologists".. you argue a point that is not even in the realm of possibility, so you bring about the "globalist" agenda even though you say you are against it. I don't get it. Then you try to tie that into a "ron paul view". Ron Paul, on many occasions, makes concessions on his beliefs based on current circumstances.

[__27__]

Bastiat's Christmas analogy is not only a stupid one, it doesn't apply. If we produce nothing to trade then what would the rest of the world need us for? Our useless dollar?

Bastiat's Christmas analogy is so astute, you prove it's truth even while you believe you are arguing against it.

If we produce NOTHING, a trade deficit cannot exist. If we produce NOTHING, we cannot trade for anything. If we produce NOTHING and somehow still magically have imports, then someone is giving us trade for free.

You either hate Christmas presents, or you really believe that trade deficits, if they exist, are not bad.

[erowe1]

You love to throw around preposterous assumptions without any data. You are just stating an opinion as fact. At my job, over 45+ people will disagree with you here. They were laid off, and replaced by cheaper outsourcing. How can you quantify who this benefits more? The american citizen? From my view, our production is down, our quality is down, the product price is the same.... and they didn't ask those laid off for "their decision", as they are certainly participants involved.

The problem here is, the same as the "Open border apologists".. you argue a point that is not even in the realm of possibility, so you bring about the "globalist" agenda even though you say you are against it. I don't get it. Then you try to tie that into a "ron paul view". Ron Paul, on many occasions, makes concessions on his beliefs based on current circumstances.

Those 45+ people were probably charging more for their labor than their competitors overseas do. Most likely our government forces them to do that with such unjust things as minimum wage laws, safety regulations, and child labor laws. We do need to get rid of those things so that those 45+ workers can offer to work for whatever wages and conditions they choose, rather than having the government force them into its choices for them. At any rate, you can't say no one benefits. Obviously your company's owners benefit, or at least they think they do, or they wouldn't have done it. And if prices really are just as high as they would have been had they kept the more expensive workers (but I'm betting they aren't), then they must be making higher profits. The foreign workers also benefit, or else they wouldn't take those jobs.

[Deborah K]

Bastiat's Christmas analogy is so astute, you prove it's truth even while you believe you are arguing against it.

If we produce NOTHING, a trade deficit cannot exist. If we produce NOTHING, we cannot trade for anything. If we produce NOTHING and somehow still magically have imports, then someone is giving us trade for free.

You either hate Christmas presents, or you really believe that trade deficits, if they exist, are not bad.

Be careful. I wrote "if we produce nothing to trade". I did not write "if we produce nothing". There is a big difference. Especially when debating about trade deficit.

[Anti Federalist]

Trade deficits don't help us, they hurt us. We can't have a healthy economy if all we are doing is consuming and not producing.

That ^^

There is more at stake than the bottom line.

A nation cannot remain free and independent if it does nothing for itself and relies on everything from foreign sources, sources that, in many ways, are hostile to the best interests of the nation and the citizens living there.

[armstrong]

Your talking about my crowd here 42-50 who's jobs are gone and leaving, being replaced by illegals everywhere here in Oregon and yes manufacturing jobs are gone too, unfortunately allot in my crowd did not have parents to send us to college and most of us did not inherit from our parents and so we did the best we can and like me put my kids through college by working for myself and just getting by so no allot of us did not and could not move up to "much better paying jobs " for we were busy working not going to college and raising our kids and thats OK . But now construction workers IE: sheet rockers,cabinet makers,landscaping,siders,roofers,and the rest are being replaced with illegals who work for half the price, which a good carpenter with his own tools makes around 14 an hour which in todays market is lean because of the cost of even the basics. So you see not bitch-en here but you get a 48 year old male construction worker who has done it right , raised his family and has no bills outside of his home loses his job and no jobs to be had, what so go back to college is his only choice? go into dept 20-40 grand at this point in his life, not to mention living expenses while going back to school....I think not. there are I believe millions of people in this category across the country

[Deborah K]

Your talking about my crowd here 42-50 who's jobs are gone and leaving, being replaced by illegals everywhere here in Oregon and yes manufacturing jobs are gone too, unfortunately allot in my crowd did not have parents to send us to college and most of us did not inherit from our parents and so we did the best we can and like me put my kids through college by working for myself and just getting by so no allot of us did not and could not move up to "much better paying jobs " for we were busy working not going to college and raising our kids and thats OK . But now construction workers IE: sheet rockers,cabinet makers,landscaping,siders,roofers,and the rest are being replaced with illegals who work for half the price, which a good carpenter with his own tools makes around 14 an hour which in todays market is lean because of the cost of even the basics. So you see not bitch-en here but you get a 48 year old male construction worker who has done it right , raised his family and has no bills outside of his home loses his job and no jobs to be had, what so go back to college is his only choice? go into dept 20-40 grand at this point in his life, not to mention living expenses while going back to school....I think not. there are I believe millions of people in this category across the country


This is sad but true! I live in Cali where illegal immigration has nearly destroyed us. And where are the illegals sending their money? Why...back to Mexico of course! To the tune of about 30 billion a year. It is one of their major sources of revenue.

God be with you and yours.

[armstrong]

Just another note here, how many college grads cannot get a job now? hmmm---seems to me that number is going up ,up and up, the last few years...yea export our jobs, raise the price of medical insurance till no one can afford it,raise tuition so high nobody can afford it and call it progress. greed and more greed and OH lets not forget the cost of housing. (buying and renting) God help our kids and grand kids..

[LibForestPaul]

Buying all those cheap foreign-made goods doesn't result in fewer jobs for Americans, it results in more jobs, and better ones. The more our government restricts the trade we can do with other countries, the worse off our economy is.

Not if those people are slaves. Only with countries that support liberty, private property and open markets. China is not one of these, nor is Germany, nor Japan.

[libertarian4321]

This is sad but true! I live in Cali where illegal immigration has nearly destroyed us. And where are the illegals sending their money? Why...back to Mexico of course! To the tune of about 30 billion a year. It is one of their major sources of revenue.

God be with you and yours.

California has destroyed itself by having a complete lack of fiscal discipline.

I live in Texas, with a FAR longer border with Mexico than CA has, and we are doing fine.

Why? Because Texas, while far from perfect, at least has SOME fiscal discipline.

California is a mess, not because of "immigrants", but because California just doesn't have its stuff together.

[libertarian4321]

Not if those people are slaves. Only with countries that support liberty, private property and open markets. China is not one of these, nor is Germany, nor Japan.

Nor is the USA.

[Lord Xar]

California has destroyed itself by having a complete lack of fiscal discipline.

I live in Texas, with a FAR longer border with Mexico than CA has, and we are doing fine.

Why? Because Texas, while far from perfect, at least has SOME fiscal discipline.

California is a mess, not because of "immigrants", but because California just doesn't have its stuff together.

Illegal Immigration plays a HUGE ROLE in California's mess. Of course there is fiscal irresponsibility, that goes without saying.

When people use the strawman argument to validate their positions, it tells me a whole lot more than "opinions". The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes.

california:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffe c

texas:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research2859

Talking about the "length" of the border etc.. is irrelevent to the conversation, and you are being dishonest to even bring that up as a basis to disregard this "GIGANTIC PINK ELEPHANT" in the room that is illegal immigration.

You know that saying ... "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, most likely... is a duck".. well, if we don't shut our eyes and we look around... the effects of illegal immigration are undeniable. The media can 'cover it up' all they want, but america is waking up.

[armstrong]

I agree true free market enterprise is the answer: CAUSE YOU CANT CHARGE MORE FOR YOUR GOODS THAN THE BUYER CAN AFFORD. But you can not allow employers to hire illegals to undercut that principle. If you have to start at the top in order to afford basic goods the system is doomed. Our system now is basically if your an average person born without a silver spoon in your mouth and parents can not send you to college , you can not live in this country without some sort of assistance, via welfare, food stamps and roommates at least back in the 70's and 80's we had manufacturing and construction and you could make it on your own and prosper. this is my opinion

[armstrong]

Look at the price of cars, homes,cloths, shoes, we loose jobs and import that alone does not make total sense, how can the buyer buy without a job?..... not everyone can have a 30 dollar an hour job!I know their is more to this, fiscal irresponsibility, minimum wage,unions, we are just #$#%@ up here in America

[sratiug]

That's correct. Everybody is affected by it. Everybody. When outsourcing happens as a result of free decisions by the participants involved, apart from government intervention either promoting the outsourcing or impeding it, then far more people are affected for the better than those affected for the worse.



If the government has any trade barriers at all, that's too many.



No, I don't. Globalism, like protectionism, is based on central management of our trade. Just like Ron Paul (you know, the guy this site is named after) I'm for the government getting out of that business.

All internal federal taxes subsidize imports. A desire end internal taxes to move to a flat tariff is not protectionist, it is just removing subsidies of foreign production. Internal taxes are paid by American producers and artificially inflate the prices of American goods while importers get a free ride with so called free trade.

A simple constitutional amendment to replace internal taxes with a flat tariff would level the playing field. All free traders should recognize it is more important for us to have free trade at home than to pay for trade at home to subsidize imports.

[Deborah K]

California has destroyed itself by having a complete lack of fiscal discipline.

I live in Texas, with a FAR longer border with Mexico than CA has, and we are doing fine.

Why? Because Texas, while far from perfect, at least has SOME fiscal discipline.

California is a mess, not because of "immigrants", but because California just doesn't have its stuff together.


You would do well to do a study of what illegal immigration has done to your hospitals. I know Minutemen who patrol the border in Texas who would disagree with your assessment. Yes, your state has done a much better job of controlling the damage illegal immigration does. But to state that illegal immigration has not affected California is inaccurate.

[dannno]

California is a mess, not because of "immigrants", but because California just doesn't have its stuff together.

Agreeing with you twice in one day.. starting to get scary..


Illegal immigrants have allowed California to flourish by allowing us to be productive in numerous areas without having to worry about harvesting our surplus of food we sell around the country and world, we don't have to worry about roofing or construction or even cleaning our houses. Illegal immigrants aren't costing the state anything. California sunk itself.

[Deborah K]

Agreeing with you twice in one day.. starting to get scary..


Illegal immigrants have allowed California to flourish by allowing us to be productive in numerous areas without having to worry about harvesting our surplus of food we sell around the country and world, we don't have to worry about roofing or construction or even cleaning our houses. Illegal immigrants aren't costing the state anything. California sunk itself.

Right. And they aren't taking jobs away from Americans. Jobs like trucking, landscaping, construction, hospitality, etc. Just farming and housekeeping. uh huh! And they don't commit crimes and end up in prison, and they don't use any social services like the emergency room for minor injuries and illnesses, or food stamps or baby deliveries, and their kids don't fill up our schools, and they don't send their american dollars back to mexico. uh huh! And most of them don't work under the table.

[Lord Xar]

Agreeing with you twice in one day.. starting to get scary..


Illegal immigrants have allowed California to flourish by allowing us to be productive in numerous areas without having to worry about harvesting our surplus of food we sell around the country and world, we don't have to worry about roofing or construction or even cleaning our houses. Illegal immigrants aren't costing the state anything. California sunk itself.

"harvesting our surplus...." <--- outsourced job job that surpresses wages and removes an american from the job.

"we sell around the country..." <-- irrelevant to your point.

"..roofing & construction..." <-- outsourced job that surpresses wages and removes an american from the job.

It has been proven more times than I can count, illegal immigrants are a net drain on the host country.

