PDA

View Full Version : John Stossel: The Stupidity of "Buy American"




Pages : [1] 2

bobbyw24
11-02-2011, 05:34 AM
One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work.

I'm glad I don't work there anymore.

"Buy American" is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why.

"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."

This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products.

The nonsense of "Buy American" can be seen if you trace out the logic.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/11/02/the_stupidity_of_buy_american

Southron
11-02-2011, 07:21 AM
So price is the only factor we should take into consideration when we make purchases?:rolleyes:

Enjoy those cheap, lead sandwiches John.

Johnny Appleseed
11-02-2011, 07:27 AM
Yeah don't "Buy American" "Kill American" that is the only other way to reduce unemployment.

123tim
11-02-2011, 07:29 AM
"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/11/02/the_stupidity_of_buy_american

The flaw in this logic is that we can't produce anything as cheap as it can be done in other countries. We're strangled by our own rules and regulations.

If we buy the cheapest thing to "free up our resources", wouldn't we naturally buy the next thing from the cheapest country who produces it? We aren't producing many cheap products now. What's going to happen that will change that?

Where I live almost all industry is gone. Only one factory producing a product remains. We used to have about eight and all of those have moved to other countries. It's obvious that if we would have bought products from these factories while they were here they would have remained.

brandon
11-02-2011, 07:40 AM
So price is the only factor we should take into consideration when we make purchases?:rolleyes:


It generally should be, assuming you are comparing products of equal quality. Buying more expensive products to "support" the people that make them is just another form of charity that encourages dependence and is unsustainable.

Krugerrand
11-02-2011, 07:45 AM
It generally should be, assuming you are comparing products of equal quality. Buying more expensive products to "support" the people that make them is just another form of charity that encourages dependence and is unsustainable.

"equal quality" can be hard to pin down. Look at groceries. If you buy from a local farmer, you can have a better idea of how that product was grown and handled prior to reaching your table.

Would you recommend parents feed their baby formula from China if its cheaper?

vita3
11-02-2011, 07:48 AM
Supporting local economies is a pretty good thing imo & experience

Krugerrand
11-02-2011, 07:57 AM
Supporting local economies is a pretty good thing imo & experience

I think there is a huge value in individuals as well as local communities having some capacity of self sustenance.

jkr
11-02-2011, 07:57 AM
annnnnnnnnnnd with no jobs you'll be selling your crap too?????????

Ronulus
11-02-2011, 07:59 AM
The flaw in this logic is that we can't produce anything as cheap as it can be done in other countries. We're strangled by our own rules and regulations.

If we buy the cheapest thing to "free up our resources", wouldn't we naturally buy the next thing from the cheapest country who produces it? We aren't producing many cheap products now. What's going to happen that will change that?

Where I live almost all industry is gone. Only one factory producing a product remains. We used to have about eight and all of those have moved to other countries. It's obvious that if we would have bought products from these factories while they were here they would have remained.

The fact is we do not necessarily need to produce 'cheap' products. In order to produce these cheap products means you have to have lower wages and people to work for those low wages. However we can use our resources to produce goods that other countries can not quiet produce as well as we can. You also have to realize that economic prosperity and growth is pushed ahead by further education and technology. Many countries that produce cheap products do not have these 2 things. Yet with the high tax rates and regulations it's hard to get people to take risks and start up companies that can produce many products at a sustainable level. We do not have the freedom to determine what product is best produced here and at what cost.

You should also remember that we have several successful businesses models in the US. Yet we have little to no real competition because of the governments restraints on small businesses. This usually causes them to sell out and become absorbed by the company they are trying to compete with.

Elwar
11-02-2011, 08:00 AM
"Buy American" = subsidize inferiority, avoid productivity

Also...encourage collectivism.

RonPaulMania
11-02-2011, 08:06 AM
"Buy American" = subsidize inferiority, avoid productivity

Also...encourage collectivism.

And go broke in the process... good plan!!!

Free trade has always been a canard/Trojan Horse of the elite. Exporting jobs is always a bad idea, now we are playing with manipulated currency questions.

Oh, and free trade will never be "free", someone is always manipulating the game on what "free" means. China: free trade to us, not to them.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 08:08 AM
Excercise is pointless too. Isn't it ideal to live requiring the fewest calories possible? Who needs to be big and strong in a world with elevators, cars and powered everything else?

Diurdi
11-02-2011, 08:46 AM
Exporting jobs is a good idea if there are people abroad that are better at doing it than we are. We do what we do best, and they do what they do best, and then we trade and both win.

It's just like the division of labour domestically:

If I produced all my goods myself, I would always have "a job". The problem is that that would not be efficient or smart use of your time. It's much smarter to specialize in what you're good at, produce that good or service - and then trade it for all the products you need with all other specialists.

However: Having to export jobs solely because some restrictive law is placed domestically is not ideal. Yes, if the law persists it's better to export the jobs than to artificially prop them up - two wrongs don't make a right.. But what you really want is to abolish the restricive law allow the jobs to stay.

Krugerrand
11-02-2011, 08:49 AM
Exporting jobs is a good idea if there are people abroad that are better at doing it than we are. We do what we do best, and they do what they do best, and then we trade and both win.

It's just like the division of labour domestically:

If I produced all my goods myself, I would always have "a job". The problem is that that would not be efficient or smart use of your time. It's much smarter to specialize in what you're good at, produce that good or service - and then trade it for all the products you need with all other specialists.

However: Having to export jobs solely because some restrictive law is placed domestically is not ideal. Yes, if the law persists it's better to export the jobs than to artificially prop them up - two wrongs don't make a right.. But what you really want is to abolish the restricive law allow the jobs to stay.

So, if China can produce missiles, aircraft carriers, and other national defense tools cheaper than us, we should abandon those pursuits and only buy them where it is cheaper?

sorianofan
11-02-2011, 09:00 AM
One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work.

I'm glad I don't work there anymore.

"Buy American" is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why.

"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."

This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products.

The nonsense of "Buy American" can be seen if you trace out the logic.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/11/02/the_stupidity_of_buy_american

Libertarians ignore that our chief export is debt and anyone would know that you only pay back your debt with interest, which only makes you poorer.

Diurdi
11-02-2011, 09:07 AM
So, if China can produce missiles, aircraft carriers, and other national defense tools cheaper than us, we should abandon those pursuits and only buy them where it is cheaper?
No. For the purpose (defence) that these military products are being produced, one needs to be guaranteed that they'll be supplied in the future as well.

So just because it may be cheaper to buy them when looking at the pricetag, when you include risk into your calculations it doesn't make economic sense anymore. We all know that when they are most needed they probably aren't going to be supplying any.

Sort of the same with relying on police protection. Yes, you've already paid for them, and they have the capability to help you with more men and more guns than you could afford. Yet you do not want to risk that the police isn't going to be there when they're needed. And thus you hire personal security for your store for example. Or buy a personal firearm. These two both aren't the cheapest options, but they reduce risk.

In short, for national defence pruposes buying cheap isn't the best thing, because you need to reduce risk as well. But there's no national defence component in 99% of the industries.

brandon
11-02-2011, 09:10 AM
^^ Yep, and they also pay more for trusted enforceable confidentiality agreements.

Acala
11-02-2011, 09:13 AM
Just bought a VW Golf TDI. Screw the UAW.

PastaRocket848
11-02-2011, 09:14 AM
The way i see it... I buy what represents the best value. That is how markets work. If the best value is made in America (which is rare nowadays), China, Turkey, whatever, makes no difference to me. If i spend twice what i could have spent just to "buy American" all that does is leave me with less to spend on other things, which may or may not be made in America. If you want jobs to stay in America, you don't institute price controls (which is effectively what the "buy american" crowd suggest), you simply become competitive. Move to a right to work state, streamline the workflow, be innovative. It's not the consumer's fault that the gov't (with the help of unions) have made it virtually impossible to produce a product in America that is competitive.

Why should people pay more for the sake of propping up some union shop that pays it's labor twice what their worth and passes the cost on to us? You all make the assumption that American Made = Higher Quality. This is just flat out untrue. GM < Honda when it comes to quality, by any measure. Besides, "buy american" presumes you can actually decipher what is american and what isn't. Ford builds cars in Mexico. Kia builds cars in South Carolina.

The people that crow about how people are un-american for buying a product (which represented a far better value) from another country usually do so over a phone that they bought at Wal Mart, or in a car that was built in Turkey, or on a computer that was built in China. They're all hypocrites.

Buy what represents the best value (quality/price) that does the job you need it to do. If it has to come from somewhere else, so be it. That's a market, take it or leave it.

Wesker1982
11-02-2011, 09:25 AM
For the love of liberty please watch/read this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTT_WHyzZ54

Chapter 23 (http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf)

Krugerrand
11-02-2011, 09:27 AM
The way i see it... I buy what represents the best value. That is how markets work. If the best value is made in America (which is rare nowadays), China, Turkey, whatever, makes no difference to me. If i spend twice what i could have spent just to "buy American" all that does is leave me with less to spend on other things, which may or may not be made in America. If you want jobs to stay in America, you don't institute price controls (which is effectively what the "buy american" crowd suggest), you simply become competitive. Move to a right to work state, streamline the workflow, be innovative. It's not the consumer's fault that the gov't (with the help of unions) have made it virtually impossible to produce a product in America that is competitive.

Why should people pay more for the sake of propping up some union shop that pays it's labor twice what their worth and passes the cost on to us? You all make the assumption that American Made = Higher Quality. This is just flat out untrue. GM < Honda when it comes to quality, by any measure. Besides, "buy american" presumes you can actually decipher what is american and what isn't. Ford builds cars in Mexico. Kia builds cars in South Carolina.

The people that crow about how people are un-american for buying a product (which represented a far better value) from another country usually do so over a phone that they bought at Wal Mart, or in a car that was built in Turkey, or on a computer that was built in China. They're all hypocrites.

Buy what represents the best value (quality/price) that does the job you need it to do. If it has to come from somewhere else, so be it. That's a market, take it or leave it.

I believe it was a Pat Buchanan piece that explained that when Toyota builds cars in the US, they build them with parts made in Japan. The parts that Toyota USA buys from Toyota Japan are sold at a inflated price. In doing so, the profits go to Toyota Japan instead of Toyota USA. That gives a tax advantage to Toyota USA over US car manufacturers.

willwash
11-02-2011, 09:33 AM
The same could be said for anything else, too. Paying a little extra for something produced domesticallly isn't "charity". It's an insurance premium. Germany was not hit very hard by the crash of 2008. It has a largely self-sufficient economy. They have a very strong "buy German, support German industry" mentality there, so the result is that during the boom time, yes, people paid more money for an equivalent, but domestically-produced product. But they were largely insulatd from the crash as a result, and now the rest of Europe is turning to them for help while they laugh their way to the bank.


No. For the purpose (defence) that these military products are being produced, one needs to be guaranteed that they'll be supplied in the future as well.

So just because it may be cheaper to buy them when looking at the pricetag, when you include risk into your calculations it doesn't make economic sense anymore. We all know that when they are most needed they probably aren't going to be supplying any.

Sort of the same with relying on police protection. Yes, you've already paid for them, and they have the capability to help you with more men and more guns than you could afford. Yet you do not want to risk that the police isn't going to be there when they're needed. And thus you hire personal security for your store for example. Or buy a personal firearm. These two both aren't the cheapest options, but they reduce risk.

In short, for national defence pruposes buying cheap isn't the best thing, because you need to reduce risk as well. But there's no national defence component in 99% of the industries.

jkr
11-02-2011, 09:33 AM
its not about hypocrisy.
its is about having stuff to do so that we can trade WITH EACH OTHER so we don't tear ourselves apart, now that we lack BASIC survival skills...if off-shoring our trinkets lets us concentrate on living like human beings ( raising food & family, creating efficient homes, etc) then gr8!

if it results in, well, THIS; we haven't really gained much and lost EVERYTHING

green73
11-02-2011, 09:41 AM
"Buy American" = subsidize inferiority, avoid productivity

Also...encourage collectivism.

+rep

green73
11-02-2011, 09:43 AM
For the love of liberty please watch/read this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTT_WHyzZ54

Chapter 23 (http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf)

+rep

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 09:45 AM
"Buy American" = subsidize inferiority, avoid productivity
Also...encourage collectivism.

All of you will be singing a different tune once all our capabilities to produce are gone and that is when the world decides to go off the dollar standard. You won't be able to afford any imports and we won't have any domestic products to purchase either.

Sentient Void
11-02-2011, 09:46 AM
The OP and this thread is so full of win.

No offense, Anti-Federalist.

willwash
11-02-2011, 09:48 AM
All of you will be singing a different tune once all our capabilities to produce are gone and that is when the world decides to go off the dollar standard. You won't be able to afford any imports and we won't have any domestic products to purchase either.

+rep see my above post re: Germany

green73
11-02-2011, 10:04 AM
All of you will be singing a different tune once all our capabilities to produce are gone and that is when the world decides to go off the dollar standard. You won't be able to afford any imports and we won't have any domestic products to purchase either.

So explain why Ron Paul is wrong on this issue.

The Free Hornet
11-02-2011, 10:05 AM
The flaw in this logic is that we can't produce anything as cheap as it can be done in other countries. We're strangled by our own rules and regulations.

You can offer

1) better products and service
2) faster products (no shipping delay)
3) no shipping costs
4) a more "trusted" supplier (less concern that your vendor becomes your competitor)

Also, you pinpoint the problem: a regulatory stranglehood. That is the problem. Subsidizing domestic production with protectionist policies does not get rid of the problem. It means we either pay more than is necessary - the customer suffers the cost of the regulations - or we go without.

Imports are just a cheaper way than fixing Washington. Don't kill the messenger.


It's obvious that if we would have bought products from these factories while they were here they would have remained.

How is that obvious? Substitutes might take over or a different state could get the production. Also, how is it better if everybody else is worse off? Shared sacrafice might seem good but after a pint of blood it gets dangerous.

Importing solves a problem Washington created. Protectionism only means now we have two problems to solve instead of one.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 10:16 AM
So explain why Ron Paul is wrong on this issue.

He isn't. He recognizes the true problem. And he bought an american car; specifically because it was american made by an american company that didn't take the bailouts at the time.

green73
11-02-2011, 10:20 AM
He isn't. He recognizes the true problem. And he bought an american car; specifically because it was american made by an american company that didn't take the bailouts at the time.

He's for free trade, a globalized economy.

Ronulus
11-02-2011, 10:23 AM
He isn't. He recognizes the true problem. And he bought an american car; specifically because it was american made by an american company that didn't take the bailouts at the time.

But he supports free trade. He doesn't say to buy american because it's american. That is counter intuitive to austrian economics.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 10:27 AM
He's for free trade, a globalized economy.
He is also for a sound money. He recogizes that it isn't trade that is the problem but our currency and international dollar standard. he also recognizes that it is destroying our country. Being for "free trade" doesn't have anything to do with the "personal choice" of buying american or not. Just that the government isn't making that decision for you.


But he supports free trade. He doesn't say to buy american because it's american. That is counter intuitive to austrian economics.
And yet, he bought an american car specifically because he said he wanted an american vehicle. Like I said above, being for free trade simply means he wants the government out of the decision; it doesn't mean that he personally doesn't favor domestic products.

green73
11-02-2011, 10:38 AM
He is also for a sound money. He recogizes that it isn't trade that is the problem but our currency and international dollar standard. he also recognizes that it is destroying our country. Being for "free trade" doesn't have anything to do with the "personal choice" of buying american or not. Just that the government isn't making that decision for you.


And yet, he bought an american car specifically because he said he wanted an american vehicle. Like I said above, being for free trade simply means he wants the government out of the decision; it doesn't mean that he personally doesn't favor domestic products.

Ok. So you are not for protectionism. Good.

But the notion of buying inferior and/or more costly products from someone simply because they reside in your tax jurisdiction just seems silly. It certainly isn't economically sound. Check out mise.org.

Btw, do you have a link for your statement that RP bought an American car simply because it was American?

pcosmar
11-02-2011, 10:39 AM
I would prefer to support American products and American workers.
However,, I see no reason to buy an inferior product at a higher price.

It is a problem of both regulation and monetary manipulation (government) that has destroyed the manufacturing base in this country.

I did a paint job a few years back on the very LAST automobile produced entirely in the United States.
It was a Honda.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 10:42 AM
But the notion of buying inferior and/or more costly products from someone simply because they reside in your tax jurisdiction just seems silly. It certainly isn't economically sound. Check out mise.org.

free trade in an environment where you have the world debt currency isn't sound either. find me something on mises that specifically addresses free trade in an environment where one party has an unlimited credit card, I'd be happy to read it.



Btw, do you have a link for your statement that RP bought an American car simply because it was American?
It was in a recent interview on what vehicles candidates drive. shouldn't be that hard to find it was on the forum here somewhere.

green73
11-02-2011, 10:49 AM
free trade in an environment where you have the world debt currency isn't sound either. find me something on mises that specifically addresses free trade in an environment where one party has an unlimited credit card, I'd be happy to read it.

But what you are advocating is even worse for consumers. It's a psychological form of protectionism.

mczerone
11-02-2011, 10:54 AM
Stossel's argument is lacking, though he comes to the right conclusion.

First, instead of saying "Buy American is stupid", he could at least say "The Buy American campaign will not have the economic consequences that people think it will". Don't be abrasive to the opposing argument. He's just setting up walls.

Second, there are more reasons than monetary profit to buying American - some as mentioned in this thread. I, personally, don't mind paying extra for local goods, because I want to (personally) subsidize the growth of local industry. I want more farmers around me, more industrial jobs, more academic opportunities, more culture, etc. And I'm willing to pay extra for that rather than spend money that goes to the well being of California or Taiwan.

Third, what is "American" anymore? I remember when I bought my last car they had to say where each thing in the production of each car was done. "American" cars like Fords and Saturns and Buicks were 30% Canadian manufacture, 30% Chinese manufacture, 10% Mexican manufacture, and were sold as "Assembled in America." Think about simple t-shirts, or Leonard Read's Pencil: the work that goes into these products from start to finish takes place all over the world. To try to make "America" a central feature in these products would necessarily reduce quality, increase production times and costs, and limit the types of materials that could be used. As I said before, I'm willing to pay some premium for local products, but I'm not likely to pay 3x as much for a new iPhone made from exclusively American Parts.

Fourth, the "jobs follow what it's cheapest for us to produce" counter that Stossel mentions is somewhat faulty. Real people are specially trained to do certain things, and can't simply switch to the industrial production of coffee if they lose their textile job. While in the long run it might be better for the society to buy textiles from imports, if they all switch to cheap imports tomorrow, their will be a path-dependent effect that could have devastating effects.

It reminds me of an anecdote from when I was supervising some college workers. One guy pointed out that "it would be quicker/more efficient if we did this highly repeated task a different way." I replied, "Yes, it would be. But to get from here to there would cost too much time and effort. For now, it makes sense to keep doing it the old way."

Does it make sense to "buy American"? I don't know, that's a subjective question. There are arguments both ways. But I do know that it doesn't make sense to ALWAYS buy the cheapest option, and it doesn't make sense to ALWAYS buy American.

phill4paul
11-02-2011, 11:13 AM
At one time 60% of furniture sales in the United States were from products manufactured within 200 miles of Hickory N.C. This was up until certain "Free Trade" agreements caused the furniture sector to shift overseas. Today in the Hickory area there is an official 12% unemployment rate. The truth is closer to 20%.
I can tell you that the product produced was far superior to any of these pressed wood mockeries in stores now. Americans were able to afford these superior American made products. That is because America at the time had a manufacturing base that could support a middle-class.
Unless manufacturing comes back to America we are fucked.