"Illegal immigrants aren't costing the state anything" <-- This tells everybody pretty much your complete lack of understanding and knowledge of the issue that is illegal immigration. If I was you, before you get into a discussion about illegal immigration and its consequences, you remove yourself from you biased opinions, and actually get right on knowledge.

California is a cesspool for alot of reasons. NO LESS important of these, is illegal immigration.

Danno, c'mon, tell us the truth. Your gf is an illegal, right?:D

[armstrong]

outsourced jobs to other countries =Americans removed from jobs
outsourced jobs to illegals inside the country = Americans removed from jobs
keep prices almost the same on goods and they still rise over time=Americans more poor
banks and Realtors play game of homes keep going up in value = over sold over valued
now we have goods high priced, homes high priced,and no jobs
that is what we are all talking about here as I see it----just plain greed---

[james1906]

It was the absurd notion that America could sustain itself by having everyone serve coffee to one another that got us into our current economic mess.

Low paying service jobs couldn't keep us afloat.

[erowe1]

It was the absurd notion that America could sustain itself by having everyone serve coffee to one another that got us into our current economic mess.

Low paying service jobs couldn't keep us afloat.

I don't think anybody here advocates that. What we adovcate (those of us who hold the same free market ideals that Ron Paul does) is that the government should stay out of the whole process of deciding what jobs should and shouldn't exist in America. If because of the free decisions of people we end up importing all of our steel, and American steel workers end up serving coffee, then government should not intervene to stop that from happening in any way. Nor should our government do anything to promote such a situation. On the other hand, if some other nation's government actively works to promote that situation, like say if China puts tariffs on all steel they import and uses those tariffs to subsidize exporting their own steel, and it still results in all our steel workers serving coffee, then our government should still do nothing at all in response. And we will all (except for those few steel workers) be the better off for it. We will still have just as much steel to do all the things we do with it (none of which are serving coffee), plus we'll have that many more people serving us coffee. The net productivity of our country will have gone up, not down, for the same net cost as before. And it will be the Chinese consumer footing the bill for this increase in the American standard of living. And, as a matter of fact, back to those coffee-serving steel workers, they might end up better off as well, since, with steel being cheaper to import than to produce here, we would end up importing more of it than what we had formerly produced here, and we would use that extra steel to produce more steel goods, which we would need more people to make, and that's where those laid off steel workers come in.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think anybody here advocates that. What we adovcate (those of us who hold the same free market ideals that Ron Paul does) is that the government should stay out of the whole process of deciding what jobs should and shouldn't exist in America. If because of the free decisions of people we end up importing all of our steel, and American steel workers end up serving coffee, then government should not intervene to stop that from happening in any way. Nor should our government do anything to promote such a situation. On the other hand, if some other nation's government actively works to promote that situation, like say if China puts tariffs on all steel they import and uses those tariffs to subsidize exporting their own steel, and it still results in all our steel workers serving coffee, then our government should still do nothing at all in response. And we will all (except for those few steel workers) be the better off for it. We will still have just as much steel to do all the things we do with it (none of which are serving coffee), plus we'll have that many more people serving us coffee. The net productivity of our country will have gone up, not down, for the same net cost as before. And it will be the Chinese consumer footing the bill for this increase in the American standard of living. And, as a matter of fact, back to those coffee-serving steel workers, they might end up better off as well, since, with steel being cheaper to import than to produce here, we would end up importing more of it than what we had formerly produced here, and we would use that extra steel to produce more steel goods, which we would need more people to make, and that's where those laid off steel workers come in.

Two fatal flaws here:

One, the assumption that the Chinese government gives a rat's ass about the well being of the population.

Two, what are you going to build with all that cheap steel? More Starbucks?

[erowe1]

Two fatal flaws here:

One, the assumption that the Chinese government gives a rat's ass about the well being of the population.

Two, what are you going to build with all that cheap steel? More Starbucks?

1) I don't assume anything about what the Chinese government cares about. If their understanding of economics is so backward that they think they are helping themselves by sending us cheap stuff at their own expense, then we should smile and take it, and let them deal with their own mess. At the same time, just as we should do nothing to retaliate against them in that, so also we should do nothing to help China do it. Too often we do both, when we ought to do neither.

2) The beauty of freedom is that I don't have to answer the question of what we would build with it. Obviously various American companies would build something with it, or they wouldn't import it. What they build should be determined wholly by their free choice in pursuit of their own self interests apart from any manipulation by our own government. And the manipulations that now exist, making it harder to build cars, for example, by regulating what how car making must be done, need to stop.

[__27__]

Right. And they aren't taking jobs away from Americans. Jobs like trucking, landscaping, construction, hospitality, etc. Just farming and housekeeping. uh huh! And they don't commit crimes and end up in prison, and they don't use any social services like the emergency room for minor injuries and illnesses, or food stamps or baby deliveries, and their kids don't fill up our schools, and they don't send their american dollars back to mexico. uh huh! And most of them don't work under the table.

And your illegal immigration is nothing more than the strawman you accuse others of using it as. When a person crosses an imaginary line on a piece of paper in an Oligarch's office, he has done nothing to harm you. Him taking a job to better his life does not harm you, unless you think he is a subhuman not deserving of a job like you a member of the superior race. The rest is a problem with the SYSTEM, not the immigrant.

The problem with illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with the immigrant, and everything to do with the welfare state. With an open border and an open market, the wage is set competitively, and the bottom cannot be pulled out by someone who doesn't require the immense burden of funding the state (the reason you lose your job to an illegal is NOT because he will work for $7/hr while you demand $15/hr, it is because if the employer pays the illegal $15/hr his cost for that employee is $15/hr, while if he pays you $15/hr his cost after tax burdens and benefits packages is $30/hr). This problem is not solved by a hate for brown people and erecting giant fences to keep them out, it is solved by removing the welfare state, and by OPENING borders.

And your comment about "taking the money back with them"? What good are American dollars in Mexico? None, excepting in as much as one can trade them for local currency or goods to another who believes they can use them for trade with America. Earlier in the thread you claim to me that if America produced NOTHING for export (hyperbole of the highest accord to begin with) that the rest of the world would cease trading because why would they want dollars? Now I am to believe that "brown people" are taking American dollars to Mexico and the dollars are never to be seen again? Hogwash.

So far in the thread you have supported protectionism, and excluding other humans from "our" market. Either you're a national socialist, or you are misdirecting your angst for the system at individuals on the ground.



ETA: It really is no different than nationalizing health care. Today you and I may agree that it is any persons own business, their right to proper ownership of their own body, to ingest what they like in their system. We say this understanding that it is also their responsibility to bear the consequences both good and bad of their own actions. However, once you enter into a national health care system, it becomes the responsibility of the collective to bear the consequences (bad) of the individuals actions. Therefore, as a person ingests things into their body which cause them harm, we the collective are charged with repairing and aiding that individual. The proper argument against this is NOT that the person no longer has a right to ownership over his own body (ingesting as he pleases), but that the system is inherently wrong. By yelling and screaming about "brown people" coming and "takin er jerbs" your making the same argument as would someone trying to claim ownership over anothers body for reasons of collective health care. "Brown people" have every right to come to our market and enter their labor in exchange for commodity or paper. The fact that the system is so screwed up as to punish the collective for his doing so does not negate that right. It is the system (welfare state) that is inherently wrong and deserves your angst, not the immigrant laborer.

[PaulaGem]

Where did you get the notion I wanted higher prices for consumer goods? Maybe it is you who doesn't understand economics very well. Domestic production isn't going to increase products if competing domestic products being made are also available. The cheaper product will win.

Also the horse buggy repair industry changing into auto mechanics isn't a good analogy. Factories are shutting down in small towns leaving people with NOTHING to switch over to. Mom & Pops are closing down because Wal-Marts are moving in leaving them with no alternative other than to go work for them at minimum wage.

Seriously stop with these assy comparisons as if the outsourcing that has been going on is entirely 100% free market causing.

I just want to remind everyone that Sam Walton bought american when he could. He kept a lot of mom & pop businesses going.

[PaulaGem]

There is a real problem when we aren't producing a healthy cross section of the goods we use. The problem is that it is a potential way for others to control us.

Those jeans you were talking about. It wasn't that long ago that the U.S. had a garment industry.

I'm collecting Homer Laughlin china. We used to make our own dishes you know.

Also by not having a good generalized economy we stop having a place for the women who are good at sewing to work. The artists who design china now have to make pots for a craft fair. Anyone with a basic non-technical skill set has to work at McDonald's or in retail.

That is part of what is wrong with the country right now, the whole economic system is off balance.

[erowe1]

Little mom and pop stores that can't take advantage of economies of scale and have to sell things for more than the big mega-stores can, SHOULD go out of business. Artificially keeping these anchors on the economy open is backwards. Why don't we just outlaw the automobile to protect the jobs of horse and buggy makers?

[__27__]

Little mom and pop stores that can't take advantage of economies of scale and have to sell things for more than the big mega-stores can, SHOULD go out of business. Artificially keeping these anchors on the economy open is backwards. Why don't we just outlaw the automobile to protect the jobs of horse and buggy makers?

I'm not sure what to make of this thread erowe, it really strikes me that there are far more national socialist leaners here than I ever anticipated.

[PaulaGem]

The problem with illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with the immigrant, and everything to do with the welfare state.

I don't think we would have as many people dependant on the state if we had a greater selection of job opportunities for people and if those job opportunities would give the person who works a 40 hour week a decent living standard.

Of course you do realize that the "welfare state" we really have to worry about is not the money going to the people, it's the corporate welfare that's causing the hurt.

By the way, if we got rid of corporate welfare and the Fed flow we could afford to give more people welfare than we are now and still pay lower taxes.

[erowe1]

I'm not sure what to make of this thread erowe, it really strikes me that there are far more national socialist leaners here than I ever anticipated.

I think the answer that we should be able to get most Ron Paul supporters who think like that to accept is to insist that the best solution to a government created problem will never be a government created solution, but the elimination of the government action that caused the problem in the first place.

So some rightly point out that we have various government created problems that work to the disadvantage of working class Americans, and that favor corporations, or welfare recipients, or foreign countries, or globalist bankers, or whatever. But then they imagine that we have to balance these things out with other government programs that involve using the violence based coercive powers of our government to protect those working class American jobs, making government even bigger, rather than insisting on addressing the root problem, and making government smaller.

[__27__]

I don't think we would have as many people dependant on the state if we had a greater selection of job opportunities for people and if those job opportunities would give the person who works a 40 hour week a decent living standard.

Of course you do realize that the "welfare state" we really have to worry about is not the money going to the people, it's the corporate welfare that's causing the hurt.

By the way, if we got rid of corporate welfare and the Fed flow we could afford to give more people welfare than we are now and still pay lower taxes.

Oooh Goody! A little less theft and we can give a little more stolen booty to people!

You sound very "entitled". You aren't entitled to ANYTHING. You aren't entitled to work only 40 hours a week and live as you wish. If you CAN do it, more power to you, but you are NOT entitled to it.

There are WAY too many people here feeling entitled and full of self pity and a "woe is me" attitude for this to be a libertarian forum. I don't want to hear your sob story about "not being handed things on a silver platter". I started working full time at 15 and haven't turned back in 12 years. The only time in my life I worked 40 hours or less a week was when I was in high school and living at my parents. Since then I have worked a minimum of 2 jobs and no less than 60 hours a week (more often 3 jobs and 80 hours a week) to support my family and put myself and my wife through school. You people don't understand freedom or free markets at all. It isn't about "okay, I want to work 40 hours per week, and I want this much money, and I want this.....". You get out what you put in. If you aren't making enough money, GET ANOTHER JOB. If you still aren't making enough money, make yourself more marketable. Go to night school. You don't need a freaking masters degree or doctorate to improve your wage, you can get a damn certificate program through a tech college in 6 months of night school that will set you apart from the others in your field and earn you a higher wage. If you are unhappy, you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is what a joke this country has become. Even where libertarians are supposed to come to discuss the ideals of liberty and freedom, people are still complaining that they are entitled to more. Still complaining that "someone else got a shiny and I didn't". If this thread is a representation of this board, there are VERY few followers of liberty here.

[sratiug]

I'm not sure what to make of this thread erowe, it really strikes me that there are far more national socialist leaners here than I ever anticipated.

How does a flat tariff diminish free trade of Americans more than any internal tax?

With no internal taxes we would have free trade at home, now we only have it for imports. That is a subsidy of imports paid by American business. By destroying free trade in America and not forcing imports to share the tax burden we have destroyed our manufacturing base. We must have free trade, here, in America. Not a system that subsidizes imports.

A constitutional amendment to replace internal taxes with a flat tariff will level the playing field.

[Danke]

And your illegal immigration is nothing more than the strawman you accuse others of using it as. When a person crosses an imaginary line on a piece of paper in an Oligarch's office, he has done nothing to harm you.

Worked out well for the American Indians.


Him taking a job to better his life does not harm you

Remember the buffalo herds that covered whole States?

[dannno]

Little mom and pop stores that can't take advantage of economies of scale and have to sell things for more than the big mega-stores can, SHOULD go out of business. Artificially keeping these anchors on the economy open is backwards. Why don't we just outlaw the automobile to protect the jobs of horse and buggy makers?

No, you're wrong, the GOVERNMENT is subsidizing WalMart directly, through their employees as well as through the inflationary Federal Reserve system.. THAT is what is driving the higher quality stores out of business, and YOU are the one supporting socialism.



I'm not sure what to make of this thread erowe, it really strikes me that there are far more national socialist leaners here than I ever anticipated.

So are you! Stop supporting corporate socialism you socialism supporter!

[__27__]

So are you! Stop supporting corporate socialism you socialism supporter!

So you think a free market is corporate socialism? Why are you here?

[__27__]

How does a flat tariff diminish free trade of Americans more than any internal tax?

With no internal taxes we would have free trade at home, now we only have it for imports. That is a subsidy of imports paid by American business. By destroying free trade in America and not forcing imports to share the tax burden we have destroyed our manufacturing base. We must have free trade, here, in America. Not a system that subsidizes imports.

A constitutional amendment to replace internal taxes with a flat tariff will level the playing field.

Free trade is free trade, putting in barriers necessarily makes it no longer free. I agree 100% what we have right now is not free trade, but that does not mean slanting it back the other direction makes it any more free. Free trade is achieved when neither imports or domestic products are subsidized or penalized.

You're making the same argument some make against slavery, that in order to "level the playing field" today minorities must be given a leg up in competition. That is NOT a leveling of the playing field, that is creating the reverse advantage than what previously existed.

[dannno]

So you think a free market is corporate socialism? Why are you here?

Why do you think we have a free market?!??

NEW FLASH!! WE DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET!! We have a government controlled socialist state, and you are trying to defend it!!

Socialism supporter!

[dannno]

I want a free market where WALMART is not being subsidized by our socialist state.. apparently you want WALMART to continue to be subsidized by our socialist state :confused: Apparently you SUPPORT companies who are subsidized by our socialist state :confused:

Socialism supporter!

[__27__]

Why do you think we have a free market?!??

NEW FLASH!! WE DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET!! We have a government controlled socialist state, and you are trying to defend it!!

Socialism supporter!

Feel free to show anywhere where I have supported our CURRENT market. Do you read? or just enjoy listening to wind escape your mouth hole?

[__27__]

I want a free market where WALMART is not being subsidized by our socialist state.. apparently you want WALMART to continue to be subsidized by our socialist state :confused: Apparently you SUPPORT companies who are subsidized by our socialist state :confused:

Socialism supporter!

*yawn*

Are you still talking?

[dannno]

Feel free to show anywhere where I have supported our CURRENT market. Do you read? or just enjoy listening to wind escape your mouth hole?

No, I see some idiot on here defending WalMart as a bastion of a free market, when they are subsidized by a socialist state!! Hypocrite!!

We are attacking WalMart because they are the anti-thesis of a free market, they aren't "winning" the battle and taking out "mom and pop" stores or whatever because of economies of scale or some BS, they are winning because they are corporatized, socialist POS!!

[dannno]

Feel free to show anywhere where I have supported our CURRENT market. Do you read? or just enjoy listening to wind escape your mouth hole?



Here you ADVOCATE running companies out of business who ARE NOT receiving government subsidies in favor of companies who ARE receiving government subsidies:


Originally Posted by erowe1
Little mom and pop stores that can't take advantage of economies of scale and have to sell things for more than the big mega-stores can, SHOULD go out of business. Artificially keeping these anchors on the economy open is backwards. Why don't we just outlaw the automobile to protect the jobs of horse and buggy makers?

Your reply: I'm not sure what to make of this thread erowe, it really strikes me that there are far more national socialist leaners here than I ever anticipated.


YOU LOSE!

[__27__]

No, I see some idiot on here defending WalMart as a bastion of a free market, when they are subsidized by a socialist state!! Hypocrite!!

We are attacking WalMart because they are the anti-thesis of a free market, they aren't "winning" the battle and taking out "mom and pop" stores or whatever because of economies of scale or some BS, they are winning because they are corporatized, socialist POS!!

I haven't defended WalMart at all, in fact I pointed out that I detest their business model and their stores in general, and as a result in my 27 years I haven't once purchased a product from WalMart.

Believe me, I know more than most that corporations are as big of a threat to the free market as government is. This discussion was not about them, or I would have touched on that. If we are simply talking about true free markets as compared to todays markets, I would agree corporations are our largest enemy, and in many more sinister ways than simply being subsidized. The corporatism of today has been incorrectly labeled as "free market", the despicable acts that corporations and government have not only fooled people into seeing this as a failure of the free market, but also played right into the hands of the crony capitalists. Regulation HELPS corporations, it eliminated their competition and gives them free reign over the market share. Now as a result of this manipulated market and its disastrous fallout, the people are clammoring for MORE regulation, which again only aids the corporations and the government they sponsor.

No, I know full well the problems of our current "crony capitalism", but as erowe pointed out, the problem of government intervention in market is not solved by countering it with increased government intervention in market in an attempt to "balance out the intervention". It is to cease the intervention completely and across the board.

[__27__]

Here you ADVOCATE running companies out of business who ARE NOT receiving government subsidies in favor of companies who ARE receiving government subsidies:


Originally Posted by erowe1
Little mom and pop stores that can't take advantage of economies of scale and have to sell things for more than the big mega-stores can, SHOULD go out of business. Artificially keeping these anchors on the economy open is backwards. Why don't we just outlaw the automobile to protect the jobs of horse and buggy makers?

Your reply: I'm not sure what to make of this thread erowe, it really strikes me that there are far more national socialist leaners here than I ever anticipated.


YOU LOSE!

Again, the notion that you ought to use government force to "protect" one business (mom and pops) and exclude another is in direct contradiction to market principles. As I have stated, I completely agree we need to get rid of GI at the corporate level, but we do not do that by adding MORE GI in a "protectionist" mode. All you do in that case is force higher prices on consumers for a net LOSS to the economy.

[dannno]

No, I know full well the problems of our current "crony capitalism", but as erowe pointed out, the problem of government intervention in market is not solved by countering it with increased government intervention in market in an attempt to "balance out the intervention". It is to cease the intervention completely and across the board.

Ya see that's the problem, where is anybody here advocating counter government intervention? It seems as though people come on here and complain about WalMart and chinese products, and even recommend people to stop shopping there, and then suddenly those people who hate WalMart suddenly get equated with wanting counter government intervention? No, we are advocating a free market solution to take out the companies that are being subsidized by the government... by not shopping there anymore and not supporting them.

Anybody who says that WalMart is winning in the market because of economies of scale, and anybody who agrees with them, I will vehemently argue with. That was you.

[sratiug]

Free trade is free trade, putting in barriers necessarily makes it no longer free. I agree 100% what we have right now is not free trade, but that does not mean slanting it back the other direction makes it any more free. Free trade is achieved when neither imports or domestic products are subsidized or penalized.

You're making the same argument some make against slavery, that in order to "level the playing field" today minorities must be given a leg up in competition. That is NOT a leveling of the playing field, that is creating the reverse advantage than what previously existed.

I believe you are mistaken. A flat tariff is not a leg up for American business. Americans will still pay the tax.

To create the reverse advantage enjoyed now by importers would require foreigners to pay the entire tax bill.

[__27__]

I believe you are mistaken. A flat tariff is not a leg up for American business. Americans will still pay the tax.

To create the reverse advantage enjoyed now by importers would require foreigners to pay the entire tax bill.

Yes I believe I was. So are you meaning a tariff on all goods, or simply on all imported goods. That is the distinction I think I misunderstood, where you seem to be implying it for all goods, I initially took it to mean only all imported goods.

[sratiug]

Yes I believe I was. So are you meaning a tariff on all goods, or simply on all imported goods. That is the distinction I think I misunderstood, where you seem to be implying it for all goods, I initially took it to mean only all imported goods.

No, I mean a tariff only on imports. The tariff will be paid by Americans even though it is on imports.

[__27__]

No, I mean a tariff only on imports. The tariff will be paid by Americans even though it is on imports.

And this is balanced or free to you? A domestic product can be sold with no tariff while an import must pay tariff? You are raising consumer prices for the sake of raising consumer prices. I wot not which pot the money comes out of, the end result is a rise in good prices to consumers.

So then, if producing Shinies:

Domestic producer can produce 1 Shiny for:

$5.00 material and labor

+

10% P&O ($0.50)

= $5.50 shiny.


Import producer can produce 1 Shiny for:

$4.50 material and labor

+

10% P&O ($0.45)

+

10% Tariff ($0.495)

=$5.45



You have forced a higher price on the consumer through protectionism. Where the consumer could have had a Shiny imported for $4.95 ($0.55 less than domestic) he now must pay $5.45 a savings of only $0.05 over domestic. You have taken $0.50 out of the consumers pocket for no reason other than domestic protectionism.

You haven't balanced anything, you've simply shifted the disparity to imports rather than domestic produce. The result is still a manipulated market, albeit a manipulated market more personally palatable to you as an American nationalist.


A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.
To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.
Gentlemen:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your -- what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice -- your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us [1].

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds -- in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.

There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.

It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

We have our answer ready:

You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.

Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.

``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.

Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?

But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.

Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.

If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.

Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.

Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.

To take another example: When a product -- coal, iron, wheat, or textiles -- comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845

[moostraks]

No, I know full well the problems of our current "crony capitalism", but as erowe pointed out, the problem of government intervention in market is not solved by countering it with increased government intervention in market in an attempt to "balance out the intervention". It is to cease the intervention completely and across the board.

This would only be appropriate if we were dealing with governments who likewise played fairly. Other foreign governments subsidize their own industries to aid in their countries receiving the business. As such our own companies cannot compete with their business models unless we internally level the playing field or agree not to play ball until they play fair.