Krugerrand
11-02-2011, 11:22 AM
At one time 60% of furniture sales in the United States were from products manufactured within 200 miles of Hickory N.C. This was up until certain "Free Trade" agreements caused the furniture sector to shift overseas. Today in the Hickory area there is an official 12% unemployment rate. The truth is closer to 20%.
I can tell you that the product produced was far superior to any of these pressed wood mockeries in stores now. Americans were able to afford these superior American made products. That is because America at the time had a manufacturing base that could support a middle-class.
Unless manufacturing comes back to America we are fucked.

Here in lies the rub between the Sossels and the Buchannans. Stossel is wrong because there is no such reality as free-trade. Even if we dropped every phoney free-trade agreement and completely eliminated our regulatory obstacles, other countries can screw with your economy by non-free-trade policies. Buchannan is wrong because protectionism perpetuates the crappy cycle that we're caught in.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 11:26 AM
The OP and this thread is so full of win.

No offense, Anti-Federalist.

None taken.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 11:33 AM
OK, so if the premise of the OP is true, why are we in the jam we are in?

Because, for all intents and purposes, it is next to impossible to "Buy American" in retail consumer goods.

Therefore, the flood of cheap shit into the marketplace should have ushered in an age of propsperity, unheard of before.

So why are we bankrupt, personally and on a government level, why have real wages stagnated for decades now, why does it take two people working multiple jobs to support a household and why is unemployment, gauged by the metric used up until 1986 hovering around 17-18 percent?

Globalized "free trade" is one of the cruelest tricks in the banksters bag, nothing will undercut an economy and mask true inflation as quickly as a flood of manufactured goods made outside the country to standards and labor costs that nobody in the targeted country can compete with.

ghengis86
11-02-2011, 11:34 AM
2.6% of all US Personal Consumption Expenditures (what US consumers buy) goes to China. US workers unload ships, US truck drivers transport products, which are warehoused in US facilities staffed by US workers, products are shipped to retailers that are staffed by US workers, who get their energy from US energy companies, people drive to the mall in cars assembled by US workers, fill their cars with gas at gas stations with US workers, etc etc.

Yes, we've lost a lot of manufacturing jobs but keep it in perspective. It's mostly the useless, low-quality junk people shouldn't be wasting their money on anyhow.

Oh yeah, and fuck the government; their intervention is to blame for the most part.

pcosmar
11-02-2011, 11:35 AM
At one time 60% of furniture sales in the United States were from products manufactured within 200 miles of Hickory N.C. This was up until certain "Free Trade" agreements caused the furniture sector to shift overseas. Today in the Hickory area there is an official 12% unemployment rate. The truth is closer to 20%.
I can tell you that the product produced was far superior to any of these pressed wood mockeries in stores now. Americans were able to afford these superior American made products. That is because America at the time had a manufacturing base that could support a middle-class.
Unless manufacturing comes back to America we are fucked.

Once upon a time there was pride in building something well.

NO MORE.
You can not build a car to last a lifetime and still sell new cars every year.
Planed obsolescence is the rule. Disposable products rather than Quality Products.

Sad really.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s6MCvMONVM

ghengis86
11-02-2011, 11:35 AM
OK, so if the premise of the OP is true, why are we in the jam we are in?

Because, for all intents and purposes, it is next to impossible to "Buy American" in retail consumer goods.

Therefore, the flood of cheap shit into the marketplace should have ushered in an age of propsperity, unheard of before.

So why are we bankrupt, personally and on a government level, why have real wages stagnated for decades now, why does it take two people working multiple jobs to support a household and why is unemployment, gauged by the metric used up until 1986 hovering around 17-18 percent?

Globalized "free trade" is one of the cruelest tricks in the banksters bag, nothing will undercut an economy and mask true inflation as quickly as a flood of manufactured goods made outside the country to standards and labor costs that nobody in the targeted country can compete with.

I think our fiat dollar monetary policy bears s lot of blame too.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2011, 11:38 AM
One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work.

I'm glad I don't work there anymore.

"Buy American" is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why.

"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/11/02/the_stupidity_of_buy_american

Just an example of contrarianism taken to absurdity.

Another sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "foreign is always cheaper".

He also makes several false assumptions. Quality, price, convenience, level of service are all independent factors, and Stossell makes the assumption that foreign is always better. False. That also leaves out local quid pro quo, and community social networks which play a part in trade decisions.

oyarde
11-02-2011, 11:45 AM
All I have purchased this week so far is gasoline , domestic beer & cigarettes ....

Diurdi
11-02-2011, 11:52 AM
At one time 60% of furniture sales in the United States were from products manufactured within 200 miles of Hickory N.C. This was up until certain "Free Trade" agreements caused the furniture sector to shift overseas. Today in the Hickory area there is an official 12% unemployment rate. The truth is closer to 20%.
I can tell you that the product produced was far superior to any of these pressed wood mockeries in stores now. Americans were able to afford these superior American made products. That is because America at the time had a manufacturing base that could support a middle-class.
Unless manufacturing comes back to America we are fucked. Because people preferred to buy from abroad instead of products make in Hickory N.C.?

Are you saying that they were wrong in preferring one above the other?

The reason most manufacturing has gone overseas is because the US simply is a bad environment to be productive in thanks to political failure. However some manufacturing would've gone overseas regardless. There's no point making certain things in the US when there are people willing to do it for much less abroad. Frees up more labour in the US that can tackle more advanced tasks.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 12:04 PM
Frees up more labour in the US that can tackle more advanced tasks.

What more advanced tasks?

Lawyers, making MIC kill bots and pron?

What could possibly be more advanced than making shit like this:

http://www.sealetter.com/newart/qm2building.jpg

http://www.pon-cat.com/Global/Pon%20Power/Scandinavia/Newsletter/MaK.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/a380/a380_16.jpg

http://www.steerprop.com/userfiles/image/sp_50_80.jpg

http://images-en.busytrade.com/131703400/Selling-Secondhand-Volvo-Excavator-Ec210blc.jpg

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 12:09 PM
And how is it, that all the things, and many more, that I listed above are all built in heavily regulated, socialist societies?

If we are going to take economic textbooks and theories as gospel, then I demand an answer to that, since standard economic thinking would suggest that in a heavily regulated, unionized, socialist society, nothing would get accomplished efficiently.

No...there's more going on to this than just simple economics, there is currency and capital manipulation and "insiders" rigging this game.

Continuing on this path of "globalization" is insanity, it is economic and national suicide.

Ronulus
11-02-2011, 12:10 PM
At one time 60% of furniture sales in the United States were from products manufactured within 200 miles of Hickory N.C. This was up until certain "Free Trade" agreements caused the furniture sector to shift overseas. Today in the Hickory area there is an official 12% unemployment rate. The truth is closer to 20%.
I can tell you that the product produced was far superior to any of these pressed wood mockeries in stores now. Americans were able to afford these superior American made products. That is because America at the time had a manufacturing base that could support a middle-class.
Unless manufacturing comes back to America we are fucked.

I don't think the free trade is what fucked them. It's the fact that free trade exists while the government imposes regulations and sanctions on it's domestic producers. Products may be much easier (cheaper) to make in other places and ship over here with the free trade agreement, at a lesser cost than developing here in the country. This also keeps companies like your furniture company from being competitive without shifting work overseas. With free trade and more freedom for the domestic market your companies would have likely been able to compete and offer lower quality products at a cheaper price to compete with those that were imported. They could have still then made the higher quality products, perhaps in less quantity as the markets demands shifted.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 12:11 PM
All I have purchased this week so far is gasoline , domestic beer & cigarettes ....

which brand of beer?

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 12:16 PM
Btw, do you have a link for your statement that RP bought an American car simply because it was American?

Here you go:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/283240/paul-faces-polite-challenging-groups?page=0,1&CSAuthResp=1320257673%3Anqoud051fvqbdib7a8llski2i6 %3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3A89D9D2CF3A83E 1F384E64D7E0FD55F43&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1


At least one man, sitting in the front row, was easy to convince.

"Do you drive a foreign or domestic car?" he asked.

"I drive a Ford," Paul said. "I wanted to buy domestic, but it became really hard because so many of the companies were taking government bailouts, but Ford didn't, so I bought one."

"I'll vote for you," the man said.

Krugerrand
11-02-2011, 12:17 PM
Here's something I posted before under freedom living. I think it's fair to ponder as it relates to 'buying local' as well.

Gandhi ties freedom living to the freedom revolution
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?241094-Gandhi-ties-freedom-living-to-the-freedom-revolution


I'm reading a book on baking whole wheat bread that my sister bought for me. I came upon a passage in the introduction that discusses Gandhi and how he encouraged self-reliant living. We're all familiar with the ignore, laugh, fight, win quote. This passage uses Gandhi as an example to explain, I think, exceptionally well how freedom living ties directly to the freedom revolution.


As long as we've known each other, Laurel, Bron, and I have shared with others at Nilgiri Press a strong interest in the life and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. (The first book we published, in fact - which Laurel helped design - was Gandhi the Man, by Eknath Easwaran.) That interest was rekindled last year by Richard Attenborough's film masterpiece "Gandhi." More and more of late, along with a great many other people, we have been looking to the man and his writings, seeming to find there solutions to the mounting problems of our day - solutions, or at least inspiration to go on looking for them.

The fact that Gandhi is always in the back of our minds has led us to see in the baking of whole-grain bread even greater possible significance than I've already proposed. This might seem odd, if you think of Gandhi primarily as a political figure. Baking bread, after all, is a domestic and private preoccupation - far removed from political goings-on. But the fact is, overtly political activity took up a relatively small mount of time in Gandhi's life.

For years and years at a time, throughout the nineteen thirties and forties, Gandhi virtually buried himself in village India, preoccupied exclusively with the daily minutiae of "rural uplift." This was because his idea of revolution was "from the bottom upward." He believed that the people of India, the vast majority of whom lived in the villages, would be in no position to take responsibility for governing themselves effectively until they were also able to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves. This is where the spinning wheel of "charkha" came in: all-important symbol of Gandhi's effort to achieve authentic self-rule in India - symbol, but direct means, too.

Prior to British imperial rule, manufacturing of cotton into textiles had been a cottage industry. Homespun had been the ideal complement to agriculture, enabling the villagers to clothe as well as feed themselves, and providing work that could be carried on throughout the rainy season. Everyone could take part, moreover- the elderly and disabled, even the young.

Over the years, though, the British had systematically suppressed the cottage textile industry. By the turn of the century, Indian cotton was exported to Britain, manufactured into calico in the Lancashire mills and returned for sale to Indians - to be bought with money they had an ever-diminishing chance to earn. While spinning wheels collected dust in attics the villagers themselves grew poorer, more dispirited, and ever more dependent on the British raj.

Gandhi offered a deceptively simple solution. Drag out those wheels, he urged. If you don't know how to use them, get your grandmothers to teach you. Boycott foreign made cloth, and wear only what we can produce ourselves.

Homespun cotton was just the beginning. Gandhi encouraged the use of village-ground whole wheat, too, instead of mill-refined white flour; of locally processed raw sugar, called "gur," instead of white sugar, and greatly increased use of leafy green vegetables. He advocated employment of local materials for housing, and indigenous herbal medicines - every conceivable form, in short, of individual and local self-reliance.

The poor of India did not need alms, Gandhi maintained, they need work. Finding themselves able, after all, to meet basic life needs though their own skills, they would begin to trust their capacity to govern themselves as well - and they would have the courage to try. A people thus transformed would be free in the most meaningful sense whether they were officially recognized to be or not. It would only be a matter of time before political institutions caught up. Gandhi saw in this transformation of the individual the very essence of non-violent revolution - its driving power.

It would be very easy to look at India today - at the serious problems she has yet to solve - and conclude that Gandhi's ideas haven't worked there. Easy, unless you realize that in fact, they haven’t really been tried. The overall direction of development efforts in India has not been that of the Constructive Program. Even Gandhi's closest followers did not all share his passion for homespun or his faith in what it promised for India. It seemed so terribly slow, after all, and the needs were so acute. Hoping to relieve their people's suffering more quickly, many of these individuals were attracted instead to the industrialized models of the West, and they strove mightily, once they were in political office, to adopt similar patterns for India.

It's quite understandable that Gandhi's successors would have chafed at the long, slow process of change his approach entails. The darker side of life in the West probably didn't look as dark to them as it did to him, and they may not have been as convinced as he was that our highly industrialized and primarily urban mode of life was largely to blame.

In the long run, Gandhi's teachings might turn out to have fallen on more fertile ground here in the West, amidst people who have lived the consequences of a highly industrialized, materially abundant way of life, and who have, like many of us, our own reasons to question it.
...
What Gandhi was insisting upon with that spinning wheel - he never quit talking about it, and carted it all over Europe as well as India - was the absolute vital importance of how we accomplish the most mundane things in life: the putting of clothes on our backs and food on our tables. There is always a simpler way to meet those needs, he taught, and a more self-reliant one - always an adjustment to make that will foster better health and draw you into more richly interdependent relationships with others. There is always a choice.
From The Laurel's Kitchen Bread Book: A Guide to Whole-Grain Breadmaking (http://www.amazon.com/Laurels-Kitchen-Bread-Book-Whole-Grain/dp/0812969677/) by Laurel Robertson pp. 25-28.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 12:18 PM
But what you are advocating is even worse for consumers. It's a psychological form of protectionism.
Not it isn't, I for one don't think morality should be completely taken out of the equation when I make decisions as a consumer. But that is my personal choice, I have the same position as Dr. Paul it seems.

low preference guy
11-02-2011, 12:20 PM
When I can afford it, I buy quality. If domestic products are of higher quality, I buy domestic.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 12:35 PM
+rep


Here's something I posted before under freedom living. I think it's fair to ponder as it relates to 'buying local' as well.

Gandhi ties freedom living to the freedom revolution
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?241094-Gandhi-ties-freedom-living-to-the-freedom-revolution

phill4paul
11-02-2011, 01:02 PM
Because people preferred to buy from abroad instead of products make in Hickory N.C.?

Are you saying that they were wrong in preferring one above the other?

The reason most manufacturing has gone overseas is because the US simply is a bad environment to be productive in thanks to political failure. However some manufacturing would've gone overseas regardless. There's no point making certain things in the US when there are people willing to do it for much less abroad. Frees up more labour in the US that can tackle more advanced tasks.

I think you missed the part were I said 60% of Americans were buying BEFORE the "Free Trade" agreements. They didn't just suddenly decide to quit buying American. SOMETHING happened that caused them to buy cheaper product at lower costs. That something was the decline of manufacturing and the loss of jobs across the spectrum. Also, the loss of the American middle-class single income family that came with it.
And this notion that losing these manufacturing jobs frees up labour for more advanced tasks is hog-wash. That is what the government tried to sell to the people in the area that lost their ability to make a living doing what they had done for generations. The local community college (Formally, a technical institute which specialized in furniture construction.) is now turning out nurses and other service sector employees to a population increasingly unable to afford such services. The businesses that have replaced furniture, freed up labour, are currently phone service centers and a Target distribution center. Jobs that pay less than 1/3 of the previous jobs.
The current business plan for Hickory N.C.? The local government has all but given up trying to get new businesses and believe that all will be right if they can convince the retirement community to move here. More low wage jobs for those who's labour has been freed up.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2011, 01:07 PM
And how is it, that all the things, and many more, that I listed above are all built in heavily regulated, socialist societies?

If we are going to take economic textbooks and theories as gospel, then I demand an answer to that, since standard economic thinking would suggest that in a heavily regulated, unionized, socialist society, nothing would get accomplished efficiently.

No...there's more going on to this than just simple economics, there is currency and capital manipulation and "insiders" rigging this game.

Continuing on this path of "globalization" is insanity, it is economic and national suicide.

+ rep "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again."

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 01:18 PM
+rep


I think you missed the part were I said 60% of Americans were buying BEFORE the "Free Trade" agreements. They didn't just suddenly decide to quit buying American. SOMETHING happened that caused them to buy cheaper product at lower costs. That something was the decline of manufacturing and the loss of jobs across the spectrum. Also, the loss of the American middle-class single income family that came with it.
And this notion that losing these manufacturing jobs frees up labour for more advanced tasks is hog-wash. That is what the government tried to sell to the people in the area that lost their ability to make a living doing what they had done for generations. The local community college (Formally, a technical institute which specialized in furniture construction.) is now turning out nurses and other service sector employees to a population increasingly unable to afford such services. The businesses that have replaced furniture, freed up labour, are currently phone service centers and a Target distribution center. Jobs that pay less than 1/3 of the previous jobs.
The current business plan for Hickory N.C.? The local government has all but given up trying to get new businesses and believe that all will be right if they can convince the retirement community to move here. More low wage jobs for those who's labour has been freed up.

jtstellar
11-02-2011, 02:12 PM
i like how minorities with generally disagreed opinions in this community tend to vote each other up.. it's like a group under oppression tend to stick together better.. talk about herd mentality

free trade issues have been explored and every libertarian issue can be discussed at length.. you're not gonna convince anyone one way or the other with a two paragraph post on some internet forum.. the only difference is have you heard debates or read books or not. from how i see it, the only separation is this: the lazy camp and not. btw no anti free trader has won argument against any of the well known leaders around this movement, not against peter schiff, not against tom woods, not against ron paul. not one intellectual leader of this movement harbors the anti free trade argument, in fact, before you waste anymore time posting nonsense because your livelihood depended on some subsidies. tough luck. if your livelihood depends on trade war, we don't need you.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 02:24 PM
i like how minorities with generally disagreed opinions in this community tend to vote each other up.. it's like a group under oppression tend to stick together better.. talk about herd mentality

free trade issues have been explored and every libertarian issue can be discussed at length.. you're not gonna convince anyone one way or the other with a two paragraph post on some internet forum.. the only difference is have you heard debates or read books or not. from how i see it, the only separation is this: the lazy camp and not.

You're free to vote up what you think is correct as well.

And what is this "lazy camp" that you speak of?

US workers take less time off, work longer hours and, on an hourly level are more productive than almost all industrialized nations.

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4dbd6b94cadcbb6b7a070000-547/us-labor-productivity-has-boomed-however-this-indicates-that-managers-have-shed-more-low-skill-jobs-in-the-us-than-they-have-elsewhere.jpg

We're busting our asses here, and yet still moving backward, due to a combination of government policies, taxes, regulations, tariffs and monetary supply that all play a role in rushing us down a hill in a race to the bottom.

pcosmar
11-02-2011, 02:26 PM
i like how minorities with generally disagreed opinions in this community tend to vote each other up.. it's like a group under oppression tend to stick together better.. talk about herd mentality



Isaiah's Job


"Ah," the Lord said, "you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it."


I think, is that in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those – dead sure, as our phrase is – but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellectual curiosity necessary to a successful pursuit of his trade.
Albert Jay Nock

Bordillo
11-02-2011, 02:39 PM
The flaw in this logic is that we can't produce anything as cheap as it can be done in other countries. We're strangled by our own rules and regulations.

If we buy the cheapest thing to "free up our resources", wouldn't we naturally buy the next thing from the cheapest country who produces it? We aren't producing many cheap products now. What's going to happen that will change that?

Where I live almost all industry is gone. Only one factory producing a product remains. We used to have about eight and all of those have moved to other countries. It's obvious that if we would have bought products from these factories while they were here they would have remained.

This is bad logic

Buying cheap frees up more income, which in turns allows the consumer to spend more money on different things. The U.S. is a highly service based economy. That money saved will go to other areas of the economy

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2011, 02:41 PM
i like how minorities with generally disagreed opinions in this community tend to vote each other up.. it's like a group under oppression tend to stick together better.. talk about herd mentality


Are you a US citizen?


you're not gonna convince anyone one way or the other with a two paragraph post on some internet forum.. the only difference is have you heard debates or read books or not.

You have left out the best teacher of all, experience. Many of us were hard core, free-trade, open borders libertarians when we were young and idealistic. And I rarely say that because I hated when someone said that to me when I was younger. Reality has changed our opinions on some things. It will probably change some of our opinions in the future. Don't be surprised if your opinions change over time.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 02:43 PM
btw no anti free trader has won argument against any of the well known leaders around this movement, not against peter schiff, not against tom woods, not against ron paul. not one intellectual leader of this movement harbors the anti free trade argument,.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread; Dr. Paul is for "free trade" as he is against government making decisions and meddling in our transactions. BUT he still CHOSE to buy domestic because he (dr. paul) wanted to buy american. I don't think he would have any problem whatsoever with non-govt "buy american" advocacy by consumers. In fact, I think he would probably support it.

Southron
11-02-2011, 02:45 PM
I think you missed the part were I said 60% of Americans were buying BEFORE the "Free Trade" agreements. They didn't just suddenly decide to quit buying American. SOMETHING happened that caused them to buy cheaper product at lower costs. That something was the decline of manufacturing and the loss of jobs across the spectrum. Also, the loss of the American middle-class single income family that came with it.
And this notion that losing these manufacturing jobs frees up labour for more advanced tasks is hog-wash. That is what the government tried to sell to the people in the area that lost their ability to make a living doing what they had done for generations. The local community college (Formally, a technical institute which specialized in furniture construction.) is now turning out nurses and other service sector employees to a population increasingly unable to afford such services. The businesses that have replaced furniture, freed up labour, are currently phone service centers and a Target distribution center. Jobs that pay less than 1/3 of the previous jobs.
The current business plan for Hickory N.C.? The local government has all but given up trying to get new businesses and believe that all will be right if they can convince the retirement community to move here. More low wage jobs for those who's labour has been freed up.

We have the same problem in south-central NC where all the textile companies and other manufacturing plants moved away. Now the county employs the most people. Those jobs were replaced by fast food chains or nothing at all. Our solid manufacturing base is gone. You are lucky to make $10/hr now.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 02:49 PM
We have the same problem in south-central NC where all the textile companies and other manufacturing plants moved away. Now the county employs the most people. Those jobs were replaced by fast food chains or nothing at all. Our solid manufacturing base is gone. You are lucky to make $10/hr now.

Fool, don't you know that you are bathed in prosperity now, free to spend that $300 bucks a week (take home) on a cornucopia of cheap products and services?

jtstellar
11-02-2011, 02:57 PM
nvm

CaptainAmerica
11-02-2011, 02:59 PM
Supporting local economies is a pretty good thing imo & experience
This ^

low preference guy
11-02-2011, 03:00 PM
As I pointed out earlier in the thread; Dr. Paul is for "free trade" as he is against government making decisions and meddling in our transactions. BUT he still CHOSE to buy domestic because he (dr. paul) wanted to buy american. I don't think he would have any problem whatsoever with non-govt "buy american" advocacy by consumers. In fact, I think he would probably support it.

In some cases he seems to support it, in other cases no, for example, you might recall that when someone asked him why were the products sold by his campaign made in Honduras, he said the free market should decide those things.

Johnny Appleseed
11-02-2011, 03:08 PM
You bunch of Coneheads!

Cheap products offer that cheap thrill of purchase power for people who have no other sense of control about their lives

phill4paul
11-02-2011, 03:10 PM
We have the same problem in south-central NC where all the textile companies and other manufacturing plants moved away. Now the county employs the most people. Those jobs were replaced by fast food chains or nothing at all. Our solid manufacturing base is gone. You are lucky to make $10/hr now.

Yeah, the textiles are a part of the same problem. Textiles and furniture went hand in hand. But, it was the larger impact on the nation as a whole with regards to the same managed trade agreements that sent this country into tail-spin.
And while these jobs were bleeding away the government just kept telling us that freeing us from this labour would mean higher paying jobs and happier days for everyone. Guess what? It didn't work out.
I'm still waiting on an answer to AF's earlier question......


OK, so if the premise of the OP is true, why are we in the jam we are in?

Because, for all intents and purposes, it is next to impossible to "Buy American" in retail consumer goods.

Therefore, the flood of cheap shit into the marketplace should have ushered in an age of propsperity, unheard of before.

So why are we bankrupt, personally and on a government level, why have real wages stagnated for decades now, why does it take two people working multiple jobs to support a household and why is unemployment, gauged by the metric used up until 1986 hovering around 17-18 percent?

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 03:12 PM
In some cases he seems to support it, in other cases no, for example, you might recall that when someone asked him why were the products sold by his campaign made in Honduras, he said the free market should decide those things.

fair enough point; but it also his own personal goals go into account there as it is to his benefit to offer the least expensive product and try to get his materials into the hands of as many people as possible while raising campaign funds. in the tshirt example he isn't the consumer but the seller. And I guarantee if there was a great outpouring of demand for american-made campaign clothing he would make sure that was an option.

phill4paul
11-02-2011, 03:12 PM
For fuck sakes we had to get China to build a bridge and ship it over here because there were no adequate U.S. facilities. Some green car manufacturing company just took American taxpayer monies to set up shop in Finland because there were no adequate American facilities.

low preference guy
11-02-2011, 03:14 PM
And I guarantee if there was a great outpouring of demand for american-made campaign clothing he would make sure that was an option.

Of course, almost anyone would do that if they can sell more.

Johnny Appleseed
11-02-2011, 03:24 PM
What we need to do is return to the cottage system.

ZanZibar
11-02-2011, 04:55 PM
So price is the only factor we should take into consideration when we make purchases?:rolleyes:

Enjoy those cheap, lead sandwiches John.The people who didn't catch the lead in the toys were executed by the Chinese government for embarrassment and ruining a business deal. They are trying to kick their QC up higher because they understand the free market. If someone provided a crap product, people will be willing to go elsewhere even if it means that they pay more for it.

Diurdi
11-02-2011, 05:30 PM
For fuck sakes we had to get China to build a bridge and ship it over here because there were no adequate U.S. facilities. Some green car manufacturing company just took American taxpayer monies to set up shop in Finland because there were no adequate American facilities.

You realize this has nothing to do with free trade failure but the failure of the US government to create an economic environment that is profitable to exist in?

It doesn't matter if the jobs go overseas, if the regulation makes it inefficient to operate in the US, it's fucking stupid to do it in the US.


You do realize that the US is abusing China - not the other way around?

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 05:39 PM
You do realize that the US is abusing China - not the other way around?

When they drop the dollar as the reserve currency, China will be the one holding the whip and we'll be the gimp.

nobody's_hero
11-02-2011, 05:39 PM
And how is it, that all the things, and many more, that I listed above are all built in heavily regulated, socialist societies?

If we are going to take economic textbooks and theories as gospel, then I demand an answer to that, since standard economic thinking would suggest that in a heavily regulated, unionized, socialist society, nothing would get accomplished efficiently.

No...there's more going on to this than just simple economics, there is currency and capital manipulation and "insiders" rigging this game.

Continuing on this path of "globalization" is insanity, it is economic and national suicide.

I can't recall when I last gave you rep, but it say's I have to spread some around.

It is frustrating, when people simply say, "oh yeah, get rid of those low-skilled low paying jobs so you can move up into something else" as if people just blink their eyes and magically become aerospace engineers (or as if those jobs aren't being outsourced as well). If the market makes that shift, so be it. But we're not witnessing natural market shifts. We get managed trade agreements.

Of course, I think a lot of the economic theories on both sides come from the Fed's mischief and distortion of reality. 1913 ushered in an era of consumerism never before witnessed (and never before possible!) in the U.S.

heavenlyboy34
11-02-2011, 05:51 PM
So price is the only factor we should take into consideration when we make purchases?:rolleyes:

Enjoy those cheap, lead sandwiches John.
Good point. Stossel is right on many things there, but price is not the only factor in any rational consumer's choice (quality and other factors are just as important, if not moreso). He should have thought that through better.

low preference guy
11-02-2011, 05:53 PM
When they drop the dollar as the reserve currency, China will be the one holding the whip and we'll be the gimp.

Yep, and that is entirely the U.S. fault. While the U.S. is printing money, China is buying gold.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 06:31 PM
Yep, and that is entirely the U.S. fault. While the U.S. is printing money, China is buying gold.
Their gold purchases are nothing compared to their other purchases, what their building and colonization of africa....

LibForestPaul
11-02-2011, 08:02 PM
And go broke in the process... good plan!!!

Free trade has always been a canard/Trojan Horse of the elite. Exporting jobs is always a bad idea, now we are playing with manipulated currency questions.

Oh, and free trade will never be "free", someone is always manipulating the game on what "free" means. China: free trade to us, not to them.
Slave laborer < freeman

Athan
11-02-2011, 08:05 PM
One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work.

I'm glad I don't work there anymore.

"Buy American" is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why.

"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."

This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products.

The nonsense of "Buy American" can be seen if you trace out the logic.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/11/02/the_stupidity_of_buy_american

Look, I completely get what your saying as I understand capitalism fundamentals. However I feel John Stossel would better serve his time going after less complicated issues like failure of socialist policies than something that can be used to say "hey those libertarians are crazy! they should buy American!" Like explain how central banking is a plank of the communist manifesto and etc. In time, people can start to learn this stuff once the campaigning is over.

Cutlerzzz
11-02-2011, 08:17 PM
Protectionism...


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.
Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845 (Note of the Web Publisher)

Gentlemen:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have 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

roughridersten
11-02-2011, 08:19 PM
OK, so if the premise of the OP is true, why are we in the jam we are in?

Because, for all intents and purposes, it is next to impossible to "Buy American" in retail consumer goods.

Therefore, the flood of cheap shit into the marketplace should have ushered in an age of propsperity, unheard of before.

So why are we bankrupt, personally and on a government level, why have real wages stagnated for decades now, why does it take two people working multiple jobs to support a household and why is unemployment, gauged by the metric used up until 1986 hovering around 17-18 percent?

Globalized "free trade" is one of the cruelest tricks in the banksters bag, nothing will undercut an economy and mask true inflation as quickly as a flood of manufactured goods made outside the country to standards and labor costs that nobody in the targeted country can compete with.

The things you complain about (and should be complaining about) are not the result of free trade. You are right, in that cheap products go some way towards masking inflation and the government takeover of our economy. However, I don't believe that in the absence of free trade our government would refrain from these actions. Can you imagine how much poorer we would be if we had the same levels of unemployment, wage stagnation, higher inflation, and everyday products we take for granted were 10-20 times as expensive?!

It is not hard to understand why the manufacturing base in the United States has been dwindling. Just go study the Austrian production theory. It is not that hard: in order to have manufacturing you must first have savings/investment. The Austrian theory points out that the more complex the production process, the longer the timeframe, the more (and longer term) investment (and saving) required. Instead of allowing the market to determine savings rates, the Fed holds down interest rates which discourages saving. At the same time our federal government is spending more than it brings in in taxes and borrowing the remainder. So any savings that would have resulted in spite of the Fed, is swallowed by our government. Instead of allowing savings to accumulate (and thus investment to accumulate into longer production processes), we are spending all of our income on consumption. Finally, what little investment is left, our government has funneled into investment in housing (doesn't result in future production). Looked in light of the Austrian theory, it is no wonder manufacturing has left this country. The investment required for production is not present.

The explanation above oversimplifies the matter (ie. doesn't consider foreign investment), and I am not the expert (see mises.org for that). However, as a supporter of Ron Paul, and (I assume) liberty, I can't understand why you wouldn't also support free trade.

phill4paul
11-02-2011, 08:25 PM
You do realize that the US is abusing China - not the other way around?

Yeah, we're raping the hell out of those bastards. We should continue down this line of attack.

low preference guy
11-02-2011, 08:28 PM
Yeah, we're raping the hell out of those bastards. We should continue down this line of attack.

his point is that the u.s. government prints money and exchanges it for chinese products. in other words, they produce, and the u.s. consumes. so as of now the U.S. is benefiting more.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 08:32 PM
Protectionism...


Free Trade in Theory and Practice

Written by Brian Farmer
Thursday, 08 September 2011 00:00

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/co...y-and-practice

Summation:

While the theory of comparative advantage can be a useful tool for economic analysis, it is simply not logical to use it as proof that unlimited free trade all of the time with every country in the world is good for America.

That could only be true if all of the associated assumptions about comparative advantage were actually valid in the real world, but they are not.

In fact, the way the world works nowadays means that those assumptions move further away from reality with every passing day.

Cutlerzzz
11-02-2011, 08:36 PM
Free Trade in Theory and Practice

Written by Brian Farmer
Thursday, 08 September 2011 00:00

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/co...y-and-practice

Summation:

While the theory of comparative advantage can be a useful tool for economic analysis, it is simply not logical to use it as proof that unlimited free trade all of the time with every country in the world is good for America.

That could only be true if all of the associated assumptions about comparative advantage were actually valid in the real world, but they are not.

In fact, the way the world works nowadays means that those assumptions move further away from reality with every passing day.

Error 404



Page Not Found

roughridersten
11-02-2011, 08:36 PM
Yeah, we're raping the hell out of those bastards. We should continue down this line of attack.

If you assume that China's currency is "undervalued" (as I'm guessing you would), and you argue that Chinese goods are cheaper than they should be, then you must admit that what we sell back to them is overvalued.

Contrary to common belief, China does not have stacks of dollar bills in a giant vault. Rather, it (I'm treating China as a single entity for simplicity, but obviously there are many businesses and individuals involved here as well as their government) takes the dollars it receives and buys our debt. "Trade deficit" only looks at half the equation. The other half is all the debt we sell to them. All of this is grossly overvalued. So, in return for buying cheap TVs, cellphones, etc. they get debt that will not be worth as much in the future (they can't manipulate their currency forever). Also keep in mind, that in order to influence the value of its currency, China must sell extra yuan. This causes inflation (printing of money). In the longrun, China's prices will rise due to inflation. Either way, all the debt they are buying is a horrible deal for them.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 08:42 PM
Error 404



Page Not Found

Try this one:

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8880-free-trade-in-theory-and-practice

Here it is if the link stops working again:

Free Trade in Theory and Practice
Written by Brian Farmer
Thursday, 08 September 2011 00:00

When one studies international economics, one will inevitably encounter the topic of “free trade.” As always, it is a good idea to start with a definition, to avoid any possible confusion. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the expression “free trade,” whose earliest recorded use in the English language dates back to 1606, as “trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods with tariffs used only as a source of revenue.” Nowadays, free trade has come to mean the conduct of international business without any governmental interference, such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, etc. Such a policy allows prices to be the result of nothing but pure supply and demand, without any artificial distortions entering into the process.

The term “free trade” is often used these days in multinational agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), although such arrangements do not eliminate government involvement in trade but create multinational entities to regulate it.

From Whence Free Trade?

Free trade has been a controversial economic concept since the 16th century. During that time, a policy known as “mercantilism” grew up in Europe, after the decay of the feudal system set in. Mercantilism rested on the belief that, in order to increase the wealth of a nation, the government needed to regulate the economy and pursue policies that would increase its stores of gold and silver bullion, secure a favorable balance of trade by restraining imports and encouraging exports, and develop home industries to maintain domestic employment. The power centers of Europe competed to establish colonies that would provide both a reliable source of cheap raw materials for the production of manufactured goods and a ready market for those goods.

As a result of this competition, military conflict between nation-states was more frequent and more extensive than at any other time in history. Armies and navies were no longer temporary forces raised to meet a specific threat or achieve a desired objective, but became full-time professional forces. Each government’s primary economic goal was to obtain enough hard currency to support a military that would both deter attacks by other countries and aid its own territorial expansion. Most of the mercantilist policies came about as the result of the relationship between the governments of the nation-states and their mercantile classes (producers and merchants). In exchange for paying taxes to support the armies and navies of the nation-states, the mercantile classes expected governments to enact policies that would protect their business interests against foreign competition.

International trade policies under the mercantile system were based on the view that international economic relations amounted to a zero-sum game in which one nation’s gain must be another nation’s loss. During the mercantilist era, the principal benefit of foreign trade was considered to be the importation of gold and silver. According to this view, the benefits to one nation that imported gold and silver were matched by costs to the other nation that exported gold and silver and there were, therefore, no net gains from trade. For nations that were almost constantly on the verge of war with each other, draining one another of valuable gold and silver was thought to be almost as desirable as the direct benefits of trade.

Adam Smith, an 18th-century Scottish economist, challenged the idea that the wealth of a nation is measured by the size of its bullion horde in his famous book The Wealth of Nations, which is generally considered to be the foundation of modern economic theory. Smith offered a number of significant refutations of mercantilist doctrine. First, he demonstrated that freely initiated trade benefits both parties. Secondly, he showed that specialization in manufacturing promotes economies of scale, which improves productivity and growth. Finally, Smith argued that the collusion between the government and the mercantile classes was harmful to the general population. While mercantilist policies were intentionally designed to benefit the government and the commercial classes, the doctrine of laissez faire, or free markets, which Smith propounded, interpreted economic welfare in a manner that included the entire population of a nation. Smith summed it up thusly:

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident, that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

Smith believed that free trade would change international commerce from a potential source of conflict into a foundation for the development of peaceful relations and mutual benefit. But this could only come about if governments were guided by the economic principles revealed by Smith and other economic theorists who were devoted to the common good. As Smith lamented at the time, “Each nation has been made to look with an invidious eye upon the prosperity of all the nations with which it trades, and to consider their gain as its own loss. Commerce, which ought naturally to be, among nations, as among individuals, a bond of union and friendship, has become the most fertile source of discord and animosity.”

On the other hand, Smith was not a free-trade purist, but believed that there are exceptions to the general principles he advocated. Since Great Britain was an island nation, its national security depended on its ability to maintain a strong navy and merchant marine. In this case, Smith explained:

The first [exception] is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country. The defence of Great Britain, for example, depends very much upon the number of its sailors and shipping. The act of navigation, therefore, very properly endeavors to give the sailors and shipping of Great Britain the monopoly of the trade of their own country, in some cases, by absolute prohibitions, and in others by heavy burdens upon the shipping of foreign countries.

In addition to protecting key industries through the banning of foreign ships from British ports, Smith argued that tariffs may sometimes be advisable, as well:

The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign [imports] for the encouragement of domestic industry, is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former.

Just such a situation occurred in the United States during the Civil War. To help fund the war, heavy taxes were imposed on Union manufacturers. Offsetting tariffs were then placed on the corresponding imported manufactured goods, to ensure that Union factories would not lose their home markets, and to ensure that the Union government would not lose any revenue for the war effort.

Smith also described two other situations when the national interest might call for the imposition of tariffs and/or some other trade restrictions:

Some foreign nation [may restrain] by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours....

There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.

Applying Smith’s rule of reciprocal action, the United States would have been justified in retaliating against Japan for the dumping of everything from cameras to television sets into American markets at prices below the cost of production in the United States during the period of Japanese economic recovery from the devastation of WWII, because Japan was simultaneously putting up a host of trade restrictions against American goods, including a total ban on the importation of American rice. Instead, free-trade purists rejected pleas for temporary protection and allowed the decimation of many U.S. industries, which led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs.

Smith’s argument that mutual benefits flow from international free trade was refined and extended by English economist David Ricardo in his theory of comparative advantage, which was presented in his 1817 treatise Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. The basic idea can be stated as follows: A country that trades for products it can get at a lower comparative cost from another country is better off than if it had made the products at home. To illustrate this principle, Ricardo used an example involving the countries of Portugal and England, and the commodities wine and cloth.

Let us say that Portugal can produce one case of wine with 15 hours of labor and one bolt of cloth with 10 hours of labor. England’s workers, on the other hand, are less productive. They require 30 hours of labor to produce a case of wine and 15 hours of labor to produce a bolt of cloth. At first glance, one might think that, since Portugal requires fewer labor hours to produce either commodity, it has nothing to gain from trade, because it has an absolute advantage in producing both commodities. What Ricardo argued was that it could still be mutually beneficial for both countries to specialize in producing one commodity and then trading for the other.