[__27__]

This would only be appropriate if we were dealing with governments who likewise played fairly. Other foreign governments subsidize their own industries to aid in their countries receiving the business. As such our own companies cannot compete with their business models unless we internally level the playing field or agree not to play ball until they play fair.

So what if they subsidize? Stop using emotion and THINK for a moment. Okay, they are subsidizing EXPORTS so they can sell to America. They cannot export everything they produce and import nothing, they are going to need to import items. And, again, all of their EXPORTING to America only gets them American dollars. American dollars in and of themselves are worthless anywhere outside of America, excepting in as much as they can be traded for local currency or goods to someone who believes they can use those dollars to trade with America. In short those dollars HAVE to come back, otherwise they are sending their produce and receiving NOTHING in return.

[erowe1]

This would only be appropriate if we were dealing with governments who likewise played fairly. Other foreign governments subsidize their own industries to aid in their countries receiving the business. As such our own companies cannot compete with their business models unless we internally level the playing field or agree not to play ball until they play fair.

No, what 27 described always applies, no matter what any other countries are doing. Under no circumstances is it ever better for us if our government uses tariffs or any other measures to interfere with our ability to buy imports. I concede that tariffs might be less bad than an income tax, if you have to choose one. But they are still always bad. And protecting American jobs is never a good excuse for enacting them, regardless of what any other countries do.

If China decides to put a tariff on everything they import from us, and use the funds from that tariff to subsidize exporting things to us as atificially low prices, then they are effectively giving us free stuff at the expense of their own consumers. Under no circumstances would an action like that warrant some kind of retaliation by our government to try to even out the balance of trade or save American jobs. American jobs and balance of trade are none of Congress's business, ever.

[sratiug]

And this is balanced or free to you? A domestic product can be sold with no tariff while an import must pay tariff? You are raising consumer prices for the sake of raising consumer prices. I wot not which pot the money comes out of, the end result is a rise in good prices to consumers.

So then, if producing Shinies:

Domestic producer can produce 1 Shiny for:

$5.00 material and labor

+

10% P&O ($0.50)

= $5.50 shiny.


Import producer can produce 1 Shiny for:

$4.50 material and labor

+

10% P&O ($0.45)

+

10% Tariff ($0.495)

=$5.45



You have forced a higher price on the consumer through protectionism. Where the consumer could have had a Shiny imported for $4.95 ($0.55 less than domestic) he now must pay $5.45 a savings of only $0.05 over domestic. You have taken $0.50 out of the consumers pocket for no reason other than domestic protectionism.

You haven't balanced anything, you've simply shifted the disparity to imports rather than domestic produce. The result is still a manipulated market, albeit a manipulated market more personally palatable to you as an American nationalist.

There is a serious flaw in your argument. Americans will pay the tax either way.

With today's system American consumers and producers pay all the tax, while foreign producers pay zero and are positively impacted by having an artificial price advantage.

In my system (Jefferson's system), American consumers and producers pay all the tax, and foreigner producers pay zero but their artificial price advantage is removed.

[__27__]

There is a serious flaw in your argument. Americans will pay the tax either way.

With today's system American consumers and producers pay all the tax, while foreign producers pay zero and are positively impacted by having an artificial price advantage.

In my system (Jefferson's system), American consumers and producers pay all the tax, and foreigner producers pay zero but their artificial price advantage is removed.

You are not arguing for a pure and real market, you are arguing to "work within the current system in a way to balance it more to your nationalistic liking". Consumers should not have to pay the tax, placing a different boot on my throat, or placing a gun to my head instead of a boot on my throat does not change the scenario.

If you are advocating the manipulation of the market, you are not advocating a free market. If you don't believe in a free market, that's fine, just say so. A free market does not raise consumer prices for protectionism.

[moostraks]

So what if they subsidize? Stop using emotion and THINK for a moment. Okay, they are subsidizing EXPORTS so they can sell to America. They cannot export everything they produce and import nothing, they are going to need to import items. And, again, all of their EXPORTING to America only gets them American dollars. American dollars in and of themselves are worthless anywhere outside of America, excepting in as much as they can be traded for local currency or goods to someone who believes they can use those dollars to trade with America. In short those dollars HAVE to come back, otherwise they are sending their produce and receiving NOTHING in return.

Really??Is that why we have had such a small trade deficit? :rolleyes:

I don't know where you are reading emotion into this from me.

[muh_roads]

No, what 27 described always applies, no matter what any other countries are doing. Under no circumstances is it ever better for us if our government uses tariffs or any other measures to interfere with our ability to buy imports. I concede that tariffs might be less bad than an income tax, if you have to choose one. But they are still always bad. And protecting American jobs is never a good excuse for enacting them, regardless of what any other countries do.

If China decides to put a tariff on everything they import from us, and use the funds from that tariff to subsidize exporting things to us as atificially low prices, then they are effectively giving us free stuff at the expense of their own consumers. Under no circumstances would an action like that warrant some kind of retaliation by our government to try to even out the balance of trade or save American jobs. American jobs and balance of trade are none of Congress's business, ever.

I can't believe I'm being called a socialist for endorsing some reversal of protectionism that is designed to protect OTHER countries first. You and 27 both are embracing globalism and you don't even know it. I think you both need to research how this big boom in outsourcing started so forcefully.

Things need to be done in steps. And we do need to do a bit of eye for an eye on tariffs until we have abolished the fed, returned to the gold standard, abolished the federal income tax etc. People are being attacked from all angles with an uneven playing field and I can only assume you and 27 have pish posh jobs where you're lucky enough not to worry about outsourcing. Maybe this should happen to you so you can see how you like it.

It's easy to just say "tough titty, you lost your job to a chinese worker, find a new career". It's a lot different to actually put it into action. And it is really tough when you're trying to pay for new training with a devalued shitty dollar.

Now if American corporations would stop GETTING "entitlements" from the government for outsourcing then you can say we truly have a free market if they are still outsourcing. But stop sticking up for outsourcing when our own government is working against its own people.

[erowe1]

Really??Is that why we have had such a small trade deficit? :rolleyes:

I don't know where you are reading emotion into this from me.

Here's a good explanation on why you shouldn't use the balance of trade as a measure of a country's economic health:
http://mises.org/story/2029
I'm sure if you dig around mises.org you'll find more.

Edit: I won't link them all, but if you search for the phrase "trade deficit" and especially check articles with the tag "trade deficit," there are plenty. Here's another one with a link to others in a series on the topic. This one is especially valuable in this setting since one of the economists he takes to task is Peter Schiff:
http://mises.org/story/2531

[Deborah K]

And your illegal immigration is nothing more than the strawman you accuse others of using it as. When a person crosses an imaginary line on a piece of paper in an Oligarch's office, he has done nothing to harm you. Him taking a job to better his life does not harm you, unless you think he is a subhuman not deserving of a job like you a member of the superior race. The rest is a problem with the SYSTEM, not the immigrant.

In La-La Land, where open borders are the ideal situation, you would be correct. But since we live in the real world, where ALL countries have borders and immigration laws, including Mexico btw, it is detrimental to a country's economy when people enter illegally and undercut the citizenry's ability to earn a living. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race or superiority. For you to play that card shows how little understanding you have of the impact illegal immigration has on our economy.


The problem with illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with the immigrant, and everything to do with the welfare state. With an open border and an open market, the wage is set competitively, and the bottom cannot be pulled out by someone who doesn't require the immense burden of funding the state (the reason you lose your job to an illegal is NOT because he will work for $7/hr while you demand $15/hr, it is because if the employer pays the illegal $15/hr his cost for that employee is $15/hr, while if he pays you $15/hr his cost after tax burdens and benefits packages is $30/hr). This problem is not solved by a hate for brown people and erecting giant fences to keep them out, it is solved by removing the welfare state, and by OPENING borders.

Spoken like someone who probably hires illegals. First of all, knock off the hate for brown people comments. What a crock of shit! If Canadians were pouring across the northern border causing the same economic problems for us that the Mexicans are doing, it would STILL be the same problem. Unless of course you're trying to say that I and others would be okay with it since Canadians are predominantly white. Is THAT what you're implying? Are you calling me a racist???? As to your other comments about the welfare state, of course you are right about that. Cut off the social services to the illegals and they'll leave through attrition. I'm down widdat!


And your comment about "taking the money back with them"? What good are American dollars in Mexico? None, excepting in as much as one can trade them for local currency or goods to another who believes they can use them for trade with America.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that money earned in America and sent to Mexico means that it is money not spent back into our economy. It is naive at best to assume the 30 some odd billion dollars that gets sent back to Mexico annually somehow magically ends up back in our economy.


Earlier in the thread you claim to me that if America produced NOTHING for export (hyperbole of the highest accord to begin with) that the rest of the world would cease trading because why would they want dollars? Now I am to believe that "brown people" are taking American dollars to Mexico and the dollars are never to be seen again? Hogwash

I'm beginning to understand what your problem is. You carelessly read into people's words what suits your argument. I wrote this: If we produce nothing to trade then what would the rest of the world need us for? Our useless dollar?
My argument was in reply to your claim that a trade deficit is not a problem for our country. Assuming we have little to nothing to trade, which is slowly becoming the case, either because countries won't buy from us, or we don't produce what they need, and assuming WE don't produce what we need and have to import it, thus creating our deficit, eventually the only thing we have left in order to get what we need is our useless dollar.

As this pertains to Mexico, clearly our dollar collapsing will hurt them as well. But for other countries, like the ones who are now dumping the dollar and trading in Euros, this is a situation that will soon bite us in the ass.



So far in the thread you have supported protectionism, and excluding other humans from "our" market. Either you're a national socialist, or you are misdirecting your angst for the system at individuals on the ground.

LOL!



ETA: It really is no different than nationalizing health care. Today you and I may agree that it is any persons own business, their right to proper ownership of their own body, to ingest what they like in their system. We say this understanding that it is also their responsibility to bear the consequences both good and bad of their own actions. However, once you enter into a national health care system, it becomes the responsibility of the collective to bear the consequences (bad) of the individuals actions. Therefore, as a person ingests things into their body which cause them harm, we the collective are charged with repairing and aiding that individual. The proper argument against this is NOT that the person no longer has a right to ownership over his own body (ingesting as he pleases), but that the system is inherently wrong. By yelling and screaming about "brown people" coming and "takin er jerbs" your making the same argument as would someone trying to claim ownership over anothers body for reasons of collective health care. "Brown people" have every right to come to our market and enter their labor in exchange for commodity or paper. The fact that the system is so screwed up as to punish the collective for his doing so does not negate that right. It is the system (welfare state) that is inherently wrong and deserves your angst, not the immigrant laborer

Clearly by now you realize you are barking up the wrong tree.

[moostraks]

No, what 27 described always applies, no matter what any other countries are doing. Under no circumstances is it ever better for us if our government uses tariffs or any other measures to interfere with our ability to buy imports. I concede that tariffs might be less bad than an income tax, if you have to choose one. But they are still always bad. And protecting American jobs is never a good excuse for enacting them, regardless of what any other countries do.

If China decides to put a tariff on everything they import from us, and use the funds from that tariff to subsidize exporting things to us as atificially low prices, then they are effectively giving us free stuff at the expense of their own consumers. Under no circumstances would an action like that warrant some kind of retaliation by our government to try to even out the balance of trade or save American jobs. American jobs and balance of trade are none of Congress's business, ever.