His argument was laid out in this manner: In Portugal, a case of wine takes the same number of man hours to produce as 1.5 bolts of cloth. A case of wine in England takes the same number of man hours to produce as two bolts of cloth. Portugal is relatively better at producing wine than cloth, so Portugal is considered to have a comparative advantage in the production of wine. England is relatively better at producing cloth than wine, so England is said to have a comparative advantage in the production of cloth. Because Portugal’s population is smaller than England’s population, Portugal is assumed to have 180 man hours of labor available for production, while England is assumed to have 270 man hours of labor available for production. Before trade takes place, Portugal produces and consumes six cases of wine and nine bolts of cloth (6 x 15 + 9 x 10 = 180), while England produces and consumes five cases of wine and eight bolts of cloth (5 x 30 + 8 x 15 = 270). The total production of the two countries is 11 (6 + 5) cases of wine and 17 (9 + 8) bolts of cloth. But if both countries specialize, Portugal producing only wine and England producing only cloth, total production becomes 12 cases of wine (180/15 = 12) and 18 bolts of cloth (270/15 = 18). Specialization has enabled the two countries to increase production by one case of wine and one bolt of cloth. By trading with each other, Portugal and England can distribute the goods according to their preferences, and both are better off, as a result of their specialization and trading.

Comparative Advantage Continued

Admittedly, the previous paragraph did not exactly make for light reading, and required a fair degree of concentration in order to get a clear understanding of how the arithmetic of Ricardo’s thesis plays out. But an understanding of the theory of comparative advantage is absolutely vital in any discussion of free trade, because it is the linchpin that holds together all of the standard arguments supporting free trade.

As hinted at above, Ricardo’s theory relies heavily on the economic concept of opportunity cost, which Ian Fletcher, senior economist for the Coalition for a Prosperous America, explains by answering the question, “Why don’t professional football players mow their own lawns?” (Okay, Brett Favre reportedly uses a riding mower, but he’s the exception that proves the rule!) After all, a professional athlete is presumably in better condition than the average yard care worker and could do the job more efficiently, as measured in acres per hour, for example. But, even though the football player has an absolute advantage in productivity, he will hire someone else to mow his lawn for him, because he feels that he has better things to do with his time.

That is the key to understanding the concept of opportunity cost: It is the value of whatever we give up, in order to do something else. A direct cost is relatively easy to calculate. In this lawn mowing example, it’s the cost of hiring someone to mow the lawn. But trying to figure out one’s opportunity cost is a lot more complicated, because it depends on what other opportunities exist. The opportunity cost of doing something is always the next most valuable thing we could have done instead, which is not always easy to determine. In any case, the best choice is to always try to minimize one’s opportunity cost. This is where trade enters the picture.

Looking at the global economy, we see that there is an army of low-skilled workers making toys in China. American businesses have decided not to compete with China in making toys because America’s factors of production (resources such as land, raw materials, labor, technology, etc.) can be used more efficiently making other products that can be sold more profitably. Expanding this idea to all countries and to all products, production of any product will ideally take place in the country that can produce it at the lowest opportunity cost. Hence, the theory of comparative advantage views international free trade as an interconnected system of trade-offs, in which countries use the ability to import and export as a means to minimize opportunity costs and reorganize their factors of production so that they can be used most profitably.

Free-trade purists argue that, conversely, it must logically follow that any policy other than free trade would trap countries into producing less-valuable output than they could have produced, because it would burden them with higher opportunity costs. Classical free-trade proponents further claim that, if imports drive an industry out of business, then that would be good for a country because it means that the nation’s economy would be forced to reallocate its factors of production to producing something having a lower opportunity cost. The logic of profit dictates that the nation’s comparative advantage must lie elsewhere, that it will be better off producing according to that comparative advantage, and that the rest of the world will be better off, too.

So goes the theory, but the example above illustrating the mechanics of comparative advantage makes a number of assumptions that are not altogether realistic in the real world:

• Transport costs are ignored.

• There is full employment in both countries.

• Costs are constant and there are no economies of scale.

• There are only two economies producing two commodities.

• Each commodity is of identical quality in both countries.

• Factors of production are perfectly mobile within each country, in order to allow production to be switched without cost.

• Factors of production are immobile between countries, in order to maintain each country’s comparative advantage.

• There are no tariffs, quotas, or other trade barriers.

• All buyers and sellers know where the cheapest commodities can be found at all times.

• Governments do not impede or distort the marketplace through their domestic tax and regulatory policies — or if they do, the two countries are equally impacted.

Flaws in Free Trade

Those assumptions (and that list is by no means exhaustive) lead to a number of significant flaws in Ricardo’s theory that are all too often overlooked or downplayed by its adherents and, therefore, the predicted benefits do not occur to the extent forecasted, when put into practice.

In fact, transport costs do enter into the final price of a product, and transport costs can vary greatly, depending on the weight or bulk of a product. Also ignored is the cost of economic damage done in the process of manufacturing something. A classic example is environmental pollution, which has an economic cost that is not reflected in the price. Goods from a country with lax pollution standards will be relatively cheap, relative to a country with strict pollution laws. Practicing free trade in such circumstances benefits a country such as China, but harms both itself and other countries, because pollution crosses national borders.

In addition, because of cheap products made in countries with lax environmental standards, countries with burdensome environmental restrictions will be adversely affected in the way of employment. Of course, it could be argued that a country heavily burdened by taxes and regulations should work to get rid of, or at least ease, that burden, rather than work to further block foreign competition. Nonetheless, such a country will suffer the loss of businesses and jobs if it removes its international trade barriers prior to easing its tax/regulatory burden. But as the list above clearly illustrates, not all factors are related to government interventionism.

The theory of comparative advantage asserts that, within any country, free trade will cause factors of production to be reallocated from economic sectors with a comparative disadvantage to economic sectors with a comparative advantage. But this process will break down if factors of production cannot readily reorganize. For example, if labor cannot easily move from an industry in decline to an industry on the upswing, due to mismatching skills, then free trade will lead to increasing unemployment. And that brings us into conflict with the assumption that full employment always exists in every country. The doctrine of comparative advantage not only assumes that workers and their skills are perfectly interchangeable, but also assumes that the up-and-coming industries will always be willing and able to immediately employ any and all displaced workers. Look around and see if that is happening in your area!

The corresponding assumption regarding the factors of production is that they are not internationally mobile. If they were, then productive resources would be located wherever in the world they could be used with the most relative efficiency. This international movement would optimize the world economy, but would not necessarily benefit a particular country, because it would have lost its comparative advantage to the country holding an absolute advantage. An assumption that may have been at least partially plausible during Ricardo’s time is no longer true today. As explained by economist Paul Craig Roberts:

The international mobility of factors of production is a new phenomenon. It permits first world businesses, seeking lower costs, greater profits, and a stronger competitive position, to substitute cheap foreign labor for the entire range of domestic labor involved in the creation of tradable goods and services. Only labor involved in non-traded goods and services is safe from foreign substitution. It is not yet possible to package hair cuts, surgical operations, dentistry or home repairs as internationally tradable services.

The known necessary conditions for free trade to be mutually beneficial do not hold in today’s environment where factors of production are as mobile, if not more so, than traded goods. What we are witnessing is not trade based on comparative advantage but the flow of first world factors of production to cheap Asian labor where the productivity of capital and technology is highest.

[I] do not dispute that global gains might exceed first world losses. Nevertheless, the flow of factors of production to absolute advantage in place of comparative advantage vitiates the case for free trade — that it produces mutual gains to the countries involved. What we may be witnessing is global capitalism destroying national sovereignties, leading to a global government.

Thus we have the awkward situation that Americans experience today, when cheaper foreign-manufactured goods replace goods that used to be produced here: Corporations and investors like the higher profits, consumers like the lower prices, but workers don’t like the resulting job losses. Because most consumers are also workers, there is no guarantee that, under free trade, they will gain more as consumers than they lose as workers.

Roberts’ commentary reminds us that free trade is not free. When Americans buy goods from foreigners, those foreigners expect something in return. We can sell them goods that we manufacture, such as airplanes; or we can sell them some of our assets, such as land and buildings; or we can sell them IOUs, such as corporate and government bonds. As the United States has moved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, it has put itself into a precarious situation. Because we have not been willing to protect various manufacturing industries, America can no longer produce goods in sufficient quantities to offset the amount of goods that it imports. And much of what we do “produce” is not exportable: How does one export the output of a retail sales clerk, a fast-food restaurant server, or a bartender? With every month that goes by, we are told that America has racked up yet another monstrous trade deficit. Common sense should tell us that this situation is unsustainable because we have only a limited number of assets that we can sell off, and we cannot afford to service an unlimited amount debt. But based on the dogma of comparative advantage, that is what blind faith in unrestricted free trade has brought us.

While the theory of comparative advantage can be a useful tool for economic analysis, it is simply not logical to use it as proof that unlimited free trade all of the time with every country in the world is good for America. That could only be true if all of the associated assumptions about comparative advantage were actually valid in the real world, but they are not. In fact, the way the world works nowadays means that those assumptions move further away from reality with every passing day.

roughridersten
11-02-2011, 08:57 PM
@Anti Federalist

If trade with other countries is bad for America, why don't you also support tariffs between States? If America is better off without China, why isn't Texas better off without California?

And if (in your view) Texas is better off without California, why isn't Dallas better off without trade with Houston?

And if that is the case why isn't one neighborhood better off without trade with another?

And if that is the case why aren't we all better off just being farmers and growing our own food?

And if that is the best way of life, why are you moving to a poor country with subsistance farming?

Edit: And in case your answer has to do with not stopping trade but just putting in tariffs, I'll leave this quote from Mises:
"It is inconsistent to support a policy of low trade barriers. Either trade barriers are useful, then they cannot be high enough; or they are harmful, then they have to disappear completely."

Mahkato
11-02-2011, 08:59 PM
For those of you worried about how we can still succeed under a free market when "the other guy" is better at *everything* than we are, read this (http://mises.org/daily/3015).

MelissaWV
11-02-2011, 09:00 PM
It's interesting that so many of you chose this aspect of things (including Stossel).

The reason it's incredibly difficult to buy "Made in the USA" is because nothing is entirely made here. That is to say, nothing goes from start to finish without depending on a foreign product, service, or comopany at some point. Even your local farmer's market is likely to contain a computer or two, or nail, or wire, or something... that is not entirely "American." During ABC's "Made in America" segments, they were excitedly talking about how awesome the house "built using American parts" was. They were emailing and faxing the lists around on machines with foreign company logos on them.

Some of the most traditionally foreign companies employ an awful lot of people here at home, and assemble a larger percent of their final product here than overseas. Attempting to reward a company you perceive as being more "American" than another, despite the product being lower quality or higher in price, is doing the world no favors.

pcosmar
11-02-2011, 09:05 PM
@Anti Federalist

If trade with other countries is bad for America, why don't you also support tariffs between States? If America is better off without China, why isn't Texas better off without California?

And if (in your view) Texas is better off without California, why isn't Dallas better off without trade with Houston?


Tariffs between the States is prohibited by the Constitution.

low preference guy
11-02-2011, 09:07 PM
Tariffs between the States is prohibited by the Constitution.

way to miss the point.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 09:09 PM
@Anti Federalist

If trade with other countries is bad for America, why don't you also support tariffs between States? If America is better off without China, why isn't Texas better off without California?

And if (in your view) Texas is better off without California, why isn't Dallas better off without trade with Houston?

And if that is the case why isn't one neighborhood better off without trade with another?

And if that is the case why aren't we all better off just being farmers and growing our own food?

And if that is the best way of life, why are you moving to a poor country with subsistance farming?

Because all of those places, trade between states and towns within the United States has been, for most of our history, on an equal footing with one another, same tariffs, same tax structure, mostly, same torts and standards and environmental regulations.

Of course, that's now changing, California comes to mind that has been setting standards for itself now for years, and expecting everybody else to comply.

A state cannot unilaterally issue fiat currency, it cannot charge it's own tariffs because of the damage that could do to another state's economy. The Founders recognized that, and that was why they wrote that into the constitution.

Now, if one of our own states can't play fast and loose with the money, can't charge it's own tariffs willy nilly, can't refuse to comply with standards and regulations, in order to undercut another state's economy, why the hell should some foreign country be allowed to do so?

And I do try to do as much as I can for myself, and I do farm and support local farmers and buy local as much as I can.

And rest assured, living in a mud hut and subsisting on 500 calories a day of cold rice and rat meat is most assuredly our future, if the powers that be continue to sell out the middle class, gut the economy and persist in this globalized "free trade" nonsense.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 09:12 PM
A state cannot unilaterally issue fiat currency

That being the central reason.

Cutlerzzz
11-02-2011, 09:14 PM
Try this one:

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8880-free-trade-in-theory-and-practice


Almost all of those assumptions are completely compatible with Comparative Advantage, or are not relevant.

Transport costs, tariffs, and government manipulation would just create different advantages and disadvantages. There is no fixed number of jobs, making the unemployment problem irrelevant. Buyers and sellers can never have complete knowledge, not even in a local market. Commodities not all being exactly the same is more reason to do away with tariffs, as they take away choices. Prices are constantly fluctuating, and factors of production are constantly moving. It is natural and healthy for comparative advantages to shift around.

Now are you going to tell me what the difference between protectionism and the Candle Maker's Petition is?

pcosmar
11-02-2011, 09:18 PM
way to miss the point.

Actually I was missing his missing the point.
But Point taken.

I am not against Free Trade. I AM very opposed to what is called free trade. (managed trade) (badly managed at that)

I do not like tariffs as Protectionist Trade Barriers, but would accept them as an income for a small and limited government in lieu of other forms of tax.

low preference guy
11-02-2011, 09:22 PM
I do not like tariffs as Protectionist Trade Barriers, but would accept them as an income for a small and limited government in lieu of other forms of tax.

if the reason of the tariff is to fund the government, they're not protectionist trade barriers. protectionist tariffs are those imposed with the purpose of protecting industries even if the revenue collected is enough to fund the government.

EDIT: i think you knew this already. i misunderstood what "them" referred to.

roughridersten
11-02-2011, 09:31 PM
I want to be clear: I am not trying to tell you how to act.

I am not trying to change your purchasing patterns. If you gain subjective value from purchasing local products and only buying goods that have "made in America" stickers on them, then by all means continue. That is what liberty and a free market is all about. However, if you are getting this subjective value because you believe those actions are making Americans more prosperous, I (and other Austrian economists) disagree. Even worse, if you use your beliefs about economics to restrict my choices in the market place (ie. tariffs, preventing trade, etc.) you are pursuing a policy that is antithetical to liberty and freedom.

heavenlyboy34
11-02-2011, 09:34 PM
Protectionism...



Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845
+mega rep

phill4paul
11-02-2011, 09:48 PM
his point is that the u.s. government prints money and exchanges it for chinese products. in other words, they produce, and the u.s. consumes. so as of now the U.S. is benefiting more.

Really?? My mind just snapped. Thank you,

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 09:51 PM
Really?? My mind just snapped. Thank you,

The pig benefits more for the years the farmer is busy feeding and fattening em up too. Then one day they go see the butcher.

Yeah, that's right; the chinese are planning on eating us.

low preference guy
11-02-2011, 09:53 PM
The pig benefits more for the years the farmer is busy feeding and fattening em up too. Then one day they go see the butcher.

i don't think it's a good analogy. the U.S. is committing suicide and burning his house and all his properties. when he is desperate and tries to sell whatever is left, the buyer of course will buy at a really good price.

specsaregood
11-02-2011, 09:56 PM
i don't think it's a good analogy. the U.S. is committing suicide and burning his house and all his properties. when he is desperate and tries to sell whatever is left, the buyer of course will buy at a really good price.

yeah, but your analogy doesn't include the chinese eating our pink asses with rice and some seaweed paper. I think my analogy has a better cinematic feel to it.

cindy25
11-02-2011, 09:58 PM
for an individual buying American is stupid as its against your self-interest, but as a government policy (protective tariffs ) it is different.
for any country as a whole its better to buy its own products, just as for a community as a whole its better to shop at local stores than at a Wal-Mart.

pcosmar
11-02-2011, 10:00 PM
I want to be clear: I am not trying to tell you how to act.


Nor am I, and it should not be construed that way.
I am opposed to the managed trade that we have today. And I am of the belief that it is an intentional destruction of our economy (not an accident)
Once upon a time when we did manufacture,, Textiles for instance,,There were many choices in carpeting, various levels of quality,, and yet Persian rugs were highly sought after. They did not put American rug makers out of business.
When our Auto industry was booming (50s60s) People still bought imported vehicles. Either High or low end. Rolls Royce did not destroy the auto industry and neither did Volkswagen. (I miss beetles)

NASCAR is an example of the direction things have gone. I loved Stock Car racing,, when they raced stock cars. Now they are all basically the same car, without any more than a LOGO difference. There is no competition between manufacturers, nor any real world innovations.

I want trade. I want competition. I love innovation and distinction.
I want the Art and Style of another land, and want to have pride in those of my own land.
That is all being lost by central planning and management.

phill4paul
11-02-2011, 10:09 PM
The pig benefits more for the years the farmer is busy feeding and fattening em up too. Then one day they go see the butcher.

Yeah, that's right; the chinese are planning on eating us.

Pig, man, Pig. Haha charade you are.....:cool:

willwash
11-02-2011, 10:18 PM
Except that the Chinese then take those dollars and buy up our debt with them, which makes it a weapon. The day China dumps all that debt is the day the dollar collapses completely. China would take a pretty big hit by doing that, but weapons are expensive, aren't they? A couple hundred billion to a trillion or so is pretty cheap to bring down the world's biggest superpower.


his point is that the u.s. government prints money and exchanges it for chinese products. in other words, they produce, and the u.s. consumes. so as of now the U.S. is benefiting more.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2011, 10:44 PM
Except that the Chinese then take those dollars and buy up our debt with them, which makes it a weapon. The day China dumps all that debt is the day the dollar collapses completely. China would take a pretty big hit by doing that, but weapons are expensive, aren't they? A couple hundred billion to a trillion or so is pretty cheap to bring down the world's biggest superpower.

All without firing a shot.

People forget that China is still a centrally planned communist country.

They've just updated Comrade Lenin's phrase: instead of us selling them the rope with which they hang us, they will sell us the rope with which we hang ourselves.

nobody's_hero
11-03-2011, 05:34 AM
The pig benefits more for the years the farmer is busy feeding and fattening em up too. Then one day they go see the butcher.

Yeah, that's right; the chinese are planning on eating us.

I don't doubt that China is in position to 'slingshot' itself to the forefront of the world economy after the dollar collapses. In the meantime, we will have been insistent on sending all of our factories overseas, so we'll have to rebuild from scratch.

roughridersten
11-03-2011, 06:46 AM
Except that the Chinese then take those dollars and buy up our debt with them, which makes it a weapon. The day China dumps all that debt is the day the dollar collapses completely. China would take a pretty big hit by doing that, but weapons are expensive, aren't they? A couple hundred billion to a trillion or so is pretty cheap to bring down the world's biggest superpower.

That is a great point to use when arguing with neocons that think spending our way to oblivion in wars makes us safer.

However, the problem is not that we trade with China, nor is it that we do not have enough tariffs. Rather, the problem is that our government promotes borrowing (both through borrowing itself, and holding interest rates low). China could not buy all that debt if we did not issue it in the first place!

Krugerrand
11-03-2011, 06:49 AM
That is a great point to use when arguing with neocons that think spending our way to oblivion in wars makes us safer.

However, the problem is not that we trade with China, nor is it that we do not have enough tariffs. Rather, the problem is that our government promotes borrowing (both through borrowing itself, and holding interest rates low). China could not buy all that debt if we did not issue it in the first place!

Imagine going to a bank and saying you want to take out a loan to buy some clothes and groceries.

oyarde
11-03-2011, 10:51 AM
which brand of beer? Keystone , I imagine it is made here , I have no idea who owns the company , the gasoline is made here , but with imported oil , the tobacco was grown here . I pulled a 9 volt battery out of one of my metal detectors last night to replace the one in my Tens unit . It was made in Malaysia , the Tens unit is made in Korea.

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:02 AM
That Pink Floyd song "Pigs" is most excellent . I drive a Ford too now ... First one I have had since a Gran Torino with a 351 Cleveland .

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:04 AM
The Honda plant in Greensburg, Indiana is at half production this week due to parts shortage due to flooding in Thailand.

specsaregood
11-03-2011, 11:11 AM
Keystone , I imagine it is made here , I have no idea who owns the company ,

You are in luck! an american brewed AND owned brewery.


Keystone beer is a product of the Coors Brewing Company in Golden, Colorado

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:14 AM
You are in luck! an american brewed AND owned brewery. I thought so , but one can never be sure anymore without checking , I drank Miller years ago , but is it not owned by a South African co now ?

Anti Federalist
11-03-2011, 11:17 AM
That Pink Floyd song "Pigs" is most excellent . I drive a Ford too now ... First one I have had since a Gran Torino with a 351 Cleveland .

I had one of these:

http://www.eastohiocoolcars.com/Ford/1975%20Gran%20Torino/1975%20Gran%20Torino.JPG

specsaregood
11-03-2011, 11:21 AM
I thought so , but one can never be sure anymore without checking , I drank Miller years ago , but is it not owned by a South African co now ?
Not sure about miller, but its a sad state of affairs when the biggest beer brewery in the US (anheuser-busch) gets bought up by the belgians.

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:21 AM
Nice , of course , gas was like $1 a gallon when I was driving it .

specsaregood
11-03-2011, 11:21 AM
I had one of these:


I have fond memories of completely rebuilding one of these with my dad.
http://www.calmuscleparts.com/images/Novcotm-lrg.jpg

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:23 AM
Not sure about miller, but its a sad state of affairs when the biggest beer brewery in the US (anheuser-busch) gets bought up by the belgians. I had almost forgotten about that , back when I drank Busch , it was made in ST Louis . There was a brewery there also , Griesadick Brothers or something , good beer .

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:26 AM
I have fond memories of completely rebuilding one of these with my dad.
http://www.calmuscleparts.com/images/Novcotm-lrg.jpg I drove a 57 Chevy in High School , Dad and my brother both had 65 Mustangs , Dad had the 289 in his, he left his 57 Chevy ragtop parked in the garage , he had bought it new.

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:29 AM
I like the F150 I am driving now . Wish gas was still $1 .

Carole
11-03-2011, 11:30 AM
One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work.

I'm glad I don't work there anymore.

"Buy American" is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why.

"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."

This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products.

The nonsense of "Buy American" can be seen if you trace out the logic.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/11/02/the_stupidity_of_buy_american

My main problem with the "buy it cheapest" theory is you get what you pay for and often at the expense of slave labor. Then the price is still higher than it should be, often escalated anyway, and the materials are inferior besides. Lack of control over production seems to lead to some very bad products. I just believe there should be the option of paying more for a better product made by people receiving a reasonable salary. In a truly free market, there should be that choice.

That is very much lacking today as the bulk of our products are made overseas.

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:35 AM
My main problem with the "buy it cheapest" theory is you get what you pay for and often at the expense of slave labor. Then the price is still higher than it should be, often escalated anyway, and the materials are inferior besides. Lack of control over production seems to lead to some very bad products. I just believe there should be the option of paying more for a better product made by people receiving a reasonable salary. In a truly free market, there should be that choice.

That is very much lacking today as the bulk of our products are made overseas. Yes , quality is tough to find in some items ...

jmdrake
11-03-2011, 11:37 AM
So explain why Ron Paul is wrong on this issue.

You mean Ron Paul is a control freak like John Stossel who is trying to tell people not to buy American? :rolleyes: Yeah I said it. John Stossel is being a control freak. It's one thing to say "get rid of tariffs and let people trade with who they want". It's another to verbally attack people for making the choice to buy American. And for the idiots that say "Buy American means subsidizing inferior products", all I have to say is "poison led paint toys from China" and "acid filled drywall from China". Our own economy sucks because it is over-regulated, over-taxed and over-subsidized. But that doesn't mean those who say "To hell with globalism and the literal garbage we are sold" are wrong. I tell you what. Maybe people should "Watch Russian (as in Russia Today) so that John Stossel will be out of a job".

jmdrake
11-03-2011, 11:38 AM
My main problem with the "buy it cheapest" theory is you get what you pay for and often at the expense of slave labor. Then the price is still higher than it should be, often escalated anyway, and the materials are inferior besides. Lack of control over production seems to lead to some very bad products. I just believe there should be the option of paying more for a better product made by people receiving a reasonable salary. In a truly free market, there should be that choice.

That is very much lacking today as the bulk of our products are made overseas.

+rep

specsaregood
11-03-2011, 11:39 AM
//

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:41 AM
Some of the items I have trouble finding quality( DURABILITY) in without using a catalog would be shoes that are not boots , belts ....

oyarde
11-03-2011, 11:43 AM
Yeah, the one we rebuilt was a 64 1/2. We rebuilt it for my older brothers birthday. Thing had a puny little straight-6 engine. It musta taken 15seconds to get up to 60mph. LOL. Perfect for a 16yr old. I learned to drive on it. Unfortunately I didn't get it as a handme down as he sold it to afford to go to college. :( Still the memories of working on the engine, sanding, bondo'ing, painting and tracking down little ornaments and such with my dad will last forever. My brothers was a standard with a six , we painted it back the original color , orange :)

Carole
11-03-2011, 12:08 PM
I believe there is a huge elephant in this room. The fact is that through the globalists' plans like Agenda 21 and its children such as The Wildlands Project, the full intent of th PTB is that no more industry ever be located in America. When the goal is to reduce the population, eliminate roads and dams, do away with private property, etc., the entire government and UN are purposely eliminating all production in America.

"...Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!, who summarized the concept: “It is not enough to preserve the roadless, undeveloped country remaining. We must re-create wilderness in large regions: move out the cars and civilized people, dismantle the roads and dams, reclaim the plowed land and clearcuts, reintroduce extirpated species.”

"Dave Foreman’s philosophy led him to propose: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” Echoing Marx’ theory of dialectical materialism, a March, 1994 Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document for “ecosystem management” stated federal bureaucrats should “consider human beings as a biological resource”, to be managed like cattle or trees."

So all this talk of production in the US is a moot point. Forces are aligned to prevent any production here through regulations, laws, EO's, Activism by the environmentalists and politicians. They are using taxpayer monies to give to environmental groups in order that they can sue any company that attempts to build a building or produce a product.

Just where does that leave us? Depopulated and overrun by animals and what people remain will be hoarded into their "people hubs" and stuffed into their "pack'em and stack'em " buildings to survive. No more ski resorts and golf courses. Very few roads and bridges. No vehicles, maybe those converted golf carts if we are lucky. Etc. At least fifty percent of the land unavailable to the people to step foot on.

So, really, moot question.

Krugerrand
11-03-2011, 12:20 PM
I think it makes perfect sense to buy apple juice from China. If our local orchards can't compete, too bad.

Think of how much our lifestyles will improve when 85% of the capital previously spent on apple juice is in China and 15% is saved to be invested in other things here in the US.

Don't worry for the slightest moment when those inefficient orchards are torn out and replaced with surplus housing. The dollar will never collapse. Chinese apple juice will always be cheaper (or even at least affordable). A time will never come when you cannot afford to buy apple juice from China and will need to grow apple trees for juice. And, fear not, if that unthinkable, impossible scenario did happen, you can trust that apple trees can produce juice in about two weeks after planting. (Fortunately, you can always count on that surplus housing to increase in value so that you can magically buy that Chinese apple juice.)

Also, don't worry about Sovereign Trust Funds. You need not worry about foreign entities owning your country. They'll always put your best interest first.

specsaregood
11-03-2011, 12:23 PM
I think it makes perfect sense to buy apple juice from China. If our local orchards can't compete, too bad.

Think of how much our lifestyles will improve when 85% of the capital previously spent on apple juice is in China and 15% is saved to be invested in other things here in the US.

Don't worry for the slightest moment when those inefficient orchards are torn out and replaced with surplus housing. The dollar will never collapse. Chinese apple juice will always be cheaper (or even at least affordable). A time will never come when you cannot afford to buy apple juice from China and will need to grow apple trees for juice. And, fear not, if that unthinkable, impossible scenario did happen, you can trust that apple trees can produce juice in about two weeks after planting. (Fortunately, you can always count on that surplus housing to increase in value so that you can magically buy that Chinese apple juice.)

Also, don't worry about Sovereign Trust Funds. You need not worry about foreign entities owning your country. They'll always put your best interest first.

I think that is the argument (the non-sarcastic version) that most of the "protectionists" here are making.

heavenlyboy34
11-03-2011, 12:24 PM
You mean Ron Paul is a control freak like John Stossel who is trying to tell people not to buy American? :rolleyes: Yeah I said it. John Stossel is being a control freak. It's one thing to say "get rid of tariffs and let people trade with who they want". It's another to verbally attack people for making the choice to buy American. And for the idiots that say "Buy American means subsidizing inferior products", all I have to say is "poison led paint toys from China" and "acid filled drywall from China". Our own economy sucks because it is over-regulated, over-taxed and over-subsidized. But that doesn't mean those who say "To hell with globalism and the literal garbage we are sold" are wrong. I tell you what. Maybe people should "Watch Russian (as in Russia Today) so that John Stossel will be out of a job".
I didn't get the impression that Stossel was speaking in the imperative ("Don't buy American"). I got the impression that he was saying that the "Buy American" schtick is overrated and impractical.

One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work.I'm glad I don't work there anymore.
"Buy American" is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why.
"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."
This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products.

This is being a "control freak"? Hmm...I don't think so.

Krugerrand
11-03-2011, 12:26 PM
I think that is the argument (the non-sarcastic version) that most of the "protectionists" here are making.

Well, as jmdrake's rep-worthy response above pointed out - Stossel was attacking the idea that there is ANY MERIT to supporting local business. That is beyond any idea of tariffs or trying to prevent your industry from being artificially undercut - his attack goes beyond "protectionism."

heavenlyboy34
11-03-2011, 12:28 PM
n/m

heavenlyboy34
11-03-2011, 12:29 PM
Well, as jmdrake's rep-worthy response above pointed out - Stossel was attacking the idea that there is ANY MERIT to supporting local business. That is beyond any idea of tariffs or trying to prevent your industry from being artificially undercut - his attack goes beyond "protectionism."
No, he wasn't.

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2011, 12:41 PM
Don't worry for the slightest moment when those inefficient orchards are torn out and replaced with surplus housing.

That's exactly what has happened in California. Some of the world's best farmland, paved over and covered in cheaply made cookie cutter houses on postage stamp lots. Plus the environmental extremists in government shut off irrigation water to orchards, so that eliminated even more production.

Krugerrand
11-03-2011, 12:50 PM
No, he wasn't.

This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products.
The nonsense of "Buy American" can be seen if you trace out the logic.
...
"If it's good to Buy American," Henderson said, "why isn't it good to have Buy Alabaman? And if it's good to have Buy Alabaman, why isn't it good to have Buy Montgomery, Ala.? And if it's good to have Buy Montgomery, Ala. ..."

You get the idea. You wouldn't get very good stuff if everything you bought came Montgomery, Ala.

"A huge part of the history of mankind is an increase in the division of labor. And that division of labor goes across national boundaries."
...
And here's something else: If you pay more for coffee, you'll have to buy less, or less of something else. That hurts other workers. We all should heed Henry Hazlitt's famous economics lesson: Look beyond the immediate effects and beneficiaries. You may be accomplishing the opposite of what you intend.

It sure seems like he is to me. Apparently there is value in wasted capital of goods-transportation.:rolleyes: I think Stossel should take his own advice advice. I think what he suggests is accomplishing the opposite of what he intends.

Division of labor doesn't work if you try and divide by zero.

Warrior_of_Freedom
11-03-2011, 01:55 PM
If the government didn't steal 3 months of our labor a year, we would have that extra 25% to buy stuff.

Anti Federalist
11-03-2011, 02:26 PM
It sure seems like he is to me. Apparently there is value in wasted capital of goods-transportation.:rolleyes: I think Stossel should take his own advice advice. I think what he suggests is accomplishing the opposite of what he intends.

Division of labor doesn't work if you try and divide by zero.

An excellent response.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAYOseyfLpdcStc7b7zPQz06pxjRa64 OmFr8VcBHlsVEYIH1WLFhWwsq2a

jmdrake
11-03-2011, 03:19 PM
I didn't get the impression that Stossel was speaking in the imperative ("Don't buy American"). I got the impression that he was saying that the "Buy American" schtick is overrated and impractical.

One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work.I'm glad I don't work there anymore.
"Buy American" is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why.
"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."
This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products.

This is being a "control freak"? Hmm...I don't think so.

And you're entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong about Stossel and Stossel is wrong about "buy American". First it's a marketing slogan, not a mandate. So it can't hurt the economy the way he claims. If a consumer finds value in buying designer versus generic the consumer finds value. Similarly if the consumer finds value in buying American versus buying Chinese the consumer finds value. Second the economy doesn't operate in the free market utopia that he is imagining. Much of the money currently in the economy is fake, created by out of thin air by the government. I'm not just talking the Federal reserve, although that's a big part of it. I'm talking about the entire private/corporate welfare system. That helps keep wages artificially high so that things that might be made in America naturally are artificially overpriced. Anyhow, you're free to have your opinion, I have mine. And this isn't the first time I've felt Stossel was out to lunch.

Edit: And back to my original point. Please find me one example where Ron Paul attacked the idea of Americans encouraging (as opposed to mandating) other Americans to buy American. Because that's why I was saying Stossel's position isn't Ron's.

jmdrake
11-03-2011, 03:19 PM
It sure seems like he is to me. Apparently there is value in wasted capital of goods-transportation.:rolleyes: I think Stossel should take his own advice advice. I think what he suggests is accomplishing the opposite of what he intends.

Division of labor doesn't work if you try and divide by zero.

+rep

jmdrake
11-03-2011, 03:21 PM
I think it makes perfect sense to buy apple juice from China. If our local orchards can't compete, too bad.

Think of how much our lifestyles will improve when 85% of the capital previously spent on apple juice is in China and 15% is saved to be invested in other things here in the US.

Don't worry for the slightest moment when those inefficient orchards are torn out and replaced with surplus housing. The dollar will never collapse. Chinese apple juice will always be cheaper (or even at least affordable). A time will never come when you cannot afford to buy apple juice from China and will need to grow apple trees for juice. And, fear not, if that unthinkable, impossible scenario did happen, you can trust that apple trees can produce juice in about two weeks after planting. (Fortunately, you can always count on that surplus housing to increase in value so that you can magically buy that Chinese apple juice.)

Also, don't worry about Sovereign Trust Funds. You need not worry about foreign entities owning your country. They'll always put your best interest first.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Krugerrand again.

Anti Federalist
11-03-2011, 03:32 PM
Yeah, the one we rebuilt was a 64 1/2. We rebuilt it for my older brothers birthday. Thing had a puny little straight-6 engine. It musta taken 15seconds to get up to 60mph. LOL. Perfect for a 16yr old. I learned to drive on it. Unfortunately I didn't get it as a handme down as he sold it to afford to go to college. :( Still the memories of working on the engine, sanding, bondo'ing, painting and tracking down little ornaments and such with my dad will last forever.

I'll bet that little 1V - 170 cid six banger was good for probably 35 mpg.

Anti Federalist
11-03-2011, 03:35 PM
You must spread some reputation around...


I think it makes perfect sense to buy apple juice from China. If our local orchards can't compete, too bad.

Think of how much our lifestyles will improve when 85% of the capital previously spent on apple juice is in China and 15% is saved to be invested in other things here in the US.

Don't worry for the slightest moment when those inefficient orchards are torn out and replaced with surplus housing. The dollar will never collapse. Chinese apple juice will always be cheaper (or even at least affordable). A time will never come when you cannot afford to buy apple juice from China and will need to grow apple trees for juice. And, fear not, if that unthinkable, impossible scenario did happen, you can trust that apple trees can produce juice in about two weeks after planting. (Fortunately, you can always count on that surplus housing to increase in value so that you can magically buy that Chinese apple juice.)

Also, don't worry about Sovereign Trust Funds. You need not worry about foreign entities owning your country. They'll always put your best interest first.

specsaregood
11-03-2011, 03:44 PM
I'll bet that little 1V - 170 cid six banger was good for probably 35 mpg.
I might have been, even in that heavy steel vehicle. Of course gas was so cheap back then, who paid attention to such things. :)

It wasn't fast though, in fact my bro got out of a speeding ticket by going to court and contesting it with mathematical proof that it would have been impossible for him to get the car up to the speed the cop claimed he was going at the point they claimed. :) He even offered to take the judge for a snail ride in it if he didn't believe him.

Anti Federalist
11-03-2011, 04:05 PM
I might have been, even in that heavy steel vehicle. Of course gas was so cheap back then, who paid attention to such things. :)

It wasn't fast though, in fact my bro got out of a speeding ticket by going to court and contesting it with mathematical proof that it would have been impossible for him to get the car up to the speed the cop claimed he was going at the point they claimed. :) He even offered to take the judge for a snail ride in it if he didn't believe him.

LoL that is epic.

We fought a ticket Mrs. AF got a few years ago in a big old conversion van the same way.

Won.

MelissaWV
11-03-2011, 04:16 PM
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (AP) – An estimated 5,000 people waited in line in Murfreesboro Wednesday, hoping to get one of 1,600 jobs at Nissan as the automaker ramps up hiring for a new battery plant at its Smyrna complex.

Yates Services, a maintenance contractor at the plant, held a job fair Wednesday for part-sorting, production line and forklift jobs and the response was the largest turnout for any Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce job fair.

Damned foreign companies taking our... giving our... employing our...

...
...
...
...oh.

heavenlyboy34
11-03-2011, 04:30 PM
And you're entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong about Stossel and Stossel is wrong about "buy American". First it's a marketing slogan, not a mandate. So it can't hurt the economy the way he claims. If a consumer finds value in buying designer versus generic the consumer finds value. Similarly if the consumer finds value in buying American versus buying Chinese the consumer finds value. Second the economy doesn't operate in the free market utopia that he is imagining. Much of the money currently in the economy is fake, created by out of thin air by the government. I'm not just talking the Federal reserve, although that's a big part of it. I'm talking about the entire private/corporate welfare system. That helps keep wages artificially high so that things that might be made in America naturally are artificially overpriced. Anyhow, you're free to have your opinion, I have mine. And this isn't the first time I've felt Stossel was out to lunch.

Edit: And back to my original point. Please find me one example where Ron Paul attacked the idea of Americans encouraging (as opposed to mandating) other Americans to buy American. Because that's why I was saying Stossel's position isn't Ron's.

That's a reasonable opinion. I don't know of an instance in which Ron Paul attacked the idea of Americans encouraging (as opposed to mandating) other Americans to buy American. It probably doesn't exist. You're right about Stossel. He's hit-or-miss. Block's take on the issue (quoted earlier in the thread) is better reasoned.

Anti Federalist
11-03-2011, 04:51 PM
Damned foreign companies taking our... giving our... employing our...

...
...
...
...oh.

The only reason Nissan is even bothering to do it here is because there is a tariff on imported cars wholly assembled outside the US.

Pretty telling too, that 5000 people show up to fill 1600 jobs.

nobody's_hero
11-03-2011, 05:27 PM
The only reason Nissan is even bothering to do it here is because there is a tariff on imported cars wholly assembled outside the US.