You are wrong. Businesses can only compete when the respective countries understand reciprocity. Currently we have had socialist/communist countries hoisting us on our own petard of so called free trade while they play games running the gamut of suppressing their respective currencies to out right funding of their industries. Once competition is driven out then they will hold the upper hand and we are at their mercy. It isn't all about tariffs when you look at unethical business practices by foreign entities.

As far as congress goes, it becomes a matter of national security when we can no longer remain autonomous and self-supporting. As for tariffs being used here they were embraced fairly early on in our own history as a means to aid a fledgling country and the industries contained therein (the tariff act of 1816). We need to strengthen our own house and regain some autonomy or we will have no one to blame but ourselves for being governed by a global organization. Incrementalism is how we lose our liberties.

[__27__]

I can't believe I'm being called a socialist for endorsing some reversal of protectionism that is designed to protect OTHER countries first. You and 27 both are embracing globalism and you don't even know it. I think you both need to research how this big boom in outsourcing started so forcefully.

Things need to be done in steps. And we do need to do a bit of eye for an eye on tariffs until we have abolished the fed, returned to the gold standard, abolished the federal income tax etc. People are being attacked from all angles with an uneven playing field and I can only assume you and 27 have pish posh jobs where you're lucky enough not to worry about outsourcing. Maybe this should happen to you so you can see how you like it.

It's easy to just say "tough titty, you lost your job to a chinese worker, find a new career". It's a lot different to actually put it into action. And it is really tough when you're trying to pay for new training with a devalued shitty dollar.

Now if American corporations would stop GETTING "entitlements" from the government for outsourcing then you can say we truly have a free market if they are still outsourcing. But stop sticking up for outsourcing when our own government is working against its own people.

Emotions, get them under check and use your MIND and LOGIC to THINK. I don't give a fuck what your personal situation is, if some guy in a number 2 suit raped you it doesn't mean that 2+2 no longer equals 4. A manipulated market is a manipulated market, you are forcing higher prices on the consumer for the sake of protectionism. It makes no difference who you are protecting, you are using government force to manipulate the market to your pleasing. If this is what you truly believe you do not believe in the free market.

You don't have the first clue about me or my personal situation, and as pointed out earlier, neither my nor your personal situation have any relevance to the science of economics.

[BillyDkid]

I don't understand much of this well enough to make a coherent argument - all I know is what I see. I see more and more people unemployed and more and more people compelled to take vastly lower paying jobs. 40 years ago anyone who had a job, virtually any job could afford to live a decent life, could afford to buy a house and save for their retirement and for their childrens education. That just isn't so now. When US jobs are sent overseas to take advantage of the vastly lower standard of living in other countries and their subsequently much lower pay, yes, it results in lower priced products (or junk as is found in Walmart stores, depending on your perspective.) but it also results in a reciprocal lower standard of living here.

In real dollars the vast majority of us are poorer than our parents were. Much of that can be blamed on the housing bubble where an ordinary house cost on average $250.00. (search youtube for The Vanishing Middle Class), but not all of it. I think the truth of these things will become so stark in the coming years that there will no longer be any debate. You haven't begun to see the carnage.

To me, free trade means just that - that US companies should be free to trade with other nations and vice verse and not that US companies should be free to be US companies with its assorted advantages and be in fact Chinese companies. If they want to be a Chinese company, then move your ass to China.

I see little distinction between a "global economy" and global government in as much as money is what ultimately dictates everything. This idea that moving all our well paying jobs (and it ain't just factory work anymore - it's research and development, it's white collar work and everything else you can think of) is good for America and Americans is a fantasy. It is good for the relative handful of people who can take advantage of the "global economy" and get a windfall from it. For the rest of us, it sucks. The idea that our good jobs leaving means even better jobs for us is just a fantasy.

There's protectionism and there's protectionism, but America's first and only loyalty and concern should be to America.

[Danke]

Assuming we should have a government, military, etc. We need to pay for it one way or the other. Tariffs could do that nicely and much less invasively.

[__27__]

In La-La Land, where open borders are the ideal situation, you would be correct. But since we live in the real world, where ALL countries have borders and immigration laws, including Mexico btw, it is detrimental to a country's economy when people enter illegally and undercut the citizenry's ability to earn a living. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race or superiority. For you to play that card shows how little understanding you have of the impact illegal immigration has on our economy.


I am not here to discuss how to appease the system and work within the confines of the current government structure to merely shift the force of government to something more personally palatable to me. Your line of reasoning here is right along the lines of Cheney and "our enemies do worse things than torture, if we don't torture we're bound to lose". If you abandon your principles for sake of winning, you have no principles.



Spoken like someone who probably hires illegals. First of all, knock off the hate for brown people comments. What a crock of shit! If Canadians were pouring across the northern border causing the same economic problems for us that the Mexicans are doing, it would STILL be the same problem. Unless of course you're trying to say that I and others would be okay with it since Canadians are predominantly white. Is THAT what you're implying? Are you calling me a racist????

No, I'm calling you a nationalist. You apparently believe that the people who happen to reside within the imaginary lines of one 'archy's office have rights and are more deserving of these things than are people who happen to reside outside of said imaginary line.



As to your other comments about the welfare state, of course you are right about that. Cut off the social services to the illegals and they'll leave through attrition. I'm down widdat!

Again, I am not here to discuss how to use the current form of repressive government to our advantage, I am here to discuss what ought to be in it's place.




It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that money earned in America and sent to Mexico means that it is money not spent back into our economy. It is naive at best to assume the 30 some odd billion dollars that gets sent back to Mexico annually somehow magically ends up back in our economy.

I'm beginning to understand what your problem is. You carelessly read into people's words what suits your argument. I wrote this: If we produce nothing to trade then what would the rest of the world need us for? Our useless dollar?
My argument was in reply to your claim that a trade deficit is not a problem for our country. Assuming we have little to nothing to trade, which is slowly becoming the case, either because countries won't buy from us, or we don't produce what they need, and assuming WE don't produce what we need and have to import it, thus creating our deficit, eventually the only thing we have left in order to get what we need is our useless dollar.

As this pertains to Mexico, clearly our dollar collapsing will hurt them as well. But for other countries, like the ones who are now dumping the dollar and trading in Euros, this is a situation that will soon bite us in the ass.

I'm beginning to understand what your problem is. You carelessly cling to a belief even when your own logical fallacies spell themselves out in front of you. An American dollar is of NO WORTH in Mexico. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. It has no value other than as a green piece of paper with some ink on it. The ONLY thing that gives it value is the understanding that it can be returned to the AMERICAN market at some point for goods/services/commodities. American currency only spends in Mexico in as much as the person taking it reasonably believes he can exchange it in America for said goods/services/commodities or to another for local currency who will do the same. According to you this currency just up and vanishes every year? In that case, wouldn't the treasuries printing not be a problem? If we're losing that much currency to thin air, printing the offsetting amount would be just keeping the balance, right?

American dollars (as even you alluded to) have no value except to be returned to the American market in exchange for goods/services/commodities.





LOL!




Clearly by now you realize you are barking up the wrong tree.

Clearly I do. Someone who is incapable of recognizing their own logical fallacies even as they type them in front of their own eyes, and who wishes to simply use the current repressive form of government to their advantage rather than work to replace the entire mechanism, is no long worth discussing with.

[muh_roads]

Emotions, get them under check and use your MIND and LOGIC to THINK. I don't give a fuck what your personal situation is, if some guy in a number 2 suit raped you it doesn't mean that 2+2 no longer equals 4. A manipulated market is a manipulated market, you are forcing higher prices on the consumer for the sake of protectionism. It makes no difference who you are protecting, you are using government force to manipulate the market to your pleasing. If this is what you truly believe you do not believe in the free market.

You don't have the first clue about me or my personal situation, and as pointed out earlier, neither my nor your personal situation have any relevance to the science of economics.

All I'm saying is you SHOULD give a fuck about peoples personal situations if they are made for the worse BECAUSE of government intervention. And they are. Government managed trade IS something worth fighting against. I hope we can at least agree that NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, etc is something we should have no business with...right?

[erowe1]

Assuming we should have a government, military, etc. We need to pay for it one way or the other. Tariffs could do that nicely and much less invasively.

I think that's a very valid point. If you want to compare different methods of getting revenue, all are bad, but some are worse than others. Printing new money and taxing income are both worse than tariffs in my opinion. We ought to be able to cut the size of our federal government enough to eliminate both the federal reserve and the income tax completely and replace them with nothing. But if you take that option off the table and give me the choice between keeping both of those or getting rid of them and raising revenue with tariffs instead, I'd take the tariffs. But I wouldn't feel good about it, and the economic consequences of those tariffs would be terrible.

So if that's the argument for them, then I'd go along with it, about as hesitantly as I would probably go along with the Fair Tax. But if it's about protecting jobs, then forget it. Let the rest of the world practice all the protectionism they want, at their own expense. We stand to gain a lot more than we lose when they do that, just as long as we don't lose our heads and retaliate in kind.

[__27__]

All I'm saying is you SHOULD give a fuck about peoples personal situations if they are made for the worse BECAUSE of government intervention. And they are. Government managed trade IS something worth fighting against. I hope we can at least agree that NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, etc is something we should have no business with...right?

Completely.

[erowe1]

All I'm saying is you SHOULD give a fuck about peoples personal situations if they are made for the worse BECAUSE of government intervention. And they are. Government managed trade IS something worth fighting against. I hope we can at least agree that NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, etc is something we should have no business with...right?

I can't speak for 27, but I agree 100% that all of those are worth fighting against. I just think we need to make sure we're really fighting against those things, and not fighting for some other big government program to balance them out added on top of them, like protectionist tariffs, instead of eliminating those managed trade agreements.

[muh_roads]

I think that's a very valid point. If you want to compare different methods of getting revenue, all are bad, but some are worse than others. Printing new money and taxing income are both worse than tariffs in my opinion. We ought to be able to cut the size of our federal government enough to eliminate both the federal reserve and the income tax completely and replace them with nothing. But if you take that option off the table and give me the choice between keeping both of those or getting rid of them and raising revenue with tariffs instead, I'd take the tariffs. But I wouldn't feel good about it, and the economic consequences of those tariffs would be terrible.

So if that's the argument for them, then I'd go along with it, about as hesitantly as I would probably go along with the Fair Tax. But if it's about protecting jobs, then forget it. Let the rest of the world practice all the protectionism they want, at their own expense. We stand to gain a lot more than we lose when they do that, just as long as we don't lose our heads and retaliate in kind.

Actually until welfare & food stamps are abolished we stand to LOSE by not retaliating. If people can't get work they have no money. They have no money then they apply for financial aid and forcefully take from you so they can buy the cheap foreign goods you embrace that originally weren't in existence which now prevents them from getting a job in the first place.

The beauty of a tariff over the federal income tax is that the income tax takes from you by force. A tariff is more like a user fee. All taxes should be in the form of user fees. You don't need to buy the slightly higher product if you don't want to saving you money. The foreign products aren't that much cheaper anyway.

Now with more Americans having jobs you contribute less in welfare / food stamp funds...which is back on the right path to abolishing those financial aid programs to begin with American job security is more stable.

[sratiug]

You are not arguing for a pure and real market, you are arguing to "work within the current system in a way to balance it more to your nationalistic liking". Consumers should not have to pay the tax, placing a different boot on my throat, or placing a gun to my head instead of a boot on my throat does not change the scenario.

If you are advocating the manipulation of the market, you are not advocating a free market. If you don't believe in a free market, that's fine, just say so. A free market does not raise consumer prices for protectionism.

If a tariff is protectionist, what do you call US corporate taxes and the US income tax with no tariffs. Murderous? Suicidal? Isn't it just as much protection for foreign producers? In fact isn't it much worse, because we are paying all the tax in either case?

With a tariff the cost is spread to all Americans and the free trade of Americans is least affected. With the current system the cost is spread to all Americans and Americans have no free trade here, so we must by foreign goods to have free trade. Very very stupid.

[__27__]

If a tariff is protectionist, what do you call US corporate taxes and the US income tax with no tariffs. Murderous? Suicidal? Isn't it just as much protection for foreign producers? In fact isn't it much worse, because we are paying all the tax in either case?

With a tariff the cost is spread to all Americans and the free trade of Americans is least affected. With the current system the cost is spread to all Americans and Americans have no free trade here, so we must by foreign goods to have free trade. Very very stupid.

I call it absurd, I call it an disgusting, I call it an abomination, but I do not call it free. Nor do I call protectionism free. That is because neither of them are free. Again, you may not be for free trade, but at least be honest about it.

With the tariff as you propose, we would have made great strides in DOMESTIC free trade, but we would have COMPLETELY reversed any semblance of international free trade we once had.

In America's early history one race was CLEARLY given preferential treatment. The way to make everyone equal is NOT to give the other races some sort of preferential treatment over the race which once had preferential treatment, it is to simply treat everyone equally, with preference given to NONE. The same goes for the market, while one side of trade has clearly been given preferential treatment, the way to equalize trade and bring about true FREE trade is NOT to give the opposing side the preference the other once had, but to simply remove all barriers and all preference mechanisms to allow ALL goods/services/commodities to be FREELY traded unobstructed to the consumer.

[0zzy]

You forgot Made in Thailand! :O

[BillyDkid]

I hear this complaining about people being nationalists. Well, yeah. The alternative is one world government which we all, I have assumed, find repellent. I assume all of us in here are FOR America and what is best for America. That is what America should be about, just as the Chinese should be about what is best for China. I don't see being a nationalist - for your own country - as being a bad thing. It doesn't mean you are against other countries, only that you are for your own. The map boundaries may be "imaginary", but we are not America so we can be like China. Being a "globalist" is being for something other than being for your own country.

A global economy is fine, but you kid yourself when you think there are no implications in terms world authority, whether it be the UN some other global governing body, beginning to dictate things within the US itself. Economics dictates everything and globalization which is apparently a desirable thing to some has implications beyond merely free trade. Maybe some still cling to the idea that we're all one and it's all one world and nation states are anachronisms, but I think keeping America distinct from the rest of the world is important. When you talk about globalization, you are not just talking about free trade and there is no way to avoid diminishing what America is supposed to be about. We talk in here about the horrors of the NWO, but isn't globalization exactly fundamental to this NWO we are all so afraid of?

[Objectivist]

Obamas prompter.... made in China.

[tpreitzel]

I wish I had my camera for this one.

For refreshment, a local store provides purified water in a big, blue bottle with a sticker on it that reads, "American Water", over a background consisting of the Stars and Stripes.

Upon seeing the bottle, I stopped in my tracks and just started laughing so hard that I couldn't stop. Tears were running down my face and a few of the customers just stared in disbelief. After I explained myself, they too started chuckling. Yeah, we all agreed, it's "refreshing to know" that SOMETHING is made in America. ;)

[Deborah K]

I am not here to discuss how to appease the system and work within the confines of the current government structure to merely shift the force of government to something more personally palatable to me. Your line of reasoning here is right along the lines of Cheney and "our enemies do worse things than torture, if we don't torture we're bound to lose". If you abandon your principles for sake of winning, you have no principles.



No, I'm calling you a nationalist. You apparently believe that the people who happen to reside within the imaginary lines of one 'archy's office have rights and are more deserving of these things than are people who happen to reside outside of said imaginary line.




Again, I am not here to discuss how to use the current form of repressive government to our advantage, I am here to discuss what ought to be in it's place.




I'm beginning to understand what your problem is. You carelessly cling to a belief even when your own logical fallacies spell themselves out in front of you. According to you this currency just up and vanishes every year? In that case, wouldn't the treasuries printing not be a problem? If we're losing that much currency to thin air, printing the offsetting amount would be just keeping the balance, right?

American dollars (as even you alluded to) have no value except to be returned to the American market in exchange for goods/services/commodities.





Clearly I do. Someone who is incapable of recognizing their own logical fallacies even as they type them in front of their own eyes, and who wishes to simply use the current repressive form of government to their advantage rather than work to replace the entire mechanism, is no long worth discussing with.

You are an anarchist, I am a realist. Some form of gov't is necessary, preferably like the one written into the Constitution. Your Utopia needs to reside in your pipe. It's useless in the real world.



The ONLY thing that gives it value is the understanding that it can be returned to the AMERICAN market at some point for goods/services/commodities. American currency only spends in Mexico in as much as the person taking it reasonably believes he can exchange it in America for said goods/services/commodities or to another for local currency who will do the same.

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read. You need to study up hon.

[armstrong]

bump

[SimpleName]

We could adopt the perspective of the Luddites who fought to ban sewing machines because they resulted in tailors losing their jobs.


lol. I read about that. Hazlitt maybe. Possible in Cox's Concise Guide. Not sure. Nonetheless, hilarious. Note to self: Get back to studying economics.

Everything we produce slowly heads toward foreign nations. i understand we make higher end products, but how long before other countries can replicate high end products for much cheaper? I assume it'll happen sometime. Still no supporter of restrictive trade. Just figuring it'd continue to move in that direction.

[Anti Federalist]

Ugh, and it goes round and round...

What so many "free traders" are missing here is that there is more at stake than economics, jobs, or trade imbalances.

You will not remain free and independent, as an individual or as a nation, if you rely solely on everybody else to produce what you need to survive, let alone thrive and prosper.

If you become, as an individual or as nation, nothing more than a "consumer" then you have enslaved yourself just as surely as if you were reliant on government for a weekly "food tube" check. Sooner or later, taken to it's logical end, you will produce nothing of value and will have nothing to trade. At which point other individuals or nations will put your lights out.

Most of you youngsters are too young to have lived through the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Some of us old timers are not. In less than 6 months, an embargo of what amounted to roughly 10 percent of imported oil sent the country into an economic tailspin that was to last almost a decade.

Now, picture that today, but in the form of a trade embargo by China, for, let's say our attack on North Korea. The result would be cataclysmic, an economic Armageddon from which the US would not recover from in any recognizable form.

That's how far over the barrel we are now, that's the result of trading freedom and sovereignty and independence for cheap shit at Wal-Marx.

Yes, I'm a "nationalist", in that I have no desire to be assimilated into the Borg of globalism.

There is no faster way to sacrifice what remains of liberty and the constitution than to continue down that path.

[erowe1]

You will not remain free and independent, as an individual or as a nation, if you rely solely on everybody else to produce what you need to survive, let alone thrive and prosper.

If I as an individual choose to rely solely on everybody else to produce what I need to survive, while I devote myself to some service-based career to pay for these things, that's my business only, and the government has no right to interfere.

If the cumulative decisions of all Americans add up to them choosing to live similarly, it still is not the government's right to interfere. Nor does the resulting trade imbalance actually indicate anything about the health of our nation's economy.

See here: http://mises.org/story/2029
and here: http://mises.org/story/2531

If you want to get a production job and can't get me to buy your stuff because I'm buying stuff at a better price from your competitors in China, subsidized by the Chinese taxpayers and consumers, then you have no right to complain. You are not entitled to have me buy your stuff. If the government tried to influence my decision and get me to pay more and buy your stuff instead of the Chinese stuff, our economy would be worse off. But even if it did make our economy better off, it would still be wrong.

Like Ron Paul I also oppose globalism. And also like Ron Paul, I don't believe we have to sacrifice our freedoms to protectionism in order to fight globalism.

[sratiug]

I call it absurd, I call it an disgusting, I call it an abomination, but I do not call it free. Nor do I call protectionism free. That is because neither of them are free. Again, you may not be for free trade, but at least be honest about it.

With the tariff as you propose, we would have made great strides in DOMESTIC free trade, but we would have COMPLETELY reversed any semblance of international free trade we once had.

In America's early history one race was CLEARLY given preferential treatment. The way to make everyone equal is NOT to give the other races some sort of preferential treatment over the race which once had preferential treatment, it is to simply treat everyone equally, with preference given to NONE. The same goes for the market, while one side of trade has clearly been given preferential treatment, the way to equalize trade and bring about true FREE trade is NOT to give the opposing side the preference the other once had, but to simply remove all barriers and all preference mechanisms to allow ALL goods/services/commodities to be FREELY traded unobstructed to the consumer.

So you are willing to sell out free trade in America for international free trade to benefit foreign corporations at our expense. Maybe our empire is a good thing then since we can use our military to protect all other nations as well since we don't want to play favorites.

But you really are missing entirely the point that a tariff will admittedly have negative consequences for Americans, while the current system has no negative consequences for importers who are not paying anything in taxes. You should be able to admit that by any analysis the current system is far more detrimental to free trade than a tariff system could possibly be.

So to oppose replacing internal taxes with tariffs is to oppose free-er trade.

[__27__]

So you are willing to sell out free trade in America for international free trade to benefit foreign corporations at our expense. Maybe our empire is a good thing then since we can use our military to protect all other nations as well since we don't want to play favorites.

But you really are missing entirely the point that a tariff will admittedly have negative consequences for Americans, while the current system has no negative consequences for importers who are not paying anything in taxes. You should be able to admit that by any analysis the current system is far more detrimental to free trade than a tariff system could possibly be.

So to oppose replacing internal taxes with tariffs is to oppose free-er trade.

And to oppose cutting the tip of my dick off instead of complete castration is to oppose "less castration". Is there a point? I'd rather have no portion of my dick chopped off.

[Deborah K]

If I as an individual choose to rely solely on everybody else to produce what I need to survive, while I devote myself to some service-based career to pay for these things, that's my business only, and the government has no right to interfere.

If the cumulative decisions of all Americans add up to them choosing to live similarly, it still is not the government's right to interfere. Nor does the resulting trade imbalance actually indicate anything about the health of our nation's economy.

See here: http://mises.org/story/2029
and here: http://mises.org/story/2531

If you want to get a production job and can't get me to buy your stuff because I'm buying stuff at a better price from your competitors in China, subsidized by the Chinese taxpayers and consumers, then you have no right to complain. You are not entitled to have me buy your stuff. If the government tried to influence my decision and get me to pay more and buy your stuff instead of the Chinese stuff, our economy would be worse off. But even if it did make our economy better off, it would still be wrong.

Like Ron Paul I also oppose globalism. And also like Ron Paul, I don't believe we have to sacrifice our freedoms to protectionism in order to fight globalism.


From the first piece:

Now, if the national balance of payments is an important indicator of economic health, as various economists are saying, one is then tempted to suggest that it would be a sensible idea to have balances of payments of cities and regions. After all, if we could detect the economic malaise in a particular city or a region, the treatment of the national malaise could be made much easier. Imagine that economists in New York City have discovered that their city has a massive trade deficit with Los Angeles. Does this mean that the New York City authorities must step in to enforce the reduction of the deficit? Luckily we do not have balances of payments between cities and it seems that no one is concerned with this issue. Why then be concerned with the so-called international trade account?

This paragraph, let alone the whole article, doesn't address the broader issue that Anti-Federalist is referring to, and that I, myself, have referred to in this thread. Using the analogy of two cities functioning under the same federal rules does not equate to two countries with completely different standards, policies and governments. Apples and oranges.

The other article criticizes Peter Schiff's concerns over trade deficits using absurd, contrived examples to do so. Since my understanding of the economy is along the same lines as what Schiff speaks and writes about, I am more inclined to agree with him than with this author.


Neither article addresses this:


You will not remain free and independent, as an individual or as a nation, if you rely solely on everybody else to produce what you need to survive, let alone thrive and prosper.

Or this:


Assuming we have little to nothing to trade, which is slowly becoming the case, either because countries won't buy from us, or we don't produce what they need, and assuming WE don't produce what we need and have to import it, thus creating our deficit, eventually the only thing we have left in order to get what we need is our useless dollar.

As this pertains to Mexico, clearly our dollar collapsing will hurt them as well. But for other countries, like the ones who are now dumping the dollar and trading in Euros, this is a situation that will soon bite us in the ass.

[Anti Federalist]

If I as an individual choose to rely solely on everybody else to produce what I need to survive, while I devote myself to some service-based career to pay for these things, that's my business only, and the government has no right to interfere.


Unless your "service" is providing people a means to get the hell out of here, whom are you going to service, when there is no middle class left and we're all living in Obamavilles?

[Anti Federalist]

This paragraph, let alone the whole article, doesn't address the broader issue that Anti-Federalist is referring to, and that I, myself, have referred to in this thread. Using the analogy of two cities functioning under the same federal rules does not equate to two countries with completely different standards, policies and governments. Apples and oranges.


Exactly.

I recall, I got into a on-air argument with Walter Williams, years ago this was, over this very subject.

He was making the case that if an economist, which is William's "trade", was to set up shop down the road and charge a lesser price, who is it for anybody to say that's wrong, while extending that argument to global trade.

And my reply was essentially what you posted, that the two are not comparable.

Now, if it could be done that we were able to operate without the insane tax and regulatory structure (there is something very wrong with the whole "system", when our corporate tax rates are higher than Sweden's FFS) we're suffering under right now, maybe there could be a case made.

But the fact is we are not. And until such time as we are, to continue down this road is nothing more than national suicide.

[Deborah K]

Exactly.

I recall, I got into a on-air argument with Walter Williams, years ago this was, over this very subject.

He was making the case that if an economist, which is William's "trade", was to set up shop down the road and charge a lesser price, who is it for anybody to say that's wrong, while extending that argument to global trade.

And my reply was essentially what you posted, that the two are not comparable.

Now, if it could be done that we were able to operate without the insane tax and regulatory structure (there is something very wrong with the whole "system", when our corporate tax rates are higher than Sweden's FFS) we're suffering under right now, maybe there could be a case made.

But the fact is we are not. And until such time as we are, to continue down this road is nothing more than national suicide.

Agreed. The whole system is a mess.

[familydog]

You will not remain free and independent, as an individual or as a nation, if you rely solely on everybody else to produce what you need to survive, let alone thrive and prosper.

If you become, as an individual or as nation, nothing more than a "consumer" then you have enslaved yourself just as surely as if you were reliant on government for a weekly "food tube" check. Sooner or later, taken to it's logical end, you will produce nothing of value and will have nothing to trade. At which point other individuals or nations will put your lights out.

You raise valid points.

Riddle me this.

Does national economic independence trump individual economic independence? Is the former a prerequisite for the latter?

[Anti Federalist]

You raise valid points.

Riddle me this.

Does national economic independence trump individual economic independence? Is the former a prerequisite for the latter?

I think the two are intertwined. I'll put it this way: an independent individual will produce for themselves, in as much as they can. It follows then that a nation of independent individuals will produce an independent nation.

But, as much as they are intertwined, I hold that the former must be before the latter. Without the former you are left to vagaries and ill winds of every global tempest that comes down the pike.

This leads to failure on both sides of the economic spectrum.

The USSR was a completely closed market, the central planning, wage and price controls that are inherent in a communist economy led to it's downfall and insolvency.

Hong Kong was regarded as a world wide bastion of "free trade" yet when the feckless British decided that they had had enough, they walked, leaving the people of Hong Kong little recourse but to be absorbed back into Red China.

In both cases, the right of self determination of the people living there was stripped from them. The lost their liberty whether they liked it or not.

Under the constitution, as written, certainly not as what passes for following it these days, the only "collective" notions are those of national defense.

There are many types of warfare being employed against us right now, guerrilla warfare, economic warfare and demographic war, all of which have been abysmally defended against by the fedgov. (Which is why I hold these are "inside jobs" but that's a topic for another discussion)

If the purpose of government is only to protect the rights of the individual, which it is, then one of the few proper roles of government is to protect and defend against those that would take those rights away, using the various forms of warfare I mentioned.

[sratiug]

And to oppose cutting the tip of my dick off instead of complete castration is to oppose "less castration". Is there a point? I'd rather have no portion of my dick chopped off.

Yea, dumb ass, but 2/3 of your dick has already been lopped off and you are cussing me for trying to help you get more than half of that inch put back on.

[__27__]

Yea, dumb ass, but 2/3 of your dick has already been lopped off and you are cussing me for trying to help you get more than half of that inch put back on.

As well I should when one could just as easily be trying to help me get it back in totality. Once again, if you reduce the size of the boot on the citizens throat from a size 16 to a size 12, is the citizen really in any better position?

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[erowe1]

This paragraph, let alone the whole article, doesn't address the broader issue that Anti-Federalist is referring to, and that I, myself, have referred to in this thread. Using the analogy of two cities functioning under the same federal rules does not equate to two countries with completely different standards, policies and governments. Apples and oranges.

The other article criticizes Peter Schiff's concerns over trade deficits using absurd, contrived examples to do so. Since my understanding of the economy is along the same lines as what Schiff speaks and writes about, I am more inclined to agree with him than with this author.



The articles, along with the others linked in the second one (it's part of a series on the topic) address the idea of the trade deficit in general. They show that it's not bad. They don't need to then go on to address some special case of a trade deficit caused by other countries' protectionist policies, as though that requires its own treatment. It doesn't.

Schiff might agree with you, against the great majority of other Austrian economists in thinking that a trade deficit is always bad. But he definitely does not agree with you that we should respond to a trade deficit caused by foreign protectionism with retaliatory protectionism on our end:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schiff/2007/0202.html

As for not addressing the quotes you gave about how bad it would be if we were totally dependent on the things produced in other countries, is that really necessary? We can all see those claims as obvious hyperbole. I wouldn't insult the people who made those statements by pretending they intended them literally. Nobody actually thinks our country produces nothing, do they? We still produce a great deal, both for ourselves and others. We always will, no matter what protectionist policies any other countries implement. Nobody doubts that. And if anybody does, they have no evidence to base that doubt on. The issue under discussion is simply a trade deficit, which only means that we export more than we import, not that we export nothing at all, much less produce nothing at all.

Looking back now, I really should have given the links to the main articles in the series on protectionism and trade deficits, rather than the one that criticizes Schiff's inconsistency on that. The others lay out the case more generally, and address the kinds of issues people are bringing up here more:
http://mises.org/story/2478
http://mises.org/story/2448
http://mises.org/story/2070
http://mises.org/story/2436

[Deborah K]

The articles, along with the others linked in the second one (it's part of a series on the topic) address the idea of the trade deficit in general. They show that it's not bad. They don't need to then go on to address some special case of a trade deficit caused by other countries' protectionist policies, as though that requires its own treatment. It doesn't.

Schiff might agree with you, against the great majority of other Austrian economists in thinking that a trade deficit is always bad. But he definitely does not agree with you that we should respond to a trade deficit caused by foreign protectionism with retaliatory protectionism on our end:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schiff/2007/0202.html

As for not addressing the quotes you gave about how bad it would be if we were totally dependent on the things produced in other countries, is that really necessary? We can all see those claims as obvious hyperbole. I wouldn't insult the people who made those statements by pretending they intended them literally. Nobody actually thinks our country produces nothing, do they? We still produce a great deal, both for ourselves and others. We always will, no matter what protectionist policies any other countries implement. Nobody doubts that. And if anybody does, they have no evidence to base that doubt on. The issue under discussion is simply a trade deficit, which only means that we export more than we import, not that we export nothing at all, much less produce nothing at all.

Looking back now, I really should have given the links to the main articles in the series on protectionism and trade deficits, rather than the one that criticizes Schiff's inconsistency on that. The others lay out the case more generally, and address the kinds of issues people are bringing up here more:
http://mises.org/story/2478
http://mises.org/story/2448
http://mises.org/story/2070
http://mises.org/story/2436


I think you are confusing my argument with someone elses. I don't endorse protectionist policies per se when it comes to trade. And I never said our country produces nothing. I said we are producing less and less since we now send a lot of it overseas for production and then import it. And as a result of that, and the fact that some countries won't play fair when it comes to trade, we are importing less and less all while our dollar is collapsing and in some cases, even being rejected. It's an issue that should be addressed, economic theories aside.

[negator]

this thread is like reading twelve pages of three free-marketers arguing back-and-forth with fifteen republicans.

newt would be so proud.

[erowe1]

this thread is like reading twelve pages of three free-marketers arguing back-and-forth with fifteen republicans.

newt would be so proud.

Actually, I think the protectionist views we're arguing against are far more often held by Democrats than by Republicans.

[Lord Xar]

I find these sorts of debates meaningless in the context.

Its like arguing with a open border libertarian about illegal immigration. You can't even begin to use alot of the "common sense" practices/principles of what Ron Paul teaches until you totally dismantle the infrastructure that is put in place. So, the point is... "why advocate for something, even if it is a higher ideal, IF the infrastructure in place would only create much more damage than actually instantiating the belief". Why not FIRST advocate for the reformation of such infrastructure, else your 'dreams' will never be realized.

ala.. open borders.. horrible ideal because of the welfare system in place and services given to those who illegally cross the border. So, instead of advocating such a behaviour as "its ok to come here illegally as there is no such thing as illegal" etc.. whatever, YET by that advocacy, you'd doom the taxpayer, social services.... because of the infrastructure in place. So, you want to import illegals (my term) who then will vote left, which desires more services, thus promoting the very ANTI-libertarian view you supposedly hate by allowing such to come thru unabated. Same with trade. You scream at "others" as protectionists, yet it seems to me, they have the right of it as you can't have completly have free trade unless the infrascture in place allows for such to exist unfettered.... which it doesn't, thus imho, your views fail, much to the chagrin of the average american worker.

I don't get it the priority of beliefs. Many of the "libertarian" core principles are awesome in the context of themselves, but when you try to place them within the current environment, they fail. So I think working towards the foundation that wll enable such ideals to flower, rather than destroy.

[erowe1]

I find these sorts of debates meaningless in the context.

Its like arguing with a open border libertarian about illegal immigration. You can't even begin to use alot of the "common sense" practices/principles of what Ron Paul teaches until you totally dismantle the infrastructure that is put in place. So, the point is... "why advocate for something, even if it is a higher ideal, IF the infrastructure in place would only create much more damage than actually instantiating the belief". Why not FIRST advocate for the reformation of such infrastructure, else your 'dreams' will never be realized.

ala.. open borders.. horrible ideal because of the welfare system in place and services given to those who illegally cross the border. So, instead of advocating such a behaviour as "its ok to come here illegally as there is no such thing as illegal" etc.. whatever, YET by that advocacy, you'd doom the taxpayer, social services.... because of the infrastructure in place. So, you want to import illegals (my term) who then will vote left, which desires more services, thus promoting the very ANTI-libertarian view you supposedly hate by allowing such to come thru unabated. Same with trade. You scream at "others" as protectionists, yet it seems to me, they have the right of it as you can't have completly have free trade unless the infrascture in place allows for such to exist unfettered.... which it doesn't, thus imho, your views fail, much to the chagrin of the average american worker.

I don't get it the priority of beliefs. Many of the "libertarian" core principles are awesome in the context of themselves, but when you try to place them within the current environment, they fail. So I think working towards the foundation that wll enable such ideals to flower, rather than destroy.

The thing is, those of us who hold Ron Paul's free trade position on this disagree with your premise. We don't accept that we would be better off by retaliating against foreign countries' protectionist policies by implementing our own protectionist policies. Your asserting that we would doesn't make it so. Nor do we see how it is "common sense." We don't need any infrastructure in place (whatever that means), nor do we need other countries to change their policies, in order for us to do the right thing, which is to leave Americans as free as they can be to import what they want as cheaply as they want. We just need to do that right thing. Nothing any other country can ever do would ever make it any less the right thing. Nor will it ever make us better off to implement protectionist policies, regardless of anything any other country does. Ron Paul's right on this one. It will always make us worse off.

Also, on illegal immigration, it's important to be clear what you're really talking about. Are you really only talking about illegal immigration? Or are you talking about immigration in general? If you're only talking about illegal immigration, then you should have no problem with loosening our immigration policies so that there would be no incentive to come here illegally, since it would be perfectly easy for anyone who wants to come here to do so legally, and we would still have as many immigrants, they'd just all be legal ones. But since you correctly point to the problem of combining a welfare state with open immigration policy, and since that problem would exist whether the immigrants were legal or illegal, I infer that you're not really just talking about illegal immigration, but all immigration. On that problem, since, as you correctly point out, the real problem is not the immigration, but the welfare state, the solution is also not one that relates to immigration itself, but only to eliminating welfare. It is imperative that we eliminate welfare. And it is imperative that we do that regardless of our immigration policy. But the only moral solution to that government created problem is not to add on top of it another government created problem (i.e. restricting legal immigration), it's to get rid of the original government action that created the problem (i.e. welfare).

[Anti Federalist]

this thread is like reading twelve pages of three free-marketers arguing back-and-forth with fifteen republicans.

newt would be so proud.

I've admitted I'm an unabashed "nationalist".

My views on the subject of trade and immigration could best be described as "paleo-conservative".

I break with "pure" libertarian thinking on this topic and I make no apologies for that.

The question is this: are we, as a nation, going to be just that, self defined, independent and self determining, or are we going to be an amorphous prefecture of consumers living in sector 5 of the New World Order?

[negator]

collectivism is as collectivism does.

[Anti Federalist]

collectivism is as collectivism does.

Wait until you get a load of the NWO when it starts flexing it's muscle.

Collectivism cubed.

There is nothing inherently "evil" about working collectively for a common goal, as long as it's agreed upon, not coercive and has an "opt out" option.

[armstrong]

amazing this thread !-- define fairness ! ( within what is already law and free trade with greed in the mix and uncle sam in control) you get what we have.

[LBennett76]

Originally Posted by __27__
"There are WAY too many people here feeling entitled and full of self pity and a "woe is me" attitude for this to be a libertarian forum. I don't want to hear your sob story about "not being handed things on a silver platter". I started working full time at 15 and haven't turned back in 12 years. The only time in my life I worked 40 hours or less a week was when I was in high school and living at my parents. Since then I have worked a minimum of 2 jobs and no less than 60 hours a week (more often 3 jobs and 80 hours a week) to support my family and put myself and my wife through school. You people don't understand freedom or free markets at all. It isn't about "okay, I want to work 40 hours per week, and I want this much money, and I want this.....". You get out what you put in. If you aren't making enough money, GET ANOTHER JOB. If you still aren't making enough money, make yourself more marketable. Go to night school. You don't need a freaking masters degree or doctorate to improve your wage, you can get a damn certificate program through a tech college in 6 months of night school that will set you apart from the others in your field and earn you a higher wage. If you are unhappy, you have no one to blame but yourself."



You must live somewhere awfully nice to have so many job options available. How wonderful for you. Try moving to the Ohio Valley (SE Ohio) and see if you can pull that off. I just had my hours cut to 15 a week (they're cutting costs) and have been trying to find another job for the past 3 months! There are none, not even in fast food! I'm a 33 year old single mom, I don't get child support, I refuse food stamps, and I'm going to college again! That little technical college degree I got in mental health has gotten me nowhere. I was paid 50 cents an hour more than someone without a degree. Now I have to quit school again (3 quarters away from a bachelor's) because no one can live on 6k a year. I live with my parents because my house burnt down a few years ago and at this rate I'll never be able to afford to own or rent ever.
So where, praytell do you get a job? I'm 2 hours away from both Columbus and Pittsburgh, so no big city opportunity here. Can't move because I HAVE NO MONEY. This area is all steel and coal. We used to have a lot of manufacturing jobs until they were all outsourced. No one here is profiting. Sure goods are cheaper because of WalMart, but they have to be because no one could afford anything else.
This globalization crap is just that... crap. And sitting through management class having it forced down my throat by my Indian professor who proudly proclaims the Post-America world and how we'd better get used to it because there's nothing we can do to stop it.... URG! Pisses me off.
Sorry I needed a rant as I'm in the middle of writing a paper where I have to proclaim the greatness of globalization (hence why I'm reading this thread for ideas).

[armstrong]

L Bennett76
I understand, had my rant also, its like playing monopoly except with everyone else is not playing by the rules ( IE: states and feds ), but you have to and most Americans also have to!

[erowe1]

You must live somewhere awfully nice to have so many job options available. How wonderful for you. Try moving to the Ohio Valley (SE Ohio) and see if you can pull that off. I just had my hours cut to 15 a week (they're cutting costs) and have been trying to find another job for the past 3 months! There are none, not even in fast food! I'm a 33 year old single mom, I don't get child support, I refuse food stamps, and I'm going to college again! That little technical college degree I got in mental health has gotten me nowhere. I was paid 50 cents an hour more than someone without a degree. Now I have to quit school again (3 quarters away from a bachelor's) because no one can live on 6k a year. I live with my parents because my house burnt down a few years ago and at this rate I'll never be able to afford to own or rent ever.
So where, praytell do you get a job? I'm 2 hours away from both Columbus and Pittsburgh, so no big city opportunity here. Can't move because I HAVE NO MONEY. This area is all steel and coal. We used to have a lot of manufacturing jobs until they were all outsourced. No one here is profiting. Sure goods are cheaper because of WalMart, but they have to be because no one could afford anything else.
This globalization crap is just that... crap. And sitting through management class having it forced down my throat by my Indian professor who proudly proclaims the Post-America world and how we'd better get used to it because there's nothing we can do to stop it.... URG! Pisses me off.
Sorry I needed a rant as I'm in the middle of writing a paper where I have to proclaim the greatness of globalization (hence why I'm reading this thread for ideas).

I definitely feel for you. I hope things work out for you. I don't believe there is anything that could ever be done by government that would make sure that no one ever goes through difficulties like yours. But what can be done is to make it so there are as few people as possible going through them by eliminating government intrusions in the freedom of people to enter the economic arrangements with one another of their choice. I know that's little consolation to you right now. But it's good that you apparently realize it's the case, since you say you refuse food stamps. Imagine how much better the economy would be, and how much more likely it would be for you to have a good paying job if we took away the dead weight that government places on this country in the form of all the ways it decides to spend our money for us and all the regulations it forces on businesses. Barriers to doing business with foreigners are just as much a part of that dead weight as entitlement programs are.

I know we each have to follow our convictions according to our own conscience. So take this for what it's worth. But I don't think you have any ethical duty to refuse food stamps. We all are working to change the system, but until we succeed we have to deal with it as it is. I have no qualms about using government services that I believe the government should not be doing (roads, public school, medicare, etc.). Obviously if we ever succeed at getting government out of all those things, then we will be divested of them (or find nongovernmental means of replacing them) just as much as everyone else. But in the mean time, we are already forced to subsist within an economic system that is weighted down by their existence, and thus, regardless of our tax brackets, we're paying the cost for them. That being the case, I think it's completely within your right to make full use of food stamps and whatever else you can get from the government. But also, I'll point out, that if you're against those things, then you should also be against using tariffs to keep the price of your labor artificially high at the expense of the higher costs to American consumers, since that's just another more roundabout form of welfare.

[BillyDkid]

You must live somewhere awfully nice to have so many job options available. How wonderful for you. Try moving to the Ohio Valley (SE Ohio) and see if you can pull that off. I just had my hours cut to 15 a week (they're cutting costs) and have been trying to find another job for the past 3 months! There are none, not even in fast food! I'm a 33 year old single mom, I don't get child support, I refuse food stamps, and I'm going to college again! That little technical college degree I got in mental health has gotten me nowhere. I was paid 50 cents an hour more than someone without a degree. Now I have to quit school again (3 quarters away from a bachelor's) because no one can live on 6k a year. I live with my parents because my house burnt down a few years ago and at this rate I'll never be able to afford to own or rent ever.
So where, praytell do you get a job? I'm 2 hours away from both Columbus and Pittsburgh, so no big city opportunity here. Can't move because I HAVE NO MONEY. This area is all steel and coal. We used to have a lot of manufacturing jobs until they were all outsourced. No one here is profiting. Sure goods are cheaper because of WalMart, but they have to be because no one could afford anything else.
This globalization crap is just that... crap. And sitting through management class having it forced down my throat by my Indian professor who proudly proclaims the Post-America world and how we'd better get used to it because there's nothing we can do to stop it.... URG! Pisses me off.
Sorry I needed a rant as I'm in the middle of writing a paper where I have to proclaim the greatness of globalization (hence why I'm reading this thread for ideas).I think there are many more people in your boat and soon to be mine than see all this golden opportunity that comes with "globalization". People complain about redistribution of wealth. Well, the fact is that we have had the most massive redistribution of wealth in the past 20 years than the world has ever seen - from the middle and working class to those in a position to exploit the system and that system is NOT a free market. Let's see how this works - we have had a system in place for many years which has served the economic interests of the most wealthy so that virtually all the wealth of the entire country has been concentrated into the hands of a tiny fraction of population and now the argument is - here's your free market, go out and make something of yourself. Certainly it is possible to become successful and wealthy starting with nothing, but the reality is that a tiny fraction of a percent will ever be able to do that. There are mountains of barriers to entry and obstacles in place, put in place to protect the interest of those who used the existing system to reach the top. It can be done, but the reality is, for the vast majority of us it is virtually impossible. In past 10 years we have created more billionaires than ever before, but that is hardly the sign of a free market or a healthy economy. People point to a relative handful of billionaire and say "See, the free market works." But we do not have a free market. We have a few people who have been lucky enough to find themselves in a position to exploit the system while most of the rest of us look around bewildered and wondering what the hell is the matter with us that we haven't found the magic formula to become billionaire too.

For the record, I have worked all of my life from the age of 15 too. I finally managed to put myself through school by the age of 30 and managed to get a half way decent job which I have held for 20 years. Now, the big company that bought my company is closing it's doors and leaving us with our asses hanging out. Mind you, my division has supported all the rest of the healthcare division for years, so it's not like we haven't pulled our weight. We created and marketed two billion dollar brands and so are, apparently, a victim of our success.

[armstrong]

bump