Pretty telling too, that 5000 people show up to fill 1600 jobs.

Not sure what it tells when 5000 people show up for 1600 jobs. I mean, those other 3400 people will just be free to move into rocket science according to free traders. Their capital is freed-up so they can buy more or something. I don't really understand why they're looking for jobs though, since the assumption is that they actually have money to divert to other things.

Anyway, this makes me wonder if tariffs aren't necessarily the armageedon-bringer which we are expected to believe they are.

Let's think about it:

Nissan and other manufacturers moved to the U.S. because of our tariffs on imported cars.
I know of a Kia plant in Lagrange, Georgia. I think there's a BMW plant in Tennessee.

Why?

Because it's actually cheaper to manufacture the automobiles here rather than import them?

If that's the case . . . it might explain why China has seen an influx of manufacturers wanting to tap the market there. It costs too much for companies here in the U.S. to produce goods and export them to China, so they did what Nissan and Kia did, they moved to the target country and started producing, to avoid tariffs.

China has figured out the puzzle, it seems.

Bordillo
11-03-2011, 05:31 PM
Not sure what it tells when 5000 people show up for 1600 jobs. I mean, those other 3400 people will just be free to move into rocket science according to free traders. Their capital is freed-up so they can buy more or something.

Anyway, this makes me wonder if tariffs aren't necessarily the armageedon-bringer which we are expected to believe they are.

Let's think about it:

Nissan and other manufacturers moved to the U.S. because of our tariffs on imported cars.
I know of a Kia plant in Lagrange, Georgia. I think there's a BMW plant in Tennessee.

Why?

Because it's actually cheaper to manufacture the automobiles here rather than import them?

If that's the case . . . it might explain why China has seen an influx of manufacturers wanting to tap the market there. It costs too much for companies here in the U.S. to produce goods and export them to China, so they did what Nissan and Kia did, they moved to the target country and started producing, to avoid tariffs.

China has figured out the puzzle, it seems.

you are neglecting another major cost, which is shipping. The shipping costs alone make cheaper to produce cars in a country where you intend to sell them versus a cheap labor country that you have to then ship them out of

nobody's_hero
11-03-2011, 06:02 PM
you are neglecting another major cost, which is shipping. The shipping costs alone make cheaper to produce cars in a country where you intend to sell them versus a cheap labor country that you have to then ship them out of

Sure, it's expensive, but we just shipped in a bunch of parts to build a bridge. Apparently, the companies who used to make bridge parts moved to China because they could sell bridge parts to both the Chinese and the U.S. without having to deal with tariffs in China (it's like a one-way valve in China's favor, and has been for some time). If the U.S. reciprocated with tariffs, perhaps the companies would build bridge part factories here and in China so they could tap both markets.

Of course, any minute now, someone's gonna mention something again about 'divison of labor'. We'll talk about how the U.S. workers who might be building bridge parts are now free to move into more skilled jobs, except for the small hiccup in the theory, which is that most are either working at places like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or unemployed, at the moment.

This leads me to believe, as I have for some time, that we're not witnessing a natural shift in the market, wherein people graduate to other professions when the market dictates that 'unskilled' labor should be sought elsewhere. What we've witnessed is a massive void caused by government-created (the U.S. and/or Chinese government) trade imbalances courtesy of 'free trade agreements'.

Furthermore, we mock people who fall into the unemployment void with comments like, "OMG they took 'er jerbs!!" or dismissively (unrealistically), "Just find something else to do."

sorianofan
11-03-2011, 06:04 PM
Just bought a VW Golf TDI. Screw the UAW.
VWs fuggin suk.

Anti Federalist
11-03-2011, 11:35 PM
Anyway, this makes me wonder if tariffs aren't necessarily the armageedon-bringer which we are expected to believe they are.

Let's think about it:

Nissan and other manufacturers moved to the U.S. because of our tariffs on imported cars.

I know of a Kia plant in Lagrange, Georgia. I think there's a BMW plant in Tennessee.

Why?

Because it's actually cheaper to manufacture the automobiles here rather than import them?

If that's the case . . . it might explain why China has seen an influx of manufacturers wanting to tap the market there. It costs too much for companies here in the U.S. to produce goods and export them to China, so they did what Nissan and Kia did, they moved to the target country and started producing, to avoid tariffs.

China has figured out the puzzle, it seems.

It is cheaper but only if you include the tariff costs.

Remove the tariffs, and it becomes marginally cheaper to shift it all offshore, shut down the plants building the best selling cars in the US thus freeing tens of thousands of middle class people to pursue their dreams of a $19,500 a year Wal Marx career.

Tod
11-03-2011, 11:57 PM
Buying American is fine, as is selling to Americans. But the $, it seems to me is in selling to as broad a base as possible, meaning globally. If you can't sell globally, there isn't much point in buying globally as it sends money out of the country. Better that the limits of the closed system be the US in that case than sending money outside the country. Best is when the closed system CAN be global on an even playing field.

Bordillo
11-04-2011, 12:10 AM
Sure, it's expensive, but we just shipped in a bunch of parts to build a bridge. Apparently, the companies who used to make bridge parts moved to China because they could sell bridge parts to both the Chinese and the U.S. without having to deal with tariffs in China (it's like a one-way valve in China's favor, and has been for some time). If the U.S. reciprocated with tariffs, perhaps the companies would build bridge part factories here and in China so they could tap both markets.

Of course, any minute now, someone's gonna mention something again about 'divison of labor'. We'll talk about how the U.S. workers who might be building bridge parts are now free to move into more skilled jobs, except for the small hiccup in the theory, which is that most are either working at places like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or unemployed, at the moment.

This leads me to believe, as I have for some time, that we're not witnessing a natural shift in the market, wherein people graduate to other professions when the market dictates that 'unskilled' labor should be sought elsewhere. What we've witnessed is a massive void caused by government-created (the U.S. and/or Chinese government) trade imbalances courtesy of 'free trade agreements'.

Furthermore, we mock people who fall into the unemployment void with comments like, "OMG they took 'er jerbs!!" or dismissively (unrealistically), "Just find something else to do."

Most economists would probably argue that the shift to china is due to labor costs, not the lack of tariffs. So are you arguing that we should set tariffs on all chinese imports equal to the difference in wages paid in america/china for that particular industry. The only person that gets hurt by that is the consumer.

Here is my example

U.S. factories can make widgets for 8$
Chinese factories can make widgets and ship them to the U.S. for 4$

If we add a 4.01$ tariff on the chinese import of widgets, we would force the consumer to buy the 8$ widget, and protect the widget factory. Sounds great right?

the 4$ that the widget customer in the U.S. would save is now given to the U.S. government in the form of a tariff, or in higher prices as the result of a tariff. I would argue that it is much better for the U.S. economy if the consumers had that extra 4$ instead of the government. You also fail to recognize that the majority of the U.S. economy is service based, so the majority of that 4$ stays within the country either through spending, investment or saving.

just my 2 cents

Krugerrand
11-04-2011, 06:05 AM
Most economists would probably argue that the shift to china is due to labor costs, not the lack of tariffs. So are you arguing that we should set tariffs on all chinese imports equal to the difference in wages paid in america/china for that particular industry. The only person that gets hurt by that is the consumer.

Here is my example

U.S. factories can make widgets for 8$
Chinese factories can make widgets and ship them to the U.S. for 4$

If we add a 4.01$ tariff on the chinese import of widgets, we would force the consumer to buy the 8$ widget, and protect the widget factory. Sounds great right?

the 4$ that the widget customer in the U.S. would save is now given to the U.S. government in the form of a tariff, or in higher prices as the result of a tariff. I would argue that it is much better for the U.S. economy if the consumers had that extra 4$ instead of the government. You also fail to recognize that the majority of the U.S. economy is service based, so the majority of that 4$ stays within the country either through spending, investment or saving.

just my 2 cents

Be very careful citing "most economists." Most economists thought the bailouts were a good idea. Most economists thought Cash for Clunkers was a good idea. Most economist thought inflated housing prices were a good thing.

Let's stick with your $4.00 widgets. Were do you get the money to purchase the $4.00 widgets? A "service" based economy is virtually impossible to maintain. Eventually the resources you have get consumed, and there is nothing left of value to use to purchase those bargain priced widgets.

EDIT to clarify - a "service" based economy is a "consumption" based economy. One can only consume wealth sans production (generating wealth) until the store of wealth is gone or until the line of credit is revoked. -

Keep in mind this "free-trade" partner of yours has its currency pegged against yours. (BTW - This is why the cost is lower from China, not the labor costs.) Once they realize that your dollars are worthless and remove that currency peg - you will not be able to buy $4.00 widgets from them anymore. The widgets will cost $32.00. Of course, you could go back to buying $8.00 widgets, except that your manufacturing plant no longer exists.

I'm all for free trade ... but the reality is we can only control one side of the free-trade arrangement. You can put your head in the sand and let the other side manipulate that "free trade" and in doing so lose all of your ability to manufacture - to produce goods - to generate wealth, or you can take steps to counter the manipulation of the "free trade" that's happening on the other side of the "free-trade" equation.

(BTW, there was a time when $0.02 could buy something. Be attentive to currency manipulation.)

Cutlerzzz
11-04-2011, 06:36 AM
Be very careful citing "most economists." Most economists thought the bailouts were a good idea. Most economists thought Cash for Clunkers was a good idea. Most economist thought inflated housing prices were a good thing.

Every single Austrian Economist that has ever lived supported Free Trade. Free Trade is based on irrefutable self evident logic.


Let's stick with your $4.00 widgets. Were do you get the money to purchase the $4.00 widgets? A "service" based economy is virtually impossible to maintain. Eventually the resources you have get consumed, and there is nothing left of value to use to purchase those bargain priced widgets.

EDIT to clarify - a "service" based economy is a "consumption" based economy. One can only consume wealth sans production (generating wealth) until the store of wealth is gone or until the line of credit is revoked. -


Service based economies tend to develope after industrial revolutions, in economies where only a small portion of the population is needed to physically produce vast amounts of goods. Service sector based economies are generally an economy evolved from an industrial economy, just like how industrial economies are evolved forms of agricultural economies. Service sector jobs pay more on average and require more skill than industrial economies.

Because productivity is so high in the manufacturing sector, there is no need to employ most of the population in manufacturing. Just having a fraction of the population working in manufacturing supplies enough goods. See this graph.

http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/11/edah696a_wesbu_20080610202417.gif

This frees up labor to go towards higher paying, more skilled service sector jobs. It is just like how it used to take 95% of the population farming just to feed the population, but the industrial revolution enhanced farmers productivity to the point that the population could be feed by just having a fraction of the people working in farming. That enabled people to leave the fields to go towards higher paying manufacturing jobs.

Krugerrand
11-04-2011, 06:41 AM
Every single Austrian Economist that has ever lived supported Free Trade.

When your trading partner is using an artificially pegged currency, by definition free trade is out the window.

The next question is "how should a country proceed when the trade situation is NOT free." Should it allow the country to be bled dry of its means of production?

Of course, if we were to use sound money, this issue would be almost irrelevant over night.

Cutlerzzz
11-04-2011, 06:49 AM
When your trading partner is using an artificially pegged currency, by definition free trade is out the window.

Good. All the better for the United States. We would be best off if China, and every other country in the world had their people work all day and night to give us trillions of dollars worth of free stuff. Instead, they are doing the next best thing and giving us a discount.

Krugerrand
11-04-2011, 07:00 AM
Good. All the better for the United States. We would be best off if China, and every other country in the world had their people work all day and night to give us trillions of dollars worth of free stuff. Instead, they are doing the next best thing and giving us a discount.

I guess there is such a thing as a free lunch. :rolleyes:

On one hand I would agree completely - EXCEPT - there is no possible way to maintain this indefinitely. We're going to wake up from this fairy-tale dream world with a dollar that won't buy squat and no means to produce anything because we dismantled it all when we were high on the Free-China-Stuff-Drug.

see post:

That's exactly what has happened in California. Some of the world's best farmland, paved over and covered in cheaply made cookie cutter houses on postage stamp lots. Plus the environmental extremists in government shut off irrigation water to orchards, so that eliminated even more production.

On the other hand, even if we could maintain this indefinitely, I have serious concerns with foreign nationals owning our country. Sovereign Trust Funds are the result of what you are suggesting. I cannot believe they will have our best interests at heart as they make their decisions as owners of our country.

Cutlerzzz
11-04-2011, 07:16 AM
I guess there is such a thing as a free lunch. :rolleyes:

On one hand I would agree completely - EXCEPT - there is no possible way to maintain this indefinitely. We're going to wake up from this fairy-tale dream world with a dollar that won't buy squat and no means to produce anything because we dismantled it all when we were high on the Free-China-Stuff-Drug.


If the dollar won't buy squat, that just proves the point. It's going to collapse; it's worthless paper that gets its value by decree. Getting all of the physical goods (which have real value) we can in exchange for worthless paper is the best option.

Manufacturing is at all time highs, and it is a low skill job any monkey can do. It would not take long to switch a small portion of our population to manufacturing.

Krugerrand
11-04-2011, 07:27 AM
If the dollar won't buy squat, that just proves the point. It's going to collapse; it's worthless paper that gets its value by decree. Getting all of the physical goods (which have real value) we can in exchange for worthless paper is the best option.

Manufacturing is at all time highs, and it is a low skill job any monkey can do. It would not take long to switch a small portion of our population to manufacturing.

How quickly can you grow an orchard?

Krugerrand
11-04-2011, 07:37 AM
Good. All the better for the United States. We would be best off if China, and every other country in the world had their people work all day and night to give us trillions of dollars worth of free stuff. Instead, they are doing the next best thing and giving us a discount.

I forgot to ask ... so you think this abandonment of free trade (currency manipulation) is great, but other 'violations' of free trade are bad. How can I tell which ones are good and which ones are bad?

Cutlerzzz
11-04-2011, 07:49 AM
How quickly can you grow an orchard?I don't know. A google search would probably tell me though.


I forgot to ask ... so you think this abandonment of free trade (currency manipulation) is great, but other 'violations' of free trade are bad. How can I tell which ones are good and which ones are bad? Currency manipulation is not an abandonment of Free Trade, it is just an idiotic policy. Chinese currency manipulation helps the US because it artificially reduces the prices of Chinese imports, lowering prices in the United States.

nobody's_hero
11-04-2011, 12:54 PM
When your trading partner is using an artificially pegged currency, by definition free trade is out the window.

The next question is "how should a country proceed when the trade situation is NOT free." Should it allow the country to be bled dry of its means of production?

Of course, if we were to use sound money, this issue would be almost irrelevant over night.

It's a bit like the Non-agression principle. It's a great principle as long as everyone follows it. No doubt the world would be much better off if everyone followed it. No doubt we'd be much better off if the world followed truly free-trade and the proverbial chips were allowed to fall where they may.

But our so called free trade agreements essentially allow our competitors to be agressive and restrict our ability to fight back.

So we keep getting punched in the face, and if we so much as raise a hand, it's "OMG protectionist alert! Protectionist alert!" lol

specsaregood
11-04-2011, 01:08 PM
When your trading partner is using an artificially pegged currency, by definition free trade is out the window.


Let's not put it on our "trading partners". we are using an artificially propped up currency and by definition that is what is making free trade an impossibility.

Anti Federalist
11-04-2011, 01:35 PM
How quickly can you grow an orchard?

Or consider the oil embargo of 1973.

OPEC decided to no longer sell to us, and damn near turned our lights out.

Energy production is something that can be spooled up in a year or less, if you really put the effort into it.

Means of producing vital consumer goods, including food, can take much, much longer, as you have correctly noted.

Let some of the countries that are supporting us decide that they have had enough of our military shenanigans, and turn off the supply of manufactured goods.

Then the shit will hit the fan.

Krugerrand
11-04-2011, 01:39 PM
Let's not put it on our "trading partners". we are using an artificially propped up currency and by definition that is what is making free trade an impossibility.

That's fair. And, I don't' mean to put China down ... generally I think they've been making brilliant decision - but of course, that's with their own interests in mind.

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 02:28 PM
I'm not gonna read through the last 18 pages of this thread, but guys this issue is ridiculously common sense.

I'm currently in an upper division international economics course, and we've gone over this all in great detail. Out of 430+ students, I'm in 1st place with a 112.1% test average, LOL. (so I know a little bit about this topic)


Buying American, tariffs etc, are not helpful at all. This goes back to the economic phrase of "what is seen and what is not seen" - tariffs may seem like they're good because we can easily see the benefits which are, in the short term, more jobs in that domestic industry. What is NOT seen are the higher prices to consumers, and higher prices to OTHER industries.

For example: A tariff on steel to save steel makers in the US causes steel prices to rise. This in turn causes other industries that use steel, to have higher costs, such as the auto industry. Suddenly U.S. auto makers are at a disadvantage to foreign makers, and in the end more jobs in all other industries combined are lost as a result. I can try to see actual stats that I've read if you guys can't find them.


Also, the people complaining about "we're losing all of our manufaturing industry..if we dont protect it, we'll lose ALL of it!" are the biggest dumbasses on the planet. Three reasons for this. First off

1. Our manufacturing has been increasing steadily for the last few decades by a few percent a year. What is happening is we're losing manufacturing JOBS. This is due to technology (for example...tractors at a farm take the place of 100 workers, and make the community much richer as a result), and outsourcing.

2. Look up Comparative advantage.

3.On top of that, due to exchange rates, we can never lose all of it. I encourage all of you to go take economics courses or atleast do research online. The more China exports to the U.S. for U.S. dollars, the weaker the U.S. dollar gets. When the U.S. dollar gets weaker in relation to China, suddenly our exports to them are cheaper and their imports to us are more expensive. Think of this is stretching a rubber band. The farther you stretch, the more force that pulls it back to the middle. Same thing here. Also, statistically all richer nations in the world have more service-related economies and poorer nations have more manufacturing. This is because wages are much lower in poorer countries, and wages are directly correlated with productivity.

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 02:29 PM
And I see Anti Federalist is posting in here too...AF have you read up on economics or taken a course yet? Having you debate this issue is like having me debate rocket science.

P.S. I'm not a rocket scientist.

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 02:35 PM
Now having said this, a tariff in a large country (large as in it's a big buyer/purchase of a specific item...i.e. brazil is a large country in regards to coffee beans) can be optimal for that country. It's not likely, but it technically is possible that when you combine the change in producer surplus with government revenue, under certain circumstances it can outweight the loss in consumer surplus.

It would greatly hurt the world as a whole, and if the country you put a tariff on puts one back on you then you're worse off, but if they don't retaliate and you're a large country (meaning your supply or demand of an item affects the world price) then it's possible to have an optimal tariff where only your country will be slightly better off in terms of total wealth. Finding the exact amount of a tariff to do this is also very difficult. Too small of a tariff won't help your country enough, and too big of one will hurt your country.



In all other cases, countries big and small, tariffs hurt the country as a whole, and GREATLY hurt overall world wealth as a whole.

low preference guy
11-04-2011, 02:41 PM
And I see Anti Federalist is posting in here too...AF have you read up on economics or taken a course yet? Having you debate this issue is like having me debate rocket science.

P.S. I'm not a rocket scientist.

AF is a joke, he just throws phrases he heard some time and gives them an emotional twist. He has no idea what they mean. An example:


How can you make Ricardo's law work with a government prison?

As if the reason for low prices affects the validity of comparative advantage. Now, when you say he isn't arguing logically, he comes up with stuff like this:


Logic will tell us that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.

See? If logic leads to a conclusion he disagrees with, he tries to discredit logic with. So stupid it's funny. Not to mention that's what marxists do when you point them where logic leads to: they say logic is wrong.

Now, don't get me started in the dishonest techniques and distractions he uses when arguing the topic. He used to seem like a decent poster but somehow he turned into something like the most brainwashed poster at the Democratic Underground. Not worth reading his crap anymore. It's embarrassing.

seraphson
11-04-2011, 02:50 PM
I'm not gonna read through the last 18 pages of this thread, but guys this issue is ridiculously common sense.

I'm currently in an upper division international economics course, and we've gone over this all in great detail. Out of 430+ students, I'm in 1st place with a 112.1% test average, LOL. (so I know a little bit about this topic)


Buying American, tariffs etc, are not helpful at all. This goes back to the economic phrase of "what is seen and what is not seen" - tariffs may seem like they're good because we can easily see the benefits which are, in the short term, more jobs in that domestic industry. What is NOT seen are the higher prices to consumers, and higher prices to OTHER industries.

For example: A tariff on steel to save steel makers in the US causes steel prices to rise. This in turn causes other industries that use steel, to have higher costs, such as the auto industry. Suddenly U.S. auto makers are at a disadvantage to foreign makers, and in the end more jobs in all other industries combined are lost as a result. I can try to see actual stats that I've read if you guys can't find them.


Also, the people complaining about "we're losing all of our manufaturing industry..if we dont protect it, we'll lose ALL of it!" are the biggest dumbasses on the planet. Three reasons for this. First off

1. Our manufacturing has been increasing steadily for the last few decades by a few percent a year. What is happening is we're losing manufacturing JOBS. This is due to technology (for example...tractors at a farm take the place of 100 workers, and make the community much richer as a result), and outsourcing.

2. Look up Comparative advantage.

3.On top of that, due to exchange rates, we can never lose all of it. I encourage all of you to go take economics courses or atleast do research online. The more China exports to the U.S. for U.S. dollars, the weaker the U.S. dollar gets. When the U.S. dollar gets weaker in relation to China, suddenly our exports to them are cheaper and their imports to us are more expensive. Think of this is stretching a rubber band. The farther you stretch, the more force that pulls it back to the middle. Same thing here. Also, statistically all richer nations in the world have more service-related economies and poorer nations have more manufacturing. This is because wages are much lower in poorer countries, and wages are directly correlated with productivity.

Interesting stuff; I'll have to look it up. But your first point grows a concern for me. Could we, or are we currently leaning towards a point where our country could reach an efficiency where larger majorities of our populations become useless? I've always thought about that. If we magically filled every single position available would we still have unemployed people?

jmdrake
11-04-2011, 03:00 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

jmdrake
11-04-2011, 03:03 PM
Now having said this, a tariff in a large country (large as in it's a big buyer/purchase of a specific item...i.e. brazil is a large country in regards to coffee beans) can be optimal for that country. It's not likely, but it technically is possible that when you combine the change in producer surplus with government revenue, under certain circumstances it can outweight the loss in consumer surplus.

It would greatly hurt the world as a whole, and if the country you put a tariff on puts one back on you then you're worse off, but if they don't retaliate and you're a large country (meaning your supply or demand of an item affects the world price) then it's possible to have an optimal tariff where only your country will be slightly better off in terms of total wealth. Finding the exact amount of a tariff to do this is also very difficult. Too small of a tariff won't help your country enough, and too big of one will hurt your country.



In all other cases, countries big and small, tariffs hurt the country as a whole, and GREATLY hurt overall world wealth as a whole.

It's funny (and sad) how your side continues to conflate a voluntary choice of buying American or buying local or whatever with tariffs. It's like conflating charity with taxation. Once you realize that we're talking about a voluntary choice it should be clear why Stossel's view is nonsense. Value is whatever the consumer deems it to be. If a consumer wants to pay $120 for a pair of shoes made in China for $5 just because they say "Nike" that's his choice. If some other consumer gets the same level of pride from a locally made shoe that probably costs less because it's not a big name brand he has value too. It's not like the crap we buy is really worth the price we pay anyway. Sometimes local is actually cheaper once the "Madison Avenue stupid tax" is taken out of the equation.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the name brand crap from China is really "worth it". In the grand scheme of things those who choose to "buy American" will cause the price of the Chinese crap to drop even further due to supply and demand. So there is no economic loss to the overall consumer.

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 03:31 PM
I'm not gonna read through the last 18 pages of this thread, but guys this issue is ridiculously common sense.

I'm currently in an upper division international economics course, and we've gone over this all in great detail. Out of 430+ students, I'm in 1st place with a 112.1% test average, LOL. (so I know a little bit about this topic)


Buying American, tariffs etc, are not helpful at all. This goes back to the economic phrase of "what is seen and what is not seen" - tariffs may seem like they're good because we can easily see the benefits which are, in the short term, more jobs in that domestic industry. What is NOT seen are the higher prices to consumers, and higher prices to OTHER industries.

For example: A tariff on steel to save steel makers in the US causes steel prices to rise. This in turn causes other industries that use steel, to have higher costs, such as the auto industry. Suddenly U.S. auto makers are at a disadvantage to foreign makers, and in the end more jobs in all other industries combined are lost as a result. I can try to see actual stats that I've read if you guys can't find them.


Also, the people complaining about "we're losing all of our manufaturing industry..if we dont protect it, we'll lose ALL of it!" are the biggest dumbasses on the planet. Three reasons for this. First off

1. Our manufacturing has been increasing steadily for the last few decades by a few percent a year. What is happening is we're losing manufacturing JOBS. This is due to technology (for example...tractors at a farm take the place of 100 workers, and make the community much richer as a result), and outsourcing.

2. Look up Comparative advantage.

3.On top of that, due to exchange rates, we can never lose all of it. I encourage all of you to go take economics courses or atleast do research online. The more China exports to the U.S. for U.S. dollars, the weaker the U.S. dollar gets. When the U.S. dollar gets weaker in relation to China, suddenly our exports to them are cheaper and their imports to us are more expensive. Think of this is stretching a rubber band. The farther you stretch, the more force that pulls it back to the middle. Same thing here. Also, statistically all richer nations in the world have more service-related economies and poorer nations have more manufacturing. This is because wages are much lower in poorer countries, and wages are directly correlated with productivity.

As one of the biggest dumbasses on the planet I ask you....

1. I agree that manufacturing output has increased. However, and I think the point being made by the dumbasses here, like myself, is that as you say "we're losing manufacturing JOBS."

2. Does not Comparative advantage include an analysis of each nations employment rate? Does not the entire premise rest on full employment by each nation engaging in it?

3. Rubber bands eventually wear and break. What then when one or the other nation has lost all of it's manufacturing capacity in certain industries and and the nation is so far into insolvency that this manufacturing cannot easily be resurrected?

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 04:11 PM
As one of the biggest dumbasses on the planet I ask you....

1. I agree that manufacturing output has increased. However, and I think the point being made by the dumbasses here, like myself, is that as you say "we're losing manufacturing JOBS."

2. Does not Comparative advantage include an analysis of each nations employment rate? Does not the entire premise rest on full employment by each nation engaging in it?

3. Rubber bands eventually wear and break. What then when one or the other nation has lost all of it's manufacturing capacity in certain industries and and the nation is so far into insolvency that this manufacturing cannot easily be resurrected?


1. Yes, we're losing manufacturing jobs, and on average, with protection, it costs consumers $169,000 per job saved..many times worth the salaries of these jobs to begin with. Even if you did want to help these people with certain manufacturing jobs, it would be far better to simply not use tariffs/quotas/other NTB's and simply redistribute some of the wealth from the consumers to these producers, and don't even make them work. They can be paid $100,000 without working, and the consumers are still $69,000 ahead. If you want, I can find you the stats for this. This point is not subjective.

2. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Have you studied comparative advantage?

3. If you would have read my 3rd point, you would know it is impossible for a country to lose all exports due to the exchange rate effect alone.


phill4paul, I encourage you to go to your local community college and enroll in a class, because this is getting silly.

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 04:17 PM
Interesting stuff; I'll have to look it up. But your first point grows a concern for me. Could we, or are we currently leaning towards a point where our country could reach an efficiency where larger majorities of our populations become useless? I've always thought about that. If we magically filled every single position available would we still have unemployed people?

No, being more efficient and streamlining jobs doesn't decrease jobs (in the long run), it increases job opportunities. If a factory previously used 100 workers to make 200 clothes a day, and then suddenly gets a machine that 5 workers use and make 500 clothes a day, you are now creating more wealth than before, and the other workers can create wealth elsewhere; be it other factories or other industries.

Also, keep in mind the cost of living goes down as technology increases. You're extrapolating data from today and saying that if jobs are taken away in the short run today, that someday we would follow a linear progression and eliminate all jobs. If that situation were possible (it's not), then all goods and services would be free and there would be no cost of living. Your concern is what most Americans think of when they see jobs being outsourced, or technology advances that negate jobs, but it's largely unfounded.

specsaregood
11-04-2011, 04:20 PM
3. If you would have read my 3rd point, you would know it is impossible for a country to lose all exports due to the exchange rate effect alone.


How well does that point hold up if the country in question has the ability to print the international reserve currency on demand, a seemingly inexhaustible ability to create debt and is backed by being needed in order to purchase a commodity such as oil?

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 04:21 PM
It's funny (and sad) how your side continues to conflate a voluntary choice of buying American or buying local or whatever with tariffs. It's like conflating charity with taxation. Once you realize that we're talking about a voluntary choice it should be clear why Stossel's view is nonsense. Value is whatever the consumer deems it to be. If a consumer wants to pay $120 for a pair of shoes made in China for $5 just because they say "Nike" that's his choice. If some other consumer gets the same level of pride from a locally made shoe that probably costs less because it's not a big name brand he has value too. It's not like the crap we buy is really worth the price we pay anyway. Sometimes local is actually cheaper once the "Madison Avenue stupid tax" is taken out of the equation.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the name brand crap from China is really "worth it". In the grand scheme of things those who choose to "buy American" will cause the price of the Chinese crap to drop even further due to supply and demand. So there is no economic loss to the overall consumer.


I didnt see any posts talking about voluntary choices by consumers. This thread reached 19 pages because it's obviously talking about the government stepping in....why would you think libertarians would argue over whether or not consumers have buying choices?

If someone wants to foolishly spend their money that encourages ineffiency that decreases wealth, that's their perogative.

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 04:25 PM
How well does that point hold up if the country in question has the ability to print the international reserve currency on demand, a seemingly inexhaustible ability to create debt and is backed by being needed in order to purchase a commodity such as oil?

Not sure what your point is....are you asking me how inflation enters into how imports and exports work?

specsaregood
11-04-2011, 04:29 PM
Not sure what your point is....are you asking me how inflation enters into this?

1. inflation decreases the value of that currency.
2. because of this, exports will be "cheaper" to foreigners while imports will be "more expensive" to the domestic country
3. Foreigners gain wealth by trading their non-inflated currency in for additional imports due to inflation in exporting country

Does that answer your question? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask.

How many dollars have we printed up and exported, do you think price inflation has really kept up even near with the amount of our monetary base inflation?

Anti Federalist
11-04-2011, 04:33 PM
AF is a joke

Fuck you.

Why is that I can have a constructive conversation with everybody here, even with people that vehemently disagree, without the name calling, neg repping, personal insults, and all all the rest, except for you?

Congratulations fuckstick, in four years, you are the first and only person to make my ignore list.

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 04:38 PM
1. Yes, we're losing manufacturing jobs, and on average, with protection, it costs consumers $169,000 per job saved..many times worth the salaries of these jobs to begin with. Even if you did want to help these people with certain manufacturing jobs, it would be far better to simply not use tariffs/quotas/other NTB's and simply redistribute some of the wealth from the consumers to these producers, and don't even make them work. They can be paid $100,000 without working, and the consumers are still $69,000 ahead. If you want, I can find you the stats for this. This point is not subjective.

2. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Have you studied comparative advantage?

3. If you would have read my 3rd point, you would know it is impossible for a country to lose all exports due to the exchange rate effect alone.


phill4paul, I encourage you to go to your local community college and enroll in a class, because this is getting silly.

Thanks for the condecension but since you're the expert I'll let you school me.

1. O.K. let's give all those Americans $100k. I'm one of them. How do you propose we go about this?

2. I thought you had? Is not full employment of each trading nation not considered in the law of comparative advantage? I believe it must be. The two people on the island story that the 'comparative advantage' school of thought likes to promote both have a job to fill. Unfortunately, that is not the case in reality.

3. I'm not talking about ALL imports. I'm talking about a VARIETY of exports/national consumption in the manufacturing base.

AFPVet
11-04-2011, 04:41 PM
If I had a choice, I would always buy American. Why?

1. Higher quality control standards
2. Manufacturing employs Americans
3. Encourages further growth
4. Increases exportation
5. Increases demand for U.S. made goods as consumers start purchasing American made products

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 04:48 PM
phill4paul, I encourage you to go to your local community college and enroll in a class, because this is getting silly.

Ah. O.K. That is about as much as I need to know about the situation. A lowly dumbass like myself could not possibly understand the expanse of economics without a local community college edumacation. Fuck community college. I've dealt with the fucking mentality of the enlightened that teach curses there.

specsaregood
11-04-2011, 04:51 PM
//

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 04:53 PM
Now, now, I was much more impressed with the teachers at the various community colleges I attended than the various univerities I have attended. The CC teachers tended to have actual hands-on experience in a related field! My stats and calc teacher at one was a retired nasa engineer, good stuff I'm telling you.

Fair enough. Community college faculties may vary.

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 05:48 PM
I suggested the community college because your other resource (internet) you're not using. I'm not an expert and I'm not trying to come across as "better than you", but at the same time, I would never go into a debate in something I have no idea in, like chemistry or engineering. You would learn a great understanding of this subject if you enroll in a class, though you could probably get the same information online if you really tried.

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 06:10 PM
I suggested the community college because your other resource (internet) you're not using. I'm not an expert and I'm not trying to come across as "better than you", but at the same time, I would never go into a debate in something I have no idea in, like chemistry or engineering. You would learn a great understanding of this subject if you enroll in a class, though you could probably get the same information online if you really tried.

So are you gonna school me on my rebuttals or not?

Anti Federalist
11-04-2011, 06:19 PM
I'm not gonna read through the last 18 pages of this thread, but guys this issue is ridiculously common sense.

I'm currently in an upper division international economics course, and we've gone over this all in great detail. Out of 430+ students, I'm in 1st place with a 112.1% test average, LOL. (so I know a little bit about this topic)

I am happy that you are doing so well in your studies.

When you compare those studies to thirty years of working experience, owning three businesses, and currently managing a 25 million dollar operation, you find that there is something missing, there is a disconnect between what the book says and what's in the real world.

You know, I got pissy with LPG, for calling me a "joke" but in retrospect, maybe he has a point.

In many ways I am uncouth, crude and certainly do not possess any higher degrees of learning.

I'm just an idiot high school drop out.

In fact, I'm a lot like this guy, who is also a joke:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

A joke that knows more about the real world of economics than twenty professors.

School ain't the real world.

Cutlerzzz
11-04-2011, 06:26 PM
Ah. O.K. That is about as much as I need to know about the situation. A lowly dumbass like myself could not possibly understand the expanse of economics without a local community college edumacation. Fuck community college. I've dealt with the fucking mentality of the enlightened that teach curses there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPjUsu2-QMQ

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 06:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPjUsu2-QMQ

I'm sorry...WTF?

Edit: Is this a meme?

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 06:55 PM
I am happy that you are doing so well in your studies.

When you compare those studies to thirty years of working experience, owning three businesses, and currently managing a 25 million dollar operation, you find that there is something missing, there is a disconnect between what the book says and what's in the real world.

In many ways I am uncouth, crude and certainly do not possess any higher degrees of learning.

I'm just an idiot high school drop out.

School ain't the real world.

No. It is all about 'theory' and 'laws.' Boots on the ground means NOTHING.

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 11:03 PM
1. O.K. let's give all those Americans $100k. I'm one of them. How do you propose we go about this?

It was completely hypothetical in that I would never advocate for something like this, but if you want a solution that is STILL better than trade barriers, you could insert a tax on all goods like a sales tax, you could raise the income tax...if it's spread evenly it wouldn't distort trade near as much as tariffs do.

Also, I forgot to mention...if you WERE going to use protection to save American jobs, the best way to do it is through domestic subsidies. This is is because with a tariff you have both the production loss triangle and the consumption loss triangle. With a subsidy, you only have the production loss triangle. In short, you lose less wealth with a subsidy which has the same "positive" effects as a tariff or quota.




2. I thought you had? Is not full employment of each trading nation not considered in the law of comparative advantage? I believe it must be. The two people on the island story that the 'comparative advantage' school of thought likes to promote both have a job to fill. Unfortunately, that is not the case in reality.

What do you mean this isn't the case in reality? Are you saying there aren't new jobs to fill, and that tariffs on things like steel don't in the end cause more job losses than they save?


3. I'm not talking about ALL imports. I'm talking about a VARIETY of exports/national consumption in the manufacturing base.

You'll have to remind me what point 3 was talking about, and explain this answer again.

Kregisen
11-04-2011, 11:08 PM
I am happy that you are doing so well in your studies.

When you compare those studies to thirty years of working experience, owning three businesses, and currently managing a 25 million dollar operation, you find that there is something missing, there is a disconnect between what the book says and what's in the real world.

You know, I got pissy with LPG, for calling me a "joke" but in retrospect, maybe he has a point.

In many ways I am uncouth, crude and certainly do not possess any higher degrees of learning.

I'm just an idiot high school drop out.

In fact, I'm a lot like this guy, who is also a joke:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

A joke that knows more about the real world of economics than twenty professors.

School ain't the real world.


Those are some good accomplishments, but to go from "I've held x amount of jobs" to "I know how economics works" isn't any better than saying that causes you to know chemistry. Economics follows a set of laws that work. For example, just because you own 3 businesses does not mean that consumers are NOT going to buy less when prices rise.

I've argued this subject with you too many times in the past AF, so all I can say is I've taken classes and have done research on the issue, and almost all economists agree, and you once told me you didn't believe in these micro-economic principles because "all the teachers are keynesians" when keynesianism has nothing to do with micro-economics, it has to do with macro-economics.

There's really no refuting micro-economics, but there are different economic thoughts on MACRO econ.

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 11:27 PM
It was completely hypothetical in that I would never advocate for something like this, but if you want a solution that is STILL better than trade barriers, you could insert a tax on all goods like a sales tax, you could raise the income tax...if it's spread evenly it wouldn't distort trade near as much as tariffs do.

Honestly, THIS right here is your problem. You deal in hypothetical instead of reality. It's kinda like having a 112.1% test score. WTF? 100% should be considered the absolute.



What do you mean this isn't the case in reality? Are you saying there aren't new jobs to fill...

That's exactly what I'm saying. The employment rate would bear out what I am saying.


You'll have to remind me what point 3 was talking about, and explain this answer again.

You've got the 112.1% test score. You don't have reading comprehension skills?

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 11:29 PM
and almost all economists agree

THAT right there is where you're fucking up. Get your head out of a book.

Cutlerzzz
11-04-2011, 11:52 PM
THAT right there is where you're fucking up. Get your head out of a book.Get your head out of a book? Do you know who Ron Paul is, or where he gets his economic beliefs from?

low preference guy
11-04-2011, 11:53 PM
Get your head out of a book? Do you know who Ron Paul is, or where he gets his economic beliefs from?

Or that he writes books?

Anti Federalist
11-04-2011, 11:56 PM
Those are some good accomplishments, but to go from "I've held x amount of jobs" to "I know how economics works" isn't any better than saying that causes you to know chemistry. Economics follows a set of laws that work. For example, just because you own 3 businesses does not mean that consumers are NOT going to buy less when prices rise.

No, it doesn't.

But I know what works, what made money and what sunk me.

Brilliant men have made a hash of more than one economy around the world.

Keynes was a lettered economist, considered a genius.

Is he right?


I've argued this subject with you too many times in the past AF, so all I can say is I've taken classes and have done research on the issue, and almost all economists agree, and you once told me you didn't believe in these micro-economic principles because "all the teachers are keynesians" when keynesianism has nothing to do with micro-economics, it has to do with macro-economics.

I'm not quite sure that was me.

I'm not going to deny it outright, but it doesn't sound like something I'd say.

And yes, we've gone around and around, as have others.

I still maintain, that, based on what is going on now, "free trade" as defined and practiced right now, is, in it's part, destroying the economy.

You have a Ronald Reagan quote in your sig line.

Ronald Reagan slapped tariffs on all sorts of goods, some with positive results, like Harley Davidson that was able to get some breathing room and avoid bankruptcy in 1983. Or Toyota and Honda plants in this country, making the best selling cars in the country.

But yet you quote him.

Sometimes people just look at things differently, for whatever reason. Doesn't make them assholes or wrong about everything else.

I wish I could respond in greater detail, just this is killing me since I banged up my left hand pretty bad the other day.

phill4paul
11-04-2011, 11:59 PM
Get your head out of a book? Do you know who Ron Paul is, or where he gets his economic beliefs from?

Did you miss THIS relative point in my post?


and almost all economists agree,

low preference guy
11-05-2011, 12:09 AM
Did you miss THIS relative point in my post?

phill, I'm not getting your point. Would you say the same thing if he said "almost all economist agree that the minimum wage increases unemployment"?

By "same thing" I mean "get your head out of a book".

Cutlerzzz
11-05-2011, 12:22 AM
Did you miss THIS relative point in my post?You claim that he needs to get his head out of a book and stop using theories. The Austrian School of Economics, which Ron Paul subscribes to, is known for only using theories. Theories are the only thing economics can be based on.

The fact that all Austrian Economists and 90% of mainstream support Free Trade is relevant, especially when they have supported it for 200 years now.

low preference guy
11-05-2011, 12:25 AM
You claim that he needs to get his head out of a book and stop using theories. The Austrian School of Economics, which Ron Paul subscribes to, is known for only using theories. Theories are the only thing economics can be based on.

The fact that all Austrian Economists and 90% of mainstream support Free Trade is relevant, especially when they have supported it for 200 years now.

I bet most people haven't read the excellent link someone posted here, the article written by Jeffrey Tucker that has an example and goes through the numbers. That's probably one of the most straight forward explanations of the benefits of free trade.

phill4paul
11-05-2011, 12:28 AM
phill, I'm not getting your point. Would you say the same thing if he said "almost all economist agree that the minimum wage increases unemployment"?

By "same thing" I mean "get your head out of a book".

My point would be that Krigisen has his head up his ass. As in his head is in a book regarding Economics. I've given solid rebuttal that I've asked answers for. I've received nothing but hypothetical and misdirected answers thus far.

Cutlerzzz
11-05-2011, 12:31 AM
As in his head is in a book regarding Economics.As opposed to what, anecdotes? Lord forbid somebody reads a book on the subject before talking about it...

phill4paul
11-05-2011, 12:32 AM
Christ, let pose my questions again anew. Riddle me this...

1. I agree that manufacturing output has increased. However, and I think the point being made by the dumbasses here, like myself, is that as you say "we're losing manufacturing JOBS."

2. Does not Comparative advantage include an analysis of each nations employment rate? Does not the entire premise rest on full employment by each nation engaging in it?

3. Rubber bands eventually wear and break. What then when one or the other nation has lost all of it's manufacturing capacity in certain industries and and the nation is so far into insolvency that this manufacturing cannot easily be resurrected?

low preference guy
11-05-2011, 12:38 AM
Christ, let pose my questions again anew. Riddle me this...

1. I agree that manufacturing output has increased. However, and I think the point being made by the dumbasses here, like myself, is that as you say "we're losing manufacturing JOBS."

I'll try to take this one. Whenever productivity increases jobs are lost immediately. For example,some candle makers lost their jobs when new forms of energy and light bulbs appeared. So if you're arguing that free trade increases productivity and therefore destroys jobs, being consistent would mean to argue against any improvement in productivity.

phill4paul
11-05-2011, 12:50 AM
I'll try to take this one. Whenever productivity increases jobs are lost immediately. For example, candle makers lost their jobs when new forms of energy and light bulbs appeared. So if you're arguing that free trade increases productivity and therefore destroys jobs, being consistent would mean to argue against any improvement in productivity.

I've heard about the same from Krigesin. So when are those new jobs gonna come around? In my sector of the nation its been over 30 yrs and counting in a steady decline. To the point of 20% real unemployment.

Cutlerzzz
11-05-2011, 12:51 AM
Christ, let pose my questions again anew. Riddle me this...

1. I agree that manufacturing output has increased. However, and I think the point being made by the dumbasses here, like myself, is that as you say "we're losing manufacturing JOBS."


The fewer the manufacturing jobs with the more output, the better. There is no reason to waste resources on it if it can be done by fewer people. Allow people to move out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing jobs and into higher paying service sector jobs.

By your logic, we would be worse off if manufacturing production per capita increased ten fold due to a change in technology, and half of all labor in the sector lost their jobs as a result.


2. Does not Comparative advantage include an analysis of each nations employment rate? Does not the entire premise rest on full employment by each nation engaging in it?


No.


3. Rubber bands eventually wear and break. What then when one or the other nation has lost all of it's manufacturing capacity in certain industries and and the nation is so far into insolvency that this manufacturing cannot easily be resurrected?

Manufacting is at all time highs.

Cutlerzzz
11-05-2011, 12:53 AM
I've heard about the same from Krigesin. So when are those new jobs gonna come around? In my sector of the nation its been over 30 yrs and counting in a steady decline. To the point of 20% real unemployment.What is your sector?

The unemployment rate has been high since 2008. There is not a long term trend of high unemployment, just a severe recession turning into a depression due to awful interventionist government policies.

low preference guy
11-05-2011, 12:55 AM
I've heard about the same from Krigesin. So when are those new jobs gonna come around? In my sector of the nation its been over 30 yrs and counting in a steady decline. To the point of 20% real unemployment.

When we have free tarde? When we eliminate trade barriers, NAFTA, CAFTA, and start trading with Cuba?

Also, there are obviously multiple things going on in the economy. Having free trade is beneficial but there might be other things destroying jobs, for example, the government shutting down Boeing plants in South Carolina, the Feds raiding Gibson Guitars in Tennessee, or FINRA fining Peter Schiff for hiring too many people. If there is free trade and the standard of living goes down at the same time, it's not because of free trade, but despite it.

phill4paul
11-05-2011, 01:16 AM
What is your sector?

The unemployment rate has been high since 2008. There is not a long term trend of high unemployment, just a severe recession turning into a depression due to awful interventionist government policies.

As posted earlier. Furniture manufacturing. As stated earlier the areas leadership has decided the best course of action is a service industry for the retired. At half the wages for job seekers.

phill4paul
11-05-2011, 01:30 AM
The fewer the manufacturing jobs with the more output, the better. There is no reason to waste resources on it if it can be done by fewer people. Allow people to move out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing jobs and into higher paying service sector jobs.

By your logic, we would be worse off if manufacturing production per capita increased ten fold due to a change in technology, and half of all labor in the sector lost their jobs as a result..

Again with this "move people out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing" Bullshit. Move them where? Still waiting on this answer that no one seems capable of doing other than phrases that beat a dead horse.




No.

The 'law' of comparitive advantage takes into account unemployment. At least from what I've read 'on the internet.' If it doesn't then it does not apply in a real world scenario. WTF don't you understand about this?




Manufacting is at all time highs. I've admitted that. Fuck it is more, or less, proven. That still does not reconcile loss of industries that are critical for national, or state, preservation in the event of black out. Nor the job loss that comes with this.

Cutlerzzz
11-05-2011, 01:34 AM
As posted earlier. Furniture manufacturing. As stated earlier the areas leadership has decided the best course of action is a service industry for the retired. At half the wages for job seekers.

I see. So do you want a tariff?

Cutlerzzz
11-05-2011, 01:38 AM
Again with this "move people out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing" Bullshit. Move them where? Still waiting on this answer that no one seems capable of doing other than phrases that beat a dead horse.

You've been told several times. They would likely move to the service sector.



The 'law' of comparitive advantage takes into account unemployment. At least from what I've read 'on the internet.' If it doesn't then it does not apply in a real world scenario. WTF don't you understand about this?

Unemployment is not relavent because there is not a fixed number of jobs.



I've admitted that. Fuck it is more, or less, proven. That still does not reconcile loss of industries that are critical for national, or state, preservation in the event of black out. Nor the job loss that comes with thisThey lose that outdated industry and gain a new one, creating more wealth than was ever possibly before. The unemployed labor will simply shift to where it is most effective.

phill4paul
11-05-2011, 01:53 AM
You've been told several times. They would likely move to the service sector.

I'm glad you're finally getting my drift. Somehow I don't think you're seeing it like I do.




Unemployment is not relavent because there is not a fixed number of jobs.

The unemployed laud your correctness. Employment is never relevant.


They lose that outdated industry and gain a new one, creating more wealth than was ever possibly before. The unemployed labor will simply shift to where it is most effective.

WTF is an 'outdated' industry? Still looking for that magic 'full filler' that will solve unemployment.

Kregisen
11-05-2011, 02:32 AM
I've admitted that. Fuck it is more, or less, proven. That still does not reconcile loss of industries that are critical for national, or state, preservation in the event of black out. Nor the job loss that comes with this.

The only arguments for protection are ones like this for example, which you haven't brought up until this point. Perhaps a country should lower its standard of living as insurance in order to guarantee its supply for items it uses for defense. (this is why not ALL economists support free trade...it's a trade off) Although, you mentioned you were in the furniture industry....not exactly the same as a tank.

Kregisen
11-05-2011, 02:37 AM
Again with this "move people out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing" Bullshit. Move them where? Still waiting on this answer that no one seems capable of doing other than phrases that beat a dead horse.

You're getting pretty feisty here for someone with a lot of questions and no answers. Beggars can't be choosers after all. It's not expensive to go take a class with an expert and get every single question answered y'know.






The 'law' of comparitive advantage takes into account unemployment. At least from what I've read 'on the internet.' If it doesn't then it does not apply in a real world scenario. WTF don't you understand about this?

It's obvious he's not the one here who doesn't understand it. What kind of argument are you trying to make with unemployment? How does it affect whether comparative advantage rings true or not?

Kregisen
11-05-2011, 02:41 AM
You have a Ronald Reagan quote in your sig line.

Ronald Reagan slapped tariffs on all sorts of goods, some with positive results, like Harley Davidson that was able to get some breathing room and avoid bankruptcy in 1983. Or Toyota and Honda plants in this country, making the best selling cars in the country.

But yet you quote him.

I guess I didn't know someone had to be perfect in order to agree with them on something? You're trying to tell me that the quote "The heart of conservatism is libertarianism" is true ONLY if Reagan was a good president? Is this the kind of logic people use?

Reagan also skyrocketed the deficits. Are you going to accuse me of liking deficits and the war on drugs too? Perhaps truth is truth no matter which mouth it comes out of.

Cutlerzzz
11-05-2011, 03:40 AM
You're getting pretty feisty here for someone with a lot of questions and no answers. Beggars can't be choosers after all. It's not expensive to go take a class with an expert and get every single question answered y'know.







It's obvious he's not the one here who doesn't understand it. What kind of argument are you trying to make with unemployment? How does it affect whether comparative advantage rings true or not?He could read a variety of books on the subject online for free as well. Most of Bastiats writing (http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&Id=123), Economics in one lesson by Hasslett (http://www.hacer.org//pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf) , and this list of books (http://mises.org/literature.aspx) on Mises.org on various economic subjects can all be found online.

nbhadja
11-05-2011, 09:07 AM
What's the point of low prices if there are no jobs for many people so they can't buy anything?

I know people are saying "resources are used more efficiently" so they free up more resources over here to create jobs, but at some point people stop buying stuff. The economy is not unlimited. There is a limit- people aren't gonna buy everything under the sun. Even if they wanted to (which they dont'), they wouldn't have enough money for it anyways. If the main things go overseas due to cheap slave labor then what else is there to produce at home? If car production, TV production etc all went overseas (like real life), then what left is to produce at home? You think people can afford to buy cars, tvs etc (we know they will buy these 2 things), plus whatever thing America is producing?


I don't have a problem with free trade in a world with no slave labor, but the moment any country has slave labor it throws a wrench in free trade.

In a real free market world, everyone will have living wages. As a result, these unfair price advantages caused by countries willing to work their people like slaves would not exist in a global free market because these places would have living wages. No one would voluntarily work for slave wages in a global free market like they are forced to do in many countries like China for example.

Sure if America was a completely free market country with complete free trade even in a world of slave labor like China life would be much better than it is now in this system, but I just think that the quality of life would decrease with complete free trade in a world with countries like China because we would have have much lower wages, longer hours and forced to compete with these slave countries like China.

Free markets are all about competition, and the only way to compete with places like China is to work for slave wages and live in deplorable conditions.

phill4paul
11-05-2011, 09:57 AM
You're getting pretty feisty here for someone with a lot of questions and no answers. Beggars can't be choosers after all. It's not expensive to go take a class with an expert and get every single question answered y'know.

I'm getting 'fiesty' because you have yet to adequately answer my three simple question.



It's obvious he's not the one here who doesn't understand it. What kind of argument are you trying to make with unemployment? How does it affect whether comparative advantage rings true or not?

The law of comparative advantage only holds true if there is full employment in both countries. There is also a number of other factors involved. You're the one that brought it up and it's obvious you are the one here that does not understand this.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-05-2011, 10:28 AM
The only arguments for protection are ones like this for example, which you haven't brought up until this point. Perhaps a country should lower its standard of living as insurance in order to guarantee its supply for items it uses for defense. (this is why not ALL economists support free trade...it's a trade off) Although, you mentioned you were in the furniture industry....not exactly the same as a tank.

You ever notice the US does not invade countries whom they are trading with? The record is clear; protectionism leads to war. There is no argument for protectionism, unless of course you personally benefit from the limiting of competition.

Now, a flat low tariff to use to fund the State...it's the least worst of any tax, but it has to be uniform and used to get rid of all internal taxation. Good luck with that.

specsaregood
11-05-2011, 10:44 AM
Not sure what your point is....are you asking me how inflation enters into this?

1. inflation decreases the value of that currency.
2. because of this, exports will be "cheaper" to foreigners while imports will be "more expensive" to the domestic country
3. Foreigners gain wealth by trading their non-inflated currency in for additional imports due to inflation in exporting country

Does that answer your question? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask.

How many dollars have we printed up and exported, do you think price inflation has really kept up even near with the amount of our monetary base inflation?

erowe1
11-05-2011, 10:59 AM
Those are wise words in the OP.

nbhadja
11-05-2011, 11:05 AM
You ever notice the US does not invade countries whom they are trading with? The record is clear; protectionism leads to war. There is no argument for protectionism, unless of course you personally benefit from the limiting of competition.

Now, a flat low tariff to use to fund the State...it's the least worst of any tax, but it has to be uniform and used to get rid of all internal taxation. Good luck with that.

Not true at all. We invade countries that do not have US installed puppet dictators that whore their people out to the US corporations as slave labor. If anything, if those countries had protectionism they would reduce poverty and kick out out the imperialist US and EU corporations. But when they do that, they get invaded by the US because the US corps want cheap slave labor overseas.

It's the countries we "trade" with that have puppet corporatist governments installed by the CIA which cause 3rd word poverty.

Look at what Venezuela and Cuba did after throwing out the US puppet governments and using protectionist measures. Poverty reduced by 50% in Venezuela and extreme poverty reduced by 75%. Cuba went from 33% extreme poverty to one of the lowest poverty rates on earth, even lower than America. 2/3rds of Cuba was even owned by US and European corporations before they kicked them out.

Likewise, after kicking out the US installed monarch government, Libya went from one of the poorest nations on earth to one of the richest nations in Africa. They even had a higher standard of living than some European countries and they had one of the most comfortable lifestyles on earth.

AGRP
11-05-2011, 11:12 AM
I agree.

I wish I could find the Rockwell article on this, but his site doesn't have a search function. Essentially, buying cheaper products forces others to cut costs. He had an article about the death of major auto companies because of the Chinese car. China is free to produce cars without government regulations, thus they can provide a car at a much lower cost than all other companies that bow down to those government regulations. Don't blame free trade (low prices). Blame governments for forcing costly and burdensome regulations upon companies that raise prices. Blame companies who are not efficient.

Pauls' Revere
11-05-2011, 11:23 AM
In a free market individuals are free choose which products they deem hold value for them. If I choose to purchase a product which is cheaper than another so be it. Quality of product is also a huge factor which will drive purchases. Would you rather make 10 purchases for something that continually breaks or buy it once and have last a lifetime. This is what differentiates one product and indeed one market from another. We all know about the quality in Japan six sigma Toyota plants and the reknown German engineering in thier cars. Should I "buy American" based on nationalism? suppose I can but it's up to the individual if they deem they should. Besides, they so called American cars you buy are put together with parts made around the world ask your local dealer if the Chrysler on the lot is made with 100% manufactuered and assembled in the USA, bet they say no.


"Anyone who argues that buy American creates jobs ought to be shot"- My Economics Professor

Kregisen
11-05-2011, 11:34 AM
How many dollars have we printed up and exported, do you think price inflation has really kept up even near with the amount of our monetary base inflation?

I don't know, how many?

Anti Federalist
11-05-2011, 12:21 PM
I guess I didn't know someone had to be perfect in order to agree with them on something? You're trying to tell me that the quote "The heart of conservatism is libertarianism" is true ONLY if Reagan was a good president? Is this the kind of logic people use?

Reagan also skyrocketed the deficits. Are you going to accuse me of liking deficits and the war on drugs too? Perhaps truth is truth no matter which mouth it comes out of.

Exactly my point, a truth can come from anywhere.

It doesn't take more degrees than a thermometer to observe and report a truth.

Anti Federalist
11-05-2011, 12:23 PM
"Anyone who argues that buy American creates jobs ought to be shot"- My Economics Professor

Does that include American made education services as well?

Is your professor tenured?

If China offered online courses in Economics for a third of the price and half the time, I'd wager a year's pay that your Economics professor would be screaming blue murder.

Southron
11-05-2011, 01:12 PM
What if I perceive American products to be higher quality than certain foreign products, which is often the case? Should I buy lesser quality foreign products just to subsidize their rice meals?

heavenlyboy34
11-05-2011, 01:15 PM
Does that include American made education services as well?

Is your professor tenured?

If China offered online courses in Economics for a third of the price and half the time, I'd wager a year's pay that your Economics professor would be screaming blue murder.
It won't be long, bro. It's already possible to get a BA online before graduating high school. :cool: ;)

Anti Federalist
11-05-2011, 01:15 PM
What if I perceive American products to be higher quality than certain foreign products, which is often the case? Should I buy lesser quality foreign products just to subsidize their rice meals?

In my line of work there are chains, binders, cargo hooks and other equipment that must be American made.

It's documented and accounted for and logged.

Chinese made counterparts are strictly prohibited due to some high profile failures that got a couple of men killed.

Anti Federalist
11-05-2011, 01:19 PM
It won't be long, bro. It's already possible to get a BA online before graduating high school. :cool: ;)

You know, it was long before the days of having 'tubes and MP3s of radio shows, so I don't have a copy, but I remember, jeez, must be 15 years ago now, getting through on the Limbaugh show and having this exact same discussion with Walter Williams, who was subbing that day.

heavenlyboy34
11-05-2011, 01:39 PM
You know, it was long before the days of having 'tubes and MP3s of radio shows, so I don't have a copy, but I remember, jeez, must be 15 years ago now, getting through on the Limbaugh show and having this exact same discussion with Walter Williams, who was subbing that day.
Srsly? Neat! :) Williams generally has some solid, logical opinions on this sort of subject. What did he have to say?:confused: