« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Free trade Utopianism renders U.S. dependent on Russian helicopters

But have you seen how cheap are a pair of outsourced Levi jeans at the Mall of America?

A conversation with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev last March over a live microphone, that our President thought private, famously revealed Barack Obama asking for Tsar Putin’s patience on arms negotiations since a re-elected Obama would have more “flexibility” to sell out U.S. national security on armaments after he becomes unaccountable to voters.

Last week, the 2008 criticizer of executive orders issued by his predecessor, showed Tsar-like flexibility with respect to Article I, Section 8 when he added naturalization policy to his other executive order usurpations (see also oil moratoriums in contempt of court, non-recess recess appointments, etc). This time, our Chief Executive granted amnesty and work permits by fiat to over 800,000 persons currently ineligible for same under the now quaint notion of, “current law”, i.e. statutory laws passed by the congressional representatives of We the People that can only be changed by making a Bill into a Law.

But even some statutory laws, passed with bi-partisan majorities to boot, sell out the American security born of the political and economic independence that our Founding Fathers fought and died to achieve. I speak of NAFTA, GATT. the WTO and their “Utopian free trade ancestors” (especially including the 1962 TEA Act) since at least the 1940s, and the latest visible result of same:

The Pentagon on Tuesday defended plans to buy attack helicopters from a Russian arms firm for the Afghan government even though the same company has supplied weapons to Syria’s regime.

US senators have voiced dismay at the deal with Rosoboronexport, but defense officials said the contract with the firm was the only way to bolster Afghanistan’s fleet of Russian-made choppers.

“We’re not buying helicopters for the Syrian regime. We’re buying helicopters in support of the Afghan Air Force,” press secretary George Little told reporters.

Senator John Cornyn, in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Monday, expressed outrage at the purchase of Mi-17 helicopters for Afghanistan from Rosoboronexport.

“I remain deeply troubled that the DoD (Department of Defense) would knowingly do business with a firm that has enabled mass atrocities in Syria.

“Such actions by Rosoboronexport warrant the renewal of US sanctions against it, not a billion-dollar DoD contract,” Cornyn wrote.

Better late than never Senator, but if you wish to end this and further Rosoboronexports in the future, you and a majority of Congress and a like-minded President will have to end decades of  Utopian free trade blindness that even the 1996 McDonnell Douglas-killing European Airbus cartel couldn’t cure.

How does it happen that the last superpower on Earth is dependent on a Russian helicopter manufacturer to arm allies against the harborers of the architects of the September 11, 2001 attacks on our homeland?

Unlike Britain, which was under attack by Hitler’s Nazi regime when it needed FDR and GM President William Knudson’s help in securing the armaments for its defense,  the United States has unilaterally secured its own increased insecurity via multi-lateral trade agreements that have made trans-national corporations the new “Arsenal of the Highest Bidder”, whether for Democracy or not.

America has become increasingly dependent on foreign suppliers over many decades, so that in 2012, our Defense Department states that deals with the Russians are the “only way” to arm the Afghans charged with keeping the Taliban at bay.

What hath comparative advantage wrought?

Yes, there are many factors that have brought us to this sad state of affairs with shuttered armament and textile factories now housing Pennsylvania Mon Valley and Cabbagetown-Atlantan yuppies in upscale flats, while the working class collects food stamps and applies for disability benefits. These include improvements in technology that replace labor; overreaching labor unions and cheap labor overseas and across the Rio Grande. And yes, we are aware of the manufacturing GDP numbers that reveal how well are many companies in the U.S. thanks to tech “labor” sans a beating heart.

But the major reason that the United States is now so dependent on foreign sources for our defense is that we haven’t made it a priority to retain the Washington-Hamiltonian independence that they and so many of our Protectionist Republican leaders fought so hard to achieve, before the advent of free-trade Utopianism.

The Great Betrayal

In his seminal book, The Great Betrayal, former Nixon and Reagan aide Pat Buchanan chronicles the history of American trade policy from before Britain’s Intolerable  Acts that led to the Declaration of Independence, through the late 1990′s, along with prescient foresight concerning the consequences of our free trade policies since its publication 14 years ago.

Buchanan documents how:

Britain used the colonies for raw materials and inhibited the development of manufactures therein;

President Washington and Alexander Hamilton relentlessly pursued American economic independence as part and parcel of political liberty (including an aversion to dependence on foreign trade for our prosperity);

Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were quickly persuaded of the folly of Utopian free trade upon taking office;

The tariff was instrumental is making the United States the greatest free trade zone the world had ever seen, while also protecting its domestic market and ensuring its national security independence;

The Party of Lincoln from the Civil War to WWI and in the Roaring Twenties used the tariff to makes those years the most productive in terms of the accumulation of wealth and the rise in the standard of living the greatest in the history of mankind;

Wilsonian free traders finally won the day in the aftermath of WWII when trade policy was used as a carrot in lieu of aid to win over allies in the Cold War;

When, in 1985 Toshiba sold silent propeller technology to the Soviet Union, many of Pat’s conservative friends lobbied against sanctions;

President Ronald Reagan eloquently preached free trade but made several protectionist decisions that saved American industries, companies and jobs, including slapping a 5-year, 50% tariff on Japan to save Harley-Davidson from dumping; imposing steel and machine tool quotas; and demanding semi-conductor market access reciprocation from Japan to combat Hitachi dumping.

It wouldn’t matter if Adam Smith favored Utopian free trade policies, but he didn’t. After all, the debate isn’t about personalities and conservative economic heroes. Rather, its about what policies work, and the only place that free trade Utopianism, like much of modern day liberalism, works is theoretically; hence Smith’s “Exceptions” to Free Trade:

Industries necessary for the defence of the country;

Encouragement of domestic industry via a tariff as an equal tax;

Reciprocation against the high duties or import prohibitions of other nations; and

Use of tariffs to secure the repeal of the above in other nations so as to eventually gain access to their markets on a more equal basis. [Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and cause of the Wealth of Nations (New York: Modern Library, 1937) p. 429]

Blinded by an unprecedented post-WWII prosperity due, in large part, to the fact that most of the modern industrial world lay in ruins, which circumstance made the gradual erosion of the foundations of that prosperity imperceptible; we now find ourselves with the two major political parties in bed with trans-national corporations and the whole issue of free trade mostly off the public’s radar screen.

We hope that the statements of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney concerning China’s trade and other policies will lead to a more eyes-wide-open approach to how we allow access to our precious domestic market that is the envy of the world; so that we stop giving it away to protectionist nations; and that Senator Cornyn and his honorable friends in the United States will find the outrage over sharing helicopter purchases with tyrannical enemies an occasion to re-visit NAFTA etc and begin to save a Middle America that Charles Murray describes as Coming Apart.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor of  Hillbilly Politics and Co-Founder and Editor of Political Daily

Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

COMMENTS

  • JSobieski

    (1) Protectionism for internal ECONOMIC purposes (i.e. create jobs, make the country prosperous) is to be avoided because it won’t help the general public any more than tax increases designed to spread the wealth will do those things.

    (2) Money isn’t everything, there are military and foreign policy reasons to have tariffs or to cease trade all together.

    Insulting free traders using the same techniques that lefists use to insult believers of capitalism is counter productive.

    Is individual responsibility utopian? Is belief that taxes should be as low as possible, utopian? Is the belief that capitalism is superior to government bureaucrats in setting prices utopian?

    There is nothing utopian about how the laws of economics work. There are times when economics take a back seat to other concerns. However, if the motivation for protectionism is economic, then the protectionism should be resisted in the same way that if the motivation for a tax is social engineering, the proposed tax should be resisted.

    I don’t know a single free trader who supported the transfer of missile technology to China in the 90s. Nor do I know any free traders who support trading nuclear technology with Iran.

    These are straw man characterizations of the free trade position.

    Free traders acknowledge that other issues trump economics, which is why we still have an embargo over Cuba and we withheld grain from the USSR in the not to distant past.

    The argument is not whether protectionism is sometimes necessary, the argument is whether protectionism is ever necessary for ECONOMIC purposes.

    Gratuitous insults with the utopian label do nothing to facilitate meaningful discussion.

    When you purposely fail to distinguish between category (1) and category (2) above, you are cutting off the possibility of a meaningful discussion.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    on your #1 but I didn’t purposefully fail to distinguish between the two nor does Pat in his book, yet he gets insulted all the time. But unlike Pat, I have column length limits and so can’t cover every issue that every reader might deem vital, and that might feel insulted.

    I stand by my column within its limits and I suspect that at the core of those that agree with #1 despite our history, both recent and since the founding, do harbor an element of Utopianism in their analysis.

    I think our actual history utterly refutes the notion that non-trade policies haven’t been a huge net plus on jobs and prosperity.

    But I assure you that wasn’t intending to insult anyone. I am optimistic that given enough words I could pursuade you to be open to the utility of non-defense related restrictive trade policies in the national interest! smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nt

  • aesthete

    It’s dishonest to conflate economic arguments for free trade with some pie-in-the-sky ideal of free trade always being a non-economic good. The number of people who legitimately believe that free trade is always a non-economic good fit inside a telephone booth.

    @ Mike: What is the ideal and economically efficient price for a tariff? Does this efficient price change, as the price of other goods in a free market are wont to do? Who in government should be in charge of setting and managing the tariff, and why? Please show your work.

  • aesthete

    “Free Trade Utopianism Renders US ”

    If I write as a headline to an article, “Free Traders molests children”, and it turns out that it’s an article claiming that Bill Clinton and GWB molesting children, 1) there should be evidence provided for the claim, and 2) there should be something in my column explaining why free trade is being brought into this at all.

    Editorials are not subject to the same rigor as straight news reportage, but neither are they license to concoct associations between things out of thin air.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The ideal (including economically ideal) price for a tariff must be determined on a country by country and/or industry by industry basis. Pat provides such analysis visa vis several nations based upon the facts and circumstances at the time the book was published in 1998.

    Seriously, in terms of the impact of books on my thinking, its in a group just after the Bible, Mere Christianity, Cost of Discipleship, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, The Tempting of America, Free to Choose, Reagan: A Life in Letters etc…

    Girlfriend is getting it for me for Christmas. I have checked it out of the library 5 times since March!

  • aesthete

    Definition from Webster: “an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent”

    JSob et al can have fun responding to you. On this subject, you are weapons-grade stupid — you either refuse or cannot understand how free trade, protectionism, and growth in emergent economies work, or are unwilling to understand and argue alternate explanations which could fit the data better. This approach to knowledge in policymaking and economic science is, to put it mildly, unhelpful.

    I’d still find it interesting to see you answer the questions below, which I know you’ll never do because you can’t. (Either that, or you’ll provide some schmaltzy nonsense about how we’re America and that we are heartless to focus on profits instead of people bla bla bla.)

  • aesthete

    of prices, not how to set such a price or who sets it. *Of course* different things have different prices in different countries and industries — even the USSR’s pricing committees weren’t that daft! How do you set that price?

    I can tell you how prices for taxation etc tend to get set in political markets in the real world, but I’ll tell you right now that it probably won’t help your case.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Ever considered attending Anger Management anonymous or just smoking some medical marijuana?

    Whew

  • JSobieski

    you don’t see a problem with that?

    Do you want to treat your ideological allies in the way that your ideological enemies treat you?

    There probably is a phonebooth number of people who would fall into that category fo racists white southernors who want to kill grandma, but it is such a small and non-mainstream group that the only purpose of mentioning it is to smear the larger mainstream group of people with a straw man association.

    You just did the same thing to free traders. 99.99% of free traders oppose making ourselves militarily vulnerable for the sake fo free trade, yet your headline associates a radical 0.01% with the mainstream view in an attempt to smear (or at least take a pot shot) at the larger group.

    I am not sure what is worse—if the insult was intentional or unintentional.

    There are people who support lower taxes who commit the crimes of rape, murder,etc/ There are people who support a strong foreign policy who molest children.

    What is the point of using a headline to address a policy position that is so lacking in support?????

    Who in DC advocates using free trade to make us militarily vulnerable?

    Who are you trying to refute? An odd ball or two hanging out in their basement?

    What is the point of your headline if nobody in the mainstream of politics disagrees with your position on that point?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    How do you set defense tariff prices? Educate me if you are up to the work of anything more than replies. Or satisfy you daily insult quota. Whatever is best for you.

    smile

  • aesthete

    When it comes to selling Iranians nuclear weapons, I favor an outright ban. Where this is not politically possible, I favor the highest tariff that is politically feasible. My problem with Clinton’s giveaway of missile tech to the Chinese was not a low tariff; it was that the deal was occurring at all.

    IOW, tariffs are an intermediate step when it comes to defense — I want *no* trade when it comes to trades which directly imperils our national security.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/more/06/23/cws-finals-preview/index.html#?sct=hp_t2_a9&eref=sihp

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m against using government to pick winners and losers.

  • Viet71

    n/t

  • westcoastpatriette

    for effect…because it works in terms of drawing the attention of more readers.

    :)

  • westcoastpatriette

    :)

    I’ll stop now.

  • trimulchio

    to use Russian Attack Helos: 1) the old, pre-Taliban Afghan government probably had them and they may still have trained pilots, crew chiefs and mechanics; 2) these systems are a lot more robust and simple than our stuff; 3) these birds are cheaper than our stuff; and 4) they seem to work better in Afghanistan with the thin air, teperature extreams and constant dust.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    In its application to defense.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    To provoke debate to force others to better defend their positions and as one that OD’ed on snark a few years ago, I have aesthetic empathy for those caught in its throes today. I have also discovered that trying to maintain civility via humor amid strong disagreements is at once Christ- like and passive-aggressive !

  • Joliphant

    Unless we are willing to pay for replacing and retraining Afghanistan’s helicopter forces this makes good sense.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Only flipped dye to the peculiar effect that slavery had on the issue. Pat devotes not a little space in discussing Calhoun with quotes backing up his interpretation. Calhoun was opposed to tariffs due to the outsized effect that it had on prices paid for goods in the South. Before the issue roiled the South, he was with Clay who saw wise tariff policy as picking America to win over foreign threats to our industries. More later on this in more detail. For now, Play ball! In 40 minutes! Gamecocks v Arizona in game one of college world series finals.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Will get that link later. My main point is the policy failures that led to there not being helicopter mfgs here that could satisfy our defense needs.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and that’s one thing that bothers me about a lot of overly spiritual people who would be indignant at the suggestion that Jesus would ever use hyperbole, sarcasm or passive aggressive verbiage.

    To the contrary, He could be outrageously provocative — and sometimes overtly aggressive (“White-washed tomb full of dead mans bones,” or “You brood of vipers!”)

  • gekster

    We have to sell these backward people the most modern and sophisticated helos so that they can sell them to the Chinese and get some bucks.

  • JSobieski

    I have repeatedly said that amongst those who are free traders, a de minimis number would say “lets sell nukes to Iran”.

    I have repeatedly said on this site that free traders are a very small percentage of the American population, and have contrasted them pro-lifers who make up a far more significant plurality. I have written numerous times about the Reagan democrats in Michigan—and they are vehemently opposed to free trade.

    Who is arguing free trade in instances where such trade would hurt US defense interests? Milton Friedman sure didn’t.

    Again, you are mixing and matching category (1) and category (2). Whether this is purposeful or not I can’t tell.

    There are no prominent voices in favor of the proposition that free trade trumps national defense. NONE. An unoccupied phone booth.

    The differences are on the issue of whether protectionism can actually help the economy of the US.

  • JSobieski

    keep using the word “utopian” every time that you can.

    NAFTA was Reagan’s idea—-was Reagan utopian too?

    Either you believe that freely entered into exchanges benefit both parties and create wealth . . . or you don’t believe in capitalism.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    took many protectionist actions to protect non-defense jobs, specific companies and industries. But you make many good points. My point on the super-majority for free trade refers to elected officials in both parties in DC.

    First pitch in 25 minutes on ESPN2!

  • Ausonius

    In the last 40 years, as practically every shoe factory, clothing factory, television factory, etc. etc. etc. closed up and was replaced by either robots or by serf labor in the Third World, a large percentage of America’s population has been told to retrain as “high-tech” workers or as “service-industry” personnel.

    Well, okay, fine. As a teacher during those 40 years, I can attest that very few people can retrain as high-tech workers because their intelligence level does not have the mathematical ability to retrain in those fields.

    And for the most recent generations:

    My son most recently taught Algebra and Geometry at an Ohio 2-year college, where a large majority of his 20-something and 30-something students invariably failed these high-school level courses or dropped out before grade time. These students will not be able to repair computer programs infected by viruses, or to write code, etc.

    They might have been able to deal with a handicraft of some sort: but working with one’s hands has been so denigrated in the last 40 years by the “college diploma” mania, and so the economy was transformed with little regard for this large group of people who, even if they do have the intelligence needed for “high technical” jobs, may have no aptitude or desire to labor in such a field.

    To be sure, I am not claiming that factory work could not be mind-numbing: probably robots should do many things previously given to human laborers.

    Yet I think of my late father-in-law, who barely made it through the 8th Grade in the 1930′s, and who learned how to handle machines in a cigar factory. In his last years there – the plant closed down in the 1990′s – he was the only person left who understood how many of the machines worked, and he was handcrafting replacement parts for them! Parts no longer existed!!!

    Could he have retrained as a computer repair technician? Absolutely not: his temperament was to be busy building things, fixing things with his hands…and that absolutely did NOT include typing at a keyboard. :)

    A more balanced attitude on free trade might have saved a larger percentage of such jobs. Unfortunately, this is – in general – a one-way trip.

    What might possibly be restored – with difficulty – is the positive attitude on physical labor. As colleges produce more graduates with worthless degrees in “Communications” and such…or produce more students who never graduate, and go into debt on top of it…America might be forced to rethink its attitudes on the “necessity” of a college degree.

    Rethinking trade policy to help to restore some of the factory positions using physical labor here in America would be the start of such a trend.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    How long until we get a push for a Five Year Plan for Manufacturing?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    There is a connection between creating/making things and prosperity and invisible hands are not enough to ensure them.. Would that it were so, hence my unapologetic use of the term “free trade Utopianism” for those that eschew the use of trade policy in non-defense circumstances. There should be no aversion to fashioning a national policy with respect to foreign trade to protect domestic industries. The opposition’s main talking do seem to me to be ideological, hence Utopian, when one looks at our history of the successful use of tariffs etc and their use by other great powers in history.

    more later re the charge of “picking winners and losers”, which is applicable within the domestic market but is quite inappropriate as applied to foreign trade, imho.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    for now, the College World Series!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You’re punishing the *buyers* in order to funnel cash to politically preferred *sellers*.

    It’s corrupt as all get out, in practice.

  • aesthete

    rhetorically for small government; but practically took action to expand same.

    Would you argue against limited government using that example?

    Politics is messy. Fact is, Reagan’s protectionist actions were exclusively in the interest of retaining a voting bloc.

    From an economic perspective, steel tariffs and Reagan-era tariffs cannot be defended without first dismantling the idea of the mutually advantageous trade and proposing something better. Of course, 1) such a thing has never been done, and 2) such a thing would not be particularly conservative in its implications.

  • aesthete

    *not* a free trade problem. There is nothing in free trade which claims to favor Communications majors, or a lack of numeracy. American manufacturing is far from dead; it has relocated and changed management.

    BTW, the decline of the Big Three was inevitable due to rising gas prices and the competitive advantage of other car companies at producing small, economic vehicles. The question is, why didn’t American companies succeed at producing smaller cars? Most of the blame lies with unions: the marginal costs added by labor made it very difficult for new companies to enter the mix, and bankrupted quite a few of the existing smaller car companies in Detroit which were involved in producing cars along those lines. To the extent that the Big Three bought out these companies, they couldn’t figure out what to do with them.

    There is a good reason why the markup on cars from the Big Three is so high, and why most of the smaller cars from the Big Three (the Ford Focus, for example) are made outside the US.

    Perhaps if we had let the Big Three collapse, shrink, or restructure due to market forces, it would have been one of these other American auto companies reaping the benefits that Japanese cars are today. T’was unions killed the auto industry in the Midwest.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    But I do not see any argument you present here as being persuasive beyond protecting the domestic arms industries.

    The truth is not romantic, it is not poetic, it is not even intuitive, but it is true nonetheless. Except for a few strategic industries we are all MUCH better off with free trade. That has been proven to my mind beyond a doubt.

    It is also the reason that nearly one billion people have been lifted out of abject poverty into the middle class around the world.

  • Ausonius

    It is a matter of limits: one would hope that a tariff could be levied which would by no means “punish” consumers and yet help competent factories to remain open. Britain used free trade in its empire, preventing any colony from placing a tariff on British goods. The result was lack of development in its colonies, which kept demand for British goods in the colonies somewhat steady but not growing at the decent rate it might have because of the lack of development in the colonies. A growing middle class and upper, aided by moderate protectionism, could have meant greater demand long term for British goods.

    One result was complacency in British industry with typical status-quo thinking: e.g. when the Americans and Germans by-passed them in steel production in the later 1800′s, they found it almost incomprehensible.

    Nothing needs to be “corrupt” even in practice. Again, a difficult but not impossible problem to address.

    And it would be interesting to read how you would address the vocational difficulty for those with no college aptitude.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    The time when the United States was almost the only intact industrial nation we had a near monopoly on all manufacturing. But that was bound to pass.

    And if we had tried to hold on to it with high tariffs we would have just gotten poorer, and poorer. Or perhaps you don’t remember the 1970′s before trade was opened up. I remember it, and the 70′s pretty much sucked.

    Under high tariffs people pay more for everything, and they get screwed by inadequate competition. Firms find that they still can’t compete because they just lack a comparative advantage, so they start demanding more handouts from the government. Before you know it, it’s big Unions, Big Corporations, Big Government all in cahoots and the people left holding the bag.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If you apply even a one mil tariff, then you’re punishing by one mil the buyers who wish to pass on a better price to their customers, the American people, or who wish to make a higher profit for themselves and their loved ones.

    And I’m sorry, but taking your big government industrial policy schemes and wrapping them around the flag is no better than Obamacare.

    And if you think preferential tax treatment schemes aren’t corrupt in practice, look up the Obama and Clinton administrations sometime.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    if they were used to replace regressive taxes like the FICA. But they would have to actually replace the tax completely and not take in more revenue. A very difficult moving target to calculate.

  • Ausonius

    But not the only one! :)

    Short-sighted management had much to do with it.

    I would be interested in your ideas on helping with the vocational problems for those incapable of a college career. As I stated above, a large percentage of people cannot handle “high-tech” work, and because of I.Q. and/or aptitude will never be able to retrain for such a field.

    The restoration of at least some positions needing physical labor – e.g. fine sewing – would help such people.

  • Ausonius

    Or are people not reading carefully? :)

    I nowhere state that I want “HIGH tariffs” ! Where exactly in my post do I say that?

    I nowhere state that I want to turn the clock back, in fact I agree with you that little can be restored.

    I will reiterate a few points:

    “To be sure, I am not claiming that factory work could not be mind-numbing: probably robots should do many things previously given to human laborers.”

    “A more balanced attitude on free trade might have saved a larger percentage of such jobs. Unfortunately, this is ? in general ? a one-way trip.

    What might possibly be restored ? with difficulty ? is the positive attitude on physical labor. As colleges produce more graduates with worthless degrees in ?Communications? and such?or produce more students who never graduate, and go into debt on top of it?America might be forced to rethink its attitudes on the ?necessity? of a college degree.

    Rethinking trade policy to help to restore some of the factory positions using physical labor here in America would be the start of such a trend.”

    Please note the subjunctives: “might possibly be restored” does NOT mean that I think it can be restored, and a “positive attitude on physical labor” does not translate into a demand for higher tariffs or a return to a fantasy version of the 1940′s!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    A tariff the other guy pays is a low tariff.

    A tariff I pay is a high tariff.

    How about we give everyone small government?

  • aesthete

    Unfortunately, we couldn’t get companies which worked to undercut the Big Three due to our stupid practices of encouraging unionization and reducing competition using a variety of means (subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, etc).

    As far as education goes, I think that the German track, wherein after 8th grade the student goes to either some vocational school to learn a skilled trade, or high school with the intention of going to college, is a relatively sound system which preserves our excellent post-secondary institutions while also addressing the concerns that you mention. Coupling this with vouchers for both private schools and homeschools which meet curriculum requirements would IMO be a step in the right direction. Education is a very involved subject, and I have more to say about it but I’ll stop myself.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    would go a long way toward your “graduates with worthless degrees” problem.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    was a big thing. Now it has nearly disappeared. That is what happens when you turn everything over to “Educrats”.

  • Ausonius

    I hope to find the time for a diary on American education and on something one of my 8th Grade girls mentioned in her graduation speech.

    You are quite right about the connection between the distortions in education leading to distortions in employment and then in the marketplace.

  • JSobieski

    This is because government makes bad decisions. Whether its what kind of education people need, or how much of a tariff should be charged—-government will do worse than the management at GM—at that is saying quite a bit!

  • JSobieski

    There are all sorts of jobs that aren’t high tech and yet still pay pretty well.

    Manufacturing jobs would disappear even if we had 100% tariffs. China is losing manufacturing jobs to automation. if you forced companies to produce here, you would simply be subsidizing the robots and machine tool industries.

    This is precisely my point about protectionism: If you want to talk about what to do with a growing displaced work force, I am very much interested in having that conversation. If you want to “help” things by raising tariffs (the equivalent of cutting off a leg to lose weight), I am going to suggest a different course of action.

    The problem of people being left behind is very very very real. Self-inflicted wounds are however no solution.

    If government interference could beat the market, the USSR would still be around.

  • Ausonius

    As a German teacher, I have had the opportunity to observe various German schools and to meet students and teachers in the system.

    You are quite right: they seem to have preserved their medieval heritage of apprenticeships – rather than schooling – leading to employment. In fact I know of several cases where ADHD students there thrived after being placed in apprenticeships requiring physical labor (welding in one case, dealing with agricultural machinery in another) – Ritalin was not involved.

  • JSobieski

    since they obviously have a deep understanding of how the economy works.

  • Ausonius

    …for the people displaced by automation and/or foreign labor?

    Again, free trade is quite fine, and I agree with your points about the dangers: but there are always limits.

    The old question on automation remains: knowing that a technology can be employed, do we assume that it should or must be employed?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    some sort of retraining education vouchers, Even though such government solutions are notoriously poor. It would at least give some people a chance to reposition.

    I know that twice in my lifetime my skills were made obsolescent by technology. Both times I learned new skills but something like a retraining voucher would have come in handy.

  • JSobieski

    Some ideas:

    Reform the education system at all levels. Definitely need to make non-college prep more accessible. Voucherizing education would be a big help.

    Regulatory and tax reform would do a lot to keep and grow businesses here in the US. It is very disruptive to have supply chains needlessly span the globe. Even with all the crap we have going on, places like China are losing their attractiveness because China has their own problems/issues.

    Limiting technology is a temporary solution. Using manual labor to dig ditches keeps unemployment temporarily low, but in a generation the nation loses competitiveness.

    There are lots of room even in this lousy economy for entrepreneurship. This is a natural competitive advantage of the US even without trying—-what if we actually TRY to foster enterpreneurship? See education, tax, and regulatory reform.

    Bottom line: No easy answers, and I am not promising anything. However, embrace of shoot yourself in the foot and hope it helps isn’t doing anyone any favors. Semi-skilled workers can make a decent living in the modern economy, but a person determined to be no better than a robot is not asset. In the short to medium term, I don’t see any way to avoid more people being caught in the safety net. However, it is more economical to have the system run as it should and pay for the outliers than it is to kill the golden goose for everyone. This same logic applies to healthcare. Bettter to have a functioning market and deal with pre-existing conditions as a separate case then it does to contaminate the entire system.

  • JSobieski

    there would be far more vocational training opportunities out there.

    In places like Germany (and Poland), high school is more specialized. We could really use some technical high schools here in the US.

    If you look at the structurally unemployed, you will inevitably find that most of high school was a complete waste of time.

  • Dave_A

    The Afghans ONLY know how to fix and fly RUSSIAN helicopters…

    Dirt cheap, giant gas-sucking monsters that can be kept flying by a half-trained monkey with a broken hammer…

    If we sold them Apaches or even (ugh) Cobras they’d all be broke & grounded inside a month…

    That’s why the helicopters have to come from Russia… Well, maybe China makes a clone, or maybe one of the FSU NATO countries like Poland, but you probably get my drift…

    It has nothing to do with ‘free trade’ – even without free trade, we’d still have to get the Afghans their Russian helicopters from Russia…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    to learn, which just might be translatable to learning to fix and fly helicopters made by an American company, ie the kind of companies that used to flourish across the fruited plane before enlightened free trade found supposed comparative advantages.

    Early in the column, I mock Cornyn for being late in his outrage and while I have read two columns that do suggest alternatives now, my point is not about whether we should get these Russian helicopters now, but that we change our trade policies to foster domestic manufactures that reduce our dependence on foreign sources for national security needs.

    Your question indicates that you only read the headline to my column.

  • Dave_A

    The IRAQIS are buying/getting (and thanks to oil prices, it’s a bit of both) genuine US-made hardware…

    Cessnas, F-16s, M1 Abrams tanks…

    All de-rated export models of course (except the Cessnas – you can’t really ‘de-rate’ a weapons system we don’t use)…

    But still, they’re going for the more expensive & harder to maintain US hardware…

    The difference? Iraq has oil & can thus afford the more expensive aircraft & tanks and (in true Arab style) afford the foreign contractors to maintain it all….

    Afganhistan’s only legitimate ‘industry’ right now is collecting foreign aid & subsistance farming… They can’t afford the kind of weapons systems the US builds (apart from our guns – the ANA does use M-16s, FN-MAGs, and FN MINIMIs – all built in the USA), and even if they could they can’t afford the maintenance requirements…

    The US is great at building ‘glass cannon’ heavy weapons – they’re stupendously effective, extremely survivable, but you had better have maintenance troops with US levels of literacy & technical competence (or the money to hire contractors with the same), or your toys will sit in their bays while your enemy runs around in Toyota pickup trucks kicking your tail…

    For that reason, the Afghan Army will most likely ALWAYS use Russian combat vehicles (except for their nifty diesel Ford Rangers, that we can’t buy in the USA)….

  • Dave_A

    See below…

    The economically logical thing to do, is to equip the AAF with aircraft they have parts & mechanics for…

    There is also a huge difference between what ‘works’ on Russian aircraft, and what ‘works’ on ours…

    And of course, we don’t make an aircraft like the MiL-24 ‘Hind’ because such a beast doesn’t fit our rotor-wing aviation doctrine…

    We would have to have Bell, Sirkorsky, or Boeing design an all-new idiot-proof ‘export’ attack helicopter/transport hybrid from the ground up, at a huge cost to us, plus replace all of the Afghans spare parts inventory & re-train all their techs….

    We’d also have to convince them that buying aircraft & parts that have to come by sea & over not-so-safe truck routes, is better than buying from Russia, which offers a far more secure supply line (no shipping from ports in Pakistan)….

    Given that the US is footing the bill for these aircraft, the only logical thing to do (and the cheapest) is to buy them from the original source…

    Compare that to Iraq, where they want American weapons bad enough to pay for them… And the Iraqis are getting the good stuff because of that….

  • Dave_A

    1) Energy sector… We’ve got oil & gas wells that need drilling, pipes that need fitting, etc, if the govt would get out of the way…

    2) Unskilled Service Sector – Wal Mart, McDs, cleaning houses, landscaping, etc…

    3) Faced with (2) after (1) fills up, a large number of these people will ‘gut it out’ and learn a marketable white-collar skill – thus improving the US workforce and their own lives. If protectionism were employed instead, these folks would never try to become more than manual laborers…

    As for technology, ABSOLUTELY we should employ every technology we can, to make ourselves more competitive. ‘But it kills jobs’ is a STUPID reason not to automate, just like it was stupid back in the day where ‘Sabotage’ involved wooden shoes….

  • Dave_A

    Thanks largely to that tariff, Harley will never again be a competitive motorcycle manufacturer.

    They will be a successful IMAGE manufacturer – selling products to those who want the ‘Harley Lifestyle’ – but they will never produce a motorcycle that is faster, more efficient, or more reliable than their competition.

    The only thing keeping them in business is their ‘ethos’ and (almost exclusively domestic) brand-following…. They are now a T-shirt company that also happens to sell motorcycles.

    The Japanese and Europeans build bikes that are superior in every possible way, and cost less – it’s not ‘dumping’, either… They’re just better at making motorcycles.

    Had Harley been forced to innovate their way out of the 80s situation, they might actually make a good bike today. Instead, they make a mediocre product that sells entirely because of branding-power, and actually earn most of their profits off of accessories & clothing…

    Harley – like GM and Chrysler – is another ‘Zombie’ firm created by tariffs.

  • avgjo

    tariffs if the income tax were repealed and if we didn’t have the dangerous apes running the three branches of gov’t that we do.

    Seems to me one nice thing about tariffs as main source of gov’t revenue would be that people would immediately feel the effect of excessive such taxation and that would probably lead to very interesting and meaty debates on spending.

    Of course, now we’re too deep in the financial hole for that.

    I’m no economist, but I figure that the founders were pretty smart guys and they set up the gov’t the way they did for a reason. And I know that the gov’t they set up, tariffs and all, fostered the generation of the greatest (in material terms) nation the world had ever seen.

  • Ausonius

    does seem to handle a large majority of them. As I mentioned elsewhere here last night, the apprenticeship idea, rather than classroom time, seems to be the key for such adolescents and young adults.

    As I recall, the German universities have remained highly selective, and only a 1/4 to 1/3 of students are considered university material.

    To be sure, one can always find slackers outside the Cologne cathedral throwing their lives away. But these are the exceptions.

    You are quite right: vouchers of some sort would help, rather than a program full of self-serving bureaucrats.

  • funwithknives

    and is fairly advanced in her trade. She subscribes to any and all available {various] affiliated trade Magazines , including:
    Welding
    Fabrication,general.
    Oil exploration, production and most anything affiliated with same
    Mining ,Various mat’ls.
    Aerospace Fabrication, and sales.
    Construction Equipt.,Const. Trades and Gov’t infrastructure contracting.
    Marine Fabrication ,worldwide.
    Automotive, in all it’s variations.
    Combined heat and power plants , for various entities.
    Machining and CAD. Moldmaking and Sterolithography.
    Ceramics
    Decorative Stone ? {This one is Friggen Awesome}
    ….and a bunch more. She brings them ALL home for my reading delight.
    I’m just a layman with a H S edu. but some things
    are very apparent:
    1) semi-skilled and above labor availability is in the toilet, and the curve is bending down.
    2) Engineering grads for “Not Popular” trades are simply not out there in a buch of disciplines: Oil Exp. and Prod. is a whopper, noted replacements needed {industry wide} exceed current school attendees by 90% +/-. Time span for this is less than 5 years, then the curtain goes up.
    3) Other than some community college/industry, public/private internship/apprenticeship programs, very little is being done to
    address this quandry. The needs are great, but many Businesses as of yet are waiting for “someone to do something” and we know how that works out.
    4)Welding alone is seeing the need for thousands upon thousands of techs in a very few years. Good ones can live well on this trade and the conditions are nothing like they used to be, enviromentally and ergonomically.

    I note a recurring theme in these posts: Vouchers. Simply paid back over a time span by using your IRS payments as a vehicle. No credits, just The Feds applying a portion over time to your “account” , until theoretical ‘payoff’. Am leaving out a bunch of details , but please see the intent.
    Can you call this A Stimulous, or An Investment? Call it anything you please.
    The Needs exist and this is hardly disputable.
    Educrats are just beginning to detect this. But the track record of Gov’t ‘getting ahead’ of anything worth solving is excreable.
    We here discuss this very topic ,at length.

    All that ‘Green Money’ Barry tossed around, surely could have
    gone a L O N G way here……

    Vouchers, guys. Whatt’ya say?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Exceprt you must have missed:

    Senator John Cornyn, in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Monday, expressed outrage at the purchase of Mi-17 helicopters for Afghanistan from Rosoboronexport.

    ?I remain deeply troubled that the DoD (Department of Defense) would knowingly do business with a firm that has enabled mass atrocities in Syria.

    ?Such actions by Rosoboronexport warrant the renewal of US sanctions against it, not a billion-dollar DoD contract,? Cornyn wrote.

    Better late than never Senator, but if you wish to end this and further Rosoboronexports in the future, you and a majority of Congress and a like-minded President will have to end decades of Utopian free trade blindness that even the 1996 McDonnell Douglas-killing European Airbus cartel couldn?t cure.

    Dave, my column never suggested that we not buy the helos from the Russian company now. I used this circumstance to try and make a larger point about the outrage of doing business with foreign firms that also supply our enemies.

    Cornyn and most of the establishment should have been outraged for more than 20 years as we have become increasingly dependent on foreign sources that sell to enemies. Pat B documents several that i mention in his book as of the late 90s.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    those whose jobs were saved and those that love the Harley lifestyle. Let a 1000 voices sing.

    Its all damage control since Eve bit the apple and you are in the top 10 devil’s advocates of all-time! smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    difference between trying to approximate a “free” market within one’s legal jurisdiction, i.e. nation state as opposed to the market of foreign trade. Yes, in foreign trade, judgment calls including political ones are inevitable. It can be no other way save in a Utopian vision.

    But the nation wants itself to be the winner every time rather than what an imagined invisible hand could do visa vis other nations that subsidize their own companies, form monopolies that run McDonnell Douglasses out of business.

    Yes, I wish no “planning” were ever involved in any economic decisions and policies and that all the worlds poor could obese and happy via an invisible hand, but thankfully our Founders rejected that folly and protected our industries from being subverted and making us independent and secure.

    The “mainstream” free trade that ‘ski describes and that most of the establishment swears by is an ideology that rejects any trade barriers to protect American jobs and industries. Such a rigid position, is, by definition, Utopian, especially given the unprecedented success of the US economically in world history as compared to all other actual examples, as opposed to being compared to a hypothetical situation that has never existed in 5000 years.

    Other nations plan to achieve success for their nation and so we have to do the same or be suckered….as we have been since the 60s.

    Reagan acted to protect American jobs and industries many times. Washington and Hamilton et al rejected the folly of free trade, which is of a piece with liberalism that fails every time.

    Pat B documents all this in detail in the book.

  • aesthete

    despite the fact that they’re producing inferior goods. Your anti-trade argument rests on us producing quality goods (e.g., helicopters) in all possible categories so that the dirty foreigners can’t hold it over our heads (or something). Harley is quite obviously producing inferior goods. Why not let the consumer decide whether it lives or dies?

    Other tax payers and I are on the hook for Harley, and I’m discriminately taxed for buying European for no other reason than to “save” a failing company that I and most people don’t buy goods from. This is no different from being told that I have to subsidize half a dozen failing green industries because some hipster wants to feel like he’s doing Mother Gaia a favor. Harley’s a welfare queen, and you’re telling us it’s conservative to prop her up using government force.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    ntease

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    You aren’t subsiding Harley and btw, all goods are “inferior” in the eyes of some beholders. People buy Harleys man. Your beef with them is what? Never mind…just blame Reagan.

  • aesthete

    by rupturing markets and competition. By that logic, the US soccer teams become more of “winners” by not competing in the World Cup.

    This is nonsense on stilts. It is the height of arrogance to assume that a planned society which you cannot explain the mechanics or function of is our salvation. It is callous to simply brush away the enormous impact that free trade has had for the poor both in the US and abroad. It is logical absurdity to reject more plausible explanations for the US’ success in favor of one that does away with consumer sovereignty, mutually advantageous trade, etc.

    It is simply mind-boggling to see someone arguing with straight face that extensive centralized government planning is not only conservative, but a successful route for economies to take.

  • aesthete

    Nowhere have you made anything close to a comparative historical analysis.

    Your anti-trade position “rests on history” only in the same way that a child’s portrait of Washington “rests on history”.

  • Viet71

    The discussion is getting a little fuzzy for me.

  • aesthete

    Just trust that GC has it all figured out. Prices and specifics are unimportant; just realize that anything that you don’t like about the current structure of the American economy and employment situation is all free trade’s fault, and that as soon as we put up any kind of barrier we’ll be living in a utopia of 100% American free blowjob factories and cake. Oh, the cake! It will be delicious in ways that we have yet to witness under the free trade regime.

    If you disagree, you hate Reagan and George Washington.

    Also, you’ve made an eagle cry.

  • Viet71

    Or central planning, or whatever it was called then.

    Economics boils down to supply and demand. Period.

  • aesthete

    We’d have better luck explaining the fatal conceit of price-setting to a socialist.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    what is the policy of the nations from which their goods come as pertains to our right to export to them and whether or not the foreign company engages in dumping in order to drive our companies out of business so that they can then raise the price after our companies are bankrupt. (As happened to many of our industries even before NAFTA.)

    Neither I nor Pat would break current treaties, but would change policy based upon circumstances existing as agreements expire.

    Pat outlines suggested policies towards several nations and categories of goods etc in his 1998 book, The Great Betrayal, based on the circumstances at the time, which principles generally are consistent with those suggested by Adam Smith in the quote in my column; and with the principles employed by Washington, Hamilton, Adams and Jefferson after they were converted from free trade absolutism upon becoming president, respectively, Clay, Webster, Lincoln, and the GOP from 1965-1913 and in the Roaring Twenties before the liberals from Wilson and FDR won the day for Utopian free trade.

    Viet’, you need to get Pat’s book. I can’t re-type it all here to satisfy ‘thetes from the peanut gallery…smile…I have a job! Plus, Pat’s book relates to the late 90s and what policies were needed then.

    The main point here is that it is the non-defense free trade absolutists that have been sold a Utopian bill of goods based on a mis-reading of Smith’s invisible hand and who favor a policy of America grabbing its ankles and letting any company have access to our great asset, ie our consumer market. They “trust” an invisible hand rather than dirty their hands with so-called “planning”.

    Thx for the conversation my friend.

  • Viet71

    You’re a lawyer.

    What protections or barriers do you propose.

    Boil it down.

  • acat

    of the policies put forth in the treaties you reference.

    Nobody is giving away, willy-nilly, access to our domestic market. Instead, we are trading that access – a “f’n valuable thing”, as one former Illinois politician may have seen it – in exchange for equally “f’n valuable things”.

    We trade Colombia access in exchange for their efforts in the war on drugs. Ditto Mexico, and several other South American countries.

    Your assertion that we’re “giving away the farm” is a classic straw-rooster argument, DeVine One .. I’d like to see better.

    Mew

    p.s. Regarding Russian helicopters to Afghans .. look at a map, counselor! Further, Russia is more likely to leave Afghanistan alone if it’s profitable…..

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    protections and barriers as per Adam Smith’s four exceptions to free trade that are in my column, and unlike Dave_A and ‘thete, I trust that you have read more than my headline (also see the last two chapters of pat’s book for more specific proposals – I don’t respect you so much that I’l re-type War and Peace here – smile.

    Smith’s 4 exceptions w/DeVine’s general proposals thereunder:

    1) Industries necessary for the defence of the country

    DeVine is not an expert on this, but I would re-impose and/or strengthen the Reagan tariffs on steel and machine tools and technology that we are now dependent on foreign sources so as to encourage the development of same here. And if that were not enough, I would find a new Knudson and have the government subsidize same, as was done in 1939-45.

    We must depend on NO foreign source for necessary defense products and technology. PERIOD.

    2) Encouragement of domestic industry via a tariff as an equal tax

    Foreign companies would pay a tariff at least equal to taxes paid by domestic competitors so as to level the playing field.

    3) Reciprocation against the high duties or import prohibitions of other nations;

    This is self-explanatory and used to be known as SIMPLE COMMON SENSE

    and

    Use of tariffs to secure the repeal of the above in other nations so as to eventually gain access to their markets on a more equal basis. [Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and cause of the Wealth of Nations (New York: Modern Library, 1937) p. 429]

    SEE ANSWER TO #3

    Finally, let me paraphrase Hamilton: It is dangerous to be too dependent on foreign trade for our prosperity. we have the largest free market in the world here in the Lower 48. Our GDP earned by foreign trade has skyrocketed over the past 40 years of free trade. This is not making us a more a prosperous nation.

    How many Americans have to lose jobs, plants close and industries vanish before the free trade zealots quit blaming it all on labor unions and washing their hands of the problem as if there is a simple answer in which trade policy is no part? Its totally blind to the history of the US and other great world powers.

    No great nation ever free traded their way to become great nor stayed great via same.

    Now, can I get back to being a lawyer pressed only by clients and bill collectors? smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    You forced me to go into more detail, but i would defer to Pat B, as he is more knowledgeable.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    But we would need all of the following.

    Much lower corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Less restraints on hiring such as EEOC investigations and the horribly written Americans with Disabilities tax.

    And a halt to all further regulation and a rollback of a lot of unnecessary regulation particularly those from the EPA.

    Less runaway power from organized labor.

    Without all of these reforms, Tariffs are merely a mistaken attempt to correct one set of bad market interference with another.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    so I consider the trade off to be giving away the store but I you have been most constructive in this discussion and I was actually counting on you to point this out so that we can see if the peanut gallery will denounce these agreements that condition trade counter to their non-defense purist approach.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    eh?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Historically they were very low, much lower than tariffs after the 1920′s

    True they were enough to run the government, but that is because we had nearly no government compared to what we have now.

  • aesthete

    square with your for criterion above?

    1) Columbia produces nothing of value in our defense.

    2) Columbian manufacturing is primitive and negligible.

    3) Columbia is in an FTA with very favorable terms for us.

    4) See #3.

    So… what gives? Why are you against trade with Columbia?

  • aesthete

    almost every country in the world had tariffs when the US existed. The US certainly had far less internal tariffs than any European country, and a free trade zone that spans a continent, stable legal system, liberalized markets, etc have a way of making up for other deficiencies. Your analysis is like that of a child: markets are resilient and often exceed the arbitrary chains that government places on them (see China, which is on the low end of Heritage’s Index of Economic Freedom and still manages high growth rates). US tariffs were set at *very* different rates during US history, and this variance did in fact have a negative impact on the US economy. Plenty of other countries with less economic advantages than the US developed very well through free trade: Argentina had a first-world standard of living and employment at the turn of the 20th century, and was at the time a much better economic performer than the comparatively protectionist Chile. That is what is called a natural experiment, and analysis of like situations is *critical* for your analysis to be more than gibbering nonsense.

    I don’t hold mere ignorance against people, but when you are the one claiming to be an expert (or at least, informed enough to write an advocacy column), you have an obligation to engage in more analysis than, “hey, we weren’t a craphole were we”.

  • JSobieski

    that it is nonetheless brilliant in its ability to use tariffs on foreign imports to achievdomestic economic outcomes? The proof for this clear—we have a great country, and we have never had 0% tariffs.

    People who are against markets always project onto their adversaries the weaknesses of their own position—which is why free trade utopianism is part of GC’s lexicon now.

    Why anyone thinks a person in DC can do certain things (besides getting out of the way) to help make the US more prosperous is puzzling.

    Many on the right just want to be the managers of the social engineering, or a different form of government interference. Ask them specific questions about how to go about setting the proper level of tariff, and you get crickets.

    Even if tariffs worked in theory, who could be trusted to decide what tariffs should be set at?

    Does voting R simply mean that we take the guys from the Education and EPA bureaucracies and re-employ them to determine proper tariff levels?

  • aesthete

    It’s crazy how turning your brain off ends your questions about how to implement policy and, y’know, specifics.

    Well, that and heavy drinking.

    Only utopians care about specifics!

  • acat

    Ike was not misguided. Ike was looking beyond today.

    Bit too statist for my personal taste, but he found a way to get something for very little…. and in the depths of the cold war.

    Mew

  • acat

    or brother or nephew…

    Not all unions operate this way, but enough do to be a problem. They’ve become very medieval-feudal .. and the end result is predictable.

    Mew

  • acat

    the answers become somewhat clearer.

    Let me phrase your question another way. Do you want people to spend 40 years taking a widget from one belt and sticking tab A into slot B on another belt? Is that any kind of a life?

    There’s plenty of skilled trade opportunities. Some of ‘em may involve entrepreneurial risk, some will involve re-training… and I really don’t have a problem with *limited* government re-training, provided it’s limited in actuality, not in some hypothetical easy-to-beat way, and provided its’ graduates can actually *get* *and* *do* *a* *job*….

    Your question, by the way is not complete. “If we know a technology can be employed, and if we know that our competitors will employ it if we don’t, do we assume it should or must be employed?” I don’t see a problem with letting unskilled factory floor work go away. We didn’t seem to lose much, in our society, when we let children stop working in the mills, I figure we’ll get through this.

    Mew

  • avgjo

    an income tax in those times. That would definitely have to go, along with all the stuff kyle8 mentioned below.

    As the founders set up the Constitution, it is well within the govt’s power to set tariffs, and they being the political and economic genii they were, apparently they did this for a reason.Can’t argue with results. But we would have to restore our gov’t to early 19th size and shape (with few exceptions, obviously) for it to work. This seems to be one of those ‘it works as part of a whole’ situations.

  • acat

    Government-funded? Different story.

    Why aren’t companies that need welders out looking for skilled kids?

    Why aren’t companies that need oil engineers out looking for high school kids with good math scores who like to get their hands dirty?

    Thing is, until the industry-sponsored scholarships (with a legally binding “Must spend X years in the industry” contract) show up, not believing the industry is all that interested.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    You had the revenue raising and protectionist levels that fluctuated much over 11 decades.

    I agree that tariffs would not be a major factor today on the budget, but by high, I mean that many tariffs did shut the door on foreign nations often. Mostly though, they were used to match the taxes that domestic companies paid so as to level the playing field.

    Its in the book with footnotes.

    This kind of lawyerly accountability is what I contribute to Redstate! smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Yes, ‘ski, who could be trusted to do anything “right” since Eve bit the apple? But many countries have beat the US with their protectionist and dumping trade policies. Welcome to the real world. smile? no

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    insetea

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    my humble opinion.

    But as with FDR, I give Ike a pass because he din’t have hindsight.

    W E DO!

    use it

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Your law is the result of Establishment pols who all agree. Does that give you comfort? Me and Pat are poltroons…as were Washington, Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln et al

  • JSobieski

    Your precious tariffs haven’t saved US jobs by your own arguments. So you need tariffs to be even higher, but are in no position to suggest which tariffs to which countries should up by what amount.

    There are very few free trade people in DC. Most of the establishment of both parties just plays poltics with the issue.

    Free trade is what Hong Kong does—lowers tariffs regardless of what other countries do.

    What you, the DC establishment, and all liberals share is an inabilty to propose any system that works better than capitalism.

    The fact that you mock the invisible hand on the tariff issue while simultaneously defending it domestically reveals a lack of intellectual coherence.

    If people in DC can social engineer prosperity, why not go 100%? Why limit the tools to tariffs? All taxes should be used. So should all subsidies.

    Push for the right wing version of Solyndra if you want. No doubt the majority of Americans agree with you—just as they agree pre-existing conditions should not be discriminated against, that SS should not be transformed into private accounts, that the K-12 ed should not be voucherized, and that the Ryan plan would kill medicare.

    There is no logical reason to support government tinkering for economic purposes with regards to tariffs while opposing such tinkering with regards to other types of taxes and subsidizes.

    Will you be calling to immitate the way in which the French government identifies “national champions” and finds all sorts of ways to support zombie corporations?

    Either free entered into exchanges is the path to prosperity, or it isn’t.

    You might as well endorse the position that capitalism is only good on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but is otherwise harmful on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    free trade as a policy, Bravo and thx – nt
    ntease

  • Dave_A

    And it’s usually ‘Communications & Marketing’ or something to that effect.

    Now, that’s not to say that we don’t have worthless degrees out there – ‘(XYZ) Studies’ and ‘Humanities/Liberal Arts’ being the top example…

    But you cannot ‘rehabilitate’ physical labor simply because manufacturing will never be worth the same pay as marketing, information systems, finance, and so on – without substantial market-destroying government intervention….

    The entire adult population of the world can ‘make stuff’…

    The entire gradeschool-or-above literate adult population can ‘make stuff’ well enough to function in a western-style manufacturing economy…

    That is a huge supply of labor for an ever-shrinking demand FOR that labor…

    It is to the point where the only way to make unskilled manufacturing a viable first-world occupation, is such extensive & economy-wide government intervention that it makes unskilled manufacturing a welfare-check disguised as a job.

    It’s taxing me via tariffs on the products I buy (that I, not the companies selling or importing the products, end up paying) to pay someone else to do a job that should NOT exist in America.

    And I oppose it absolutely, because it’s no better than just putting them on the dole…

  • Dave_A

    We just don’t have any that specialize in aircraft for 3rd-world nations, because the Russians and Chinese own that market… It’s not economically viable to compete there under normal circumstances, so our helo makers don’t…

    We compete with the Europeans for the high-end of the market, where a glass cockpit & exotic composite construction are a plus, not a deal-breaker…

    There’s as much market for an aircraft suitable to the Afghan needs here in ‘normal’ times (where we are not supporting the Afghan government as a means of accomplishing a military objective) as there is for Lexus to make a $9,000 subcompact to compete with KIA…

    As for other dependencies, the only ‘critical’ systems we buy from foreign firms are our small arms, simply because of the US government ‘Arsenal System’ that controlled military small arms until the M16 & a civilian firearms market that only recently (mid-00s – courtesy of a new generation of shooters who played video games before they touched a real gun) came to accept & demand modern designs over ‘classics’….

    BUT we require that said guns be made here, even if the contracts do go to FN, Beretta, and HK.

    That leaves exotic minerals (Titanium – yes, we bought the material to make the SR-71 from the USSR) that the US doesn’t have major deposits of within our borders, non-essential items, and cooperative projects such as the M1A1 Abrams (US drivetrain, British armor, German gun)…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    bless

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    you. I make my own rules…smile.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    neeeteesee

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    but one.

  • Dave_A

    Stats such as HP/lb, MPG, top-speed, 0-60 & 1/4mi times, the age of the design components…

    The fact is, what Reagan’s tariff did, was force the Japanese to design sub-700cc bikes that outperform Harley’s 883 & 1200cc-ers…

    This HURTS H-D in the global market, they are LESS competitive because of it. If you are shopping for a motorcycle purely on it’s merits as a vehicle Harley doesn’t even make the list.

    HAD WE NOT ‘PROTECTED’ Harley, then THEY would have had to design a better motorcycle to compete with the Japanese… And it would have made them a stronger company in the long-term.

    Instead, we just forced the Japanese to make a superior product even more superior, to get around our tariff, while encouraging Harley to muddle through with their 1940s-vintage engine designs & heavy steel construction…

    P.S. I worked as a contractor in HD-corporate for a while when I lived in Milwaukee…

  • Dave_A

    Quite simply, absent the possible case of government-owned socialist industries, ‘dumping’ simply can’t exist…

    The free market doesn’t allow for a company to stay in business long enough while selling at a loss, to sink an entire industry – especially in a larger foreign market.

    ‘Dumping’ is the cry of non-competitive & often one-time or currently trade-protected firms, who want government to save them from their own failure….

  • Dave_A

    Much of what Hamilton advocated (And, see my sig – I’m a fan) can be predicated within the context of the ‘political struggle of the day’…

    The issue, was weather the US should industrialize (the Federalist, Conservative provision – advocated by Alexander Hamilton) or remain an agricultural society (the Democratic-Republican, Liberal position – advocated by Thomas Jefferson).

    The D-R position was predicated on agriculture being ‘morally superior’ to commerce & manufacturing, and the fact that the D-R’s strength was in the agricultural southern colonies…

    The Federalist position was predicated on a broader plan to develop the US into an independent power capable of standing on it’s own – which required development of industries that were not needed (and were actively discouraged by Britain) in the colonial period.

    From a Federalist perspective, if the US did not develop it’s own industries, we would be gradually ‘sucked back in’ to the British Empire through the UK’s mercantilist trade policies (wherein colonies traded raw goods back to the UK, in exchange for UK-made finished goods)…

    In the same sense that George Washington’s farewell-advise on isolationisim was valid for a weak new Republic, but not a global power…

    Hamilton’s trade structure was ‘training wheels’ for the US economy, designed to get us safely out of the UK’s orbit & standing on our own two feet… It is not relevant to the modern situation….

  • aesthete

    Other countries beat us with hard work and comparative advantage, *not* protectionism. Every thrice-damned country in sub-Saharan Africa engages in protectionism. Guess how competitive they are. Almost every country in Latin America has a 100% auto import tax. Guess how many successful Latin American auto manufacturers there are. The UK and India had very high tariffs for automobiles during the 60s. That did not stop their auto industries from careening down a cliff.

    Historically, Japan’s subsidy of its automobile program changed extensively: initially, it picked cars and car companies which generally did very poorly. Almost all of the cars subsidized by Japan in the early years of subsidy were “heavy” American-style cars which, as we know, were *not* the cars that Japan sold and did well with. Japan’s government picked losers the first time around, and only subsidized the automobiles that Japan was known for *after* success in European markets. Success came before subsidy. You don’t see many Daihatsus on the road, do you? Yet, that was the most subsidized Japanese automaker through the 50s and 60s. Honda did receive subsidies until they were an established motorcycle company, and even then it did not receive subsidies for its successful small cars until after achieving success with those models. American cars never penetrated Japanese markets (or other 3rd world countries, for that matter) because they were expensive gas hogs that only Americans could afford to run, *not* because of tariffs. There are stil third world countries with liberalized trade that don’t import automobiles for that reason.

    The reason Japan did well while India didn’t? Hard work, culture, and liberalization. That is also why Korea is pushing Japan out of the picture. Currently, it is the top country as far as work hours logged per citizen. Moral of the story: hard work pays off, even if government is doing stupid things. Japan still subsidizes its automakers. It has not liberalized trade. It is still losing enormous market share to Korean auto companies.

  • avgjo

    As for it being not relevant to our current situation, I’m not sure. We’re in a slightly different situation, where we don’t necessarily provide the raw materials, but we do rely on other nations for many, many of our consumables. I guess one key difference is that they rely on our consumption as well. I know that many who know more about this stuff than I say that such imbalances are not important. It seems to me that at an individual level, if my consumption is greater than my production, the outcome is not good. I guess I’m having trouble seeing the difference at the national level. I’d appreciate an explanation for sure…

  • WmCraig

    You point is important. If you have never worked in a factory that built tanks during World War II, then you do not understand the scale of what we have lost. Yes I have, and no, they weren’t building tanks when I was working there. Houses. Yes, houses.
    Great big hugh houses, running down a set of tracks that once moved M4 Shermans around like Tonka toys.

    Turning America into a public park for the benefit of the already rich isn’t smart. Being the worlds industrial powerhouse will always give us an advantage, and anyone that think the politics of the world has been settled is spending too much time studying their naval. We are in the most unstable political environment since 1914.

    But there is a solution. It won’t come from Washington. The stronger Washington becomes the greater threat a strong America is to the imperial government that has evolved inside the beltway.

    The solution is to do to the 16th and 17th Amendments what we did to the 18th. And since this year is the centennial of the ratification of the 16th amendment there is no better time.

    Fighting to win control of the Imperial Washington government is important, but short term. Americans will be conned again by some smooth talking socialist who wants to advance the idea of a President for life. The only way to maintain control over the power of Washington is to take away their allowance. The states are more than capable of collecting and distributing taxes without federal involvement all thanks to computers and the internet. And the Feds can line up like other vendors to get paid, the way the founders intended. It will make their focus on budget, restraint, and international affairs far more focused.

  • Ausonius

    Your ideas are all correct. Every one of those things must be done: can it be demonstrated that they alone could make American factories competitive?

    If so, then yes, tariffs would not be needed.

    With hardly any factories left manufacturing e.g. shoes (99% of all shoes sold in America are from foreign countries), America has returned on that basis to the 19th century as a developing nation.

    Vietnamese workers make under $1.50 an hour working for NIke Shoes: how does the American worker, making a not exorbitant $10. per hour, come close to competing?

    See:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015794298_newbalance02.html

  • funwithknives

    is ongoing, but the need is huge, injust a very few years. Welding is only one trade in this predicament. Welding manufacturers are in the loop {Lincoln} going so far as-to create a GGI simulator to teach basics.
    Please realize that the tax suggestion was just that. Community colleges in the areas affected see the problem and respond given the funds are somehow available.
    South Carolina is continually noted by industries moving there of the Cooperation the Local C C establishment can and does provide.{see:Boeing and it’s various suppliers, for one example]

    As-much as I [and you it would seem} detest Governmental “assistance’ ,sometimes and in some ways it ain’t always ‘a bad thing’.
    Relaxed Requirements for instruction certs allow old-timers in many trades to teach what they know in C C ‘s. Affected Industries can and do supply the devices/machinery/implements needed.

    In reality I do not see too much of this reality coming from Barry.
    He’s Much Too Busy with all that other ‘stuff’, that means so much more to Him and His.
    If Markets jump as I suspect they’re gonna, this will become front page news.
    {If they were somehow called *Green*, we’d be there already…}

    As-always,respectful of felines everywhere, FWK

  • JSobieski

    Protectionism makes no sense when done for ECONOMIC purposes, it does have valid military and foreign policy purposes. Defense is but a subset of that class.

    You feel insulted when I accuse you of not understanding my position. 20 comments later—you misstate my position.

    Still waiting for your expertise on how raising tariffs will save US manufacturing jobs when even countries like China are losing manufacturing jobs due to technology,

    Is the GC wing of the party against the use of machine tools, robots, and other equipment?

    After all, there are human beings we are talking about?

    All of you arguments for protectionism sound like leftists defending Obamacare.

    (1) They mock the invisible hand and falsely imply that we have already tried free market economics in healthcare
    (2) They imply that the other side doesn’t care about the humanity of the less fortunate

    It is far far better to have an efficient capitalist system that we can use to fund a safety net for those who fall through then it is to make the entire system inefficient for the benefit of 10% of the population.

    The argument above applies ot Obamacare, and your desire to raise tariffs and government intervention in the economy.

    The US is the #1 manufacturer in the world. So why increase tariffs?

  • JSobieski

    Let me make reference to a specific example:

    Tarrifs on rubber tires from China

    http://www.importswork.com/protectionism-costs-more-jobs-than-it-saves/

    http://www.iie.com/publications/interstitial.cfm?ResearchID=2095

    Obama bragged in his 2012 SOU address that 1,200 jobs were saved as a result of his tire tariffs. The net impact on jobs is estimated to b around a 2,570 jobs LOST. Moreover, China retaliated against US chicken imports.

    Even ignoring the Chinese retaliation and the loss of retail jobs, the tariff cost US consumers about $1.1B in 2011—-a cost of at least $900,000/job.

    Heck, the stimulus package passed by the D’s had a lower cost per job.

    Far better to use a small portion of that money for eduction/retraining vouchers than to save jobs.

    Government planners are very smart and the opposite of heartless.
    Government planners mock capitalism and accuse it of having failed.

    Maybe GC is just better at government intervention than anyojne else in human history?

    Bottom Line: Tarrifs are LESS efficient than Obama’s stimulus package. That speaks volumes . . .

  • JSobieski

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-004.pdf

    Opps… guess not.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    If your nation is manufacturing shoes, textiles and low end consumer goods then that means YOU ARE A POOR NATION! We ought not even want to be making those sort of things.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Buchanan might have some facts, but the gist of it is still wrong. I stand by my statement. Tariffs for the most part before Smoot hawley were low. More-so when you consider we had no income tax. Therefore the bite of the tariffs was less.

    At any rate Buchanan is an economic illiterate. he cannot see that what might work for an emerging industrial nation will fail in a mature economy.

    China has a lot of protectionism as well, and they have a high rate of growth. But that means that their people are paying a subsidy so that rich Americans can buy cheaper products. That is hardly a sustainable situation. Eventually the growth slows, as it is now doing, and the people say, why the hell is everything so damn expensive?

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    You build that huge capital plant and you have to fix it, perform constant environmental remediation, constant upgrades to it and then disose of it intelligently at the end of its lifecycle. This is generally 50 to 75 percent of the cost of a major capital operation, and if you can’t or won’t do what’s necessary to stay competitive, you can throw the cost that the tariff imposes on your own population onto that perpetual list of costs that are associated w/ a major manufacturing operation.

  • lineholder

    Jobs are scarce right now, particularly in inner-city areas. This is also where dependency on social welfare programs is the highest.

    If it is possible to come up with options that might be utilized for the purpose of decreasing dependency on those programs, then we should remain open-minded about considering those options, even if it means producing what might be categorized as low-end consumer goods.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Because of many government barriers to hiring as well as the minimum wage, those unemployed problem youth will still not get jobs. In fact most of those inner city areas are dominated by political machines and that means unions.

    So all you would get is slower economic growth, higher consumer prices, and more crony capitalism and big labor subsidies.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    and more worried about the long term viability of the industries GC suggests protecting. Keep around an industry that produces nothing that anyone wants at the given price, and we’ve still just created a welfare program by another name.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    works some of the time and is a dismal fail in others. Free trade with a nation such as Canada and Australia – all day long and twice on Sunday. The market is developed to afford our products and any job loss is offset by companies from that nation hiring here or the the increase in market actually lifts both job markets. Examples of the positives of trade with developing markets: Volkswagon, Toyota and Nissan all have plants in the United States with US workers.

    Where I am hazy as to the benefit of free trade is free trade with undeveloped markets with little potential due to population wealth and size. Free trade agreements with Southeastern Amazon Guinea normally end up with jobs to manufacture softballs in SAG for 1.50 a day with no developing market because 1.50 per day doesn’t provide the werewithal to purchase US made watches and automobiles. In fact, if you manufacture watches and automobiles and then search out this kind of break on labor, it is the ultimate short term gain; long term government bailout because you disrupt your best market (US) for a market where your product will never be sold (SAG).

    Like everything else, free trade agreements with other countries should undergo rigourous analysis as to cost/benefit. Where there is mutual gain to be had, by all means we should pursue them; where there is not, we walk away.

    In terms of job growth, a national right to work law would be much more advantageous than Free Trade Agreements (no accident those Volkswagon, Nissan, and Toyota plants are all in right to work states).

  • lineholder

    Hear me out, okay? And keep two things in mind when you read this. The first is that I’m looking at options outside the scope of tariffs. The second is that given the way our welfare system is constructed, once people get into the system, it is very difficult to get out of it.

    I’ll throw in the short explanation of this…asset limitations don’t get reviewed to take into consideration inflation or current economic situations, so people living within the system don’t have the option of saving enough money that would let them break from the system without violating the law on asset limitations. The point is…how to provide options that might prevent people from choosing that social welfare path? We don’t have enough high-tech job opportunities to support the market for job-seekers. We need all the options we can get.

    Getting the system changed at a federal level would be difficult to do. But what if states could come up with a way to provide exclusions that might allow this to begin to happen without violating federal law? (Yes, I know it’s a long shot, but all the same…it could be an option)

    Consider what is happening in the state of LA with educational vouchers. The voucher system, as proposed, includes apprenticeships. Suppose this allowed students at a high school level to obtain the basic fundamentals of education needed while providing a means of earning an income at the same time.

    For example, suppose an entity established a process whereby nontraditional mfg. methods were utilized for the purpose of offering these apprenticeships. Case in point, simple option….pre-cut fabric on CNC machinery with assembly taking place at a student’s place of residence via simple sewing operations. Then suppose a business contracts for items produced to market in retail locations (and as it just so happens I personally know of a business with 700 locations nation-wide that would be willing to consider doing this if it could be proven that reliability of delivery would be maintained)

    It could be part of the educational apprenticeship for students to produce goods at a piece-rate payment, along with learning about product quality, product design, product marketing, productivity, machine operations, costs of goods…basically just incorporating education on free-market capitalism into the voucher system.

    The incomes that are earned might be a means of providing other post-graduation options for these young people, kyle8. The experience could prove to be invaluable in real life for these young people…to simply learn what it means to work and that they have what it takes to succeed.

    I know it’s quite a way outside the proverbial box…I just think we should keep as many options open as we can.

  • lineholder

    supporting any type of state-managed capitalistic subsidized-production programs.

    See my response to kyle8 above.

    Long shot, I know, but if we really want to see things start to change, we have to think outside the box, take a different approach, etc.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    would work even better in an industry where we have a comparative advantage.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    They maximize productivity, by maximizing productivity you lower costs and increase economic growth. This creates wealth. Any outcome which is not optimum will necessarily decrease economic growth.

    This lower growth has a long term impact because the economy grows the same way a savings account grows, by compounding on previous growth.

    Therefore there is an opportunity cost to any meddling in the market which creates an artificial barrier to maximum productivity.

    The quality or advancement of the trade partners is immaterial. They posses a comparative advantage on some things and we do on others. The creation of wealth is not done by government action but by the discreet action of millions of free players in the free market.

  • lineholder

    IMO, we overlook options like this that could have the potential to succeed when we start eliminating types of goods to be produced…which is why I responded to your comments above in the first place (and that isn’t meant to be offensive to you personally…I hope you realize that)

    If we start with something relatively simple then expand on it…who knows what other doors of opportunity might open!

    What’s more, kyle8, there’s this as well….

    http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/opinion/republicans-miss-chance-on-education/article_1b8ffa68-bcf2-11e1-aaf9-001a4bcf887a.html

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Economic growth is driven by consumption and employment fueled by capital. When the marketplace has employment, those folks will use their capital to consume. This consumption drives corporate profits, allowing for more expansion leading to more employment. When you enter into free trade agreements with other nations that negatively affect employment in some industries (sewing softballs for instance), the new market has to be able consume products made in the US of A to create expansion in employment to offset the jobs lost. Even better your trade partner finds the job market in the US teeming with qualified workers and moves jobs here. Comparative advantage trading, in general, is hooey. We trade in automobiles with Germany because advanced markets desire diversity (i.e. Germans want Fords; we want BMW’s). A market whose only comparative advantage is labor does nothing but create employment holes in the US market. We should only engage in free trade with markets that can provide reciprocal advantage.

  • Viet71

    I loathe the change; but I’m a realist. And I have a second house in rural Arizona.

    The U.S. does not depend on tariffs today. Either to protect jobs or to protect the nation. Jobs are a function of the global market. National defense today is largely a matter of electrical engineering and computer science.

    Tariffs are old fashioned. I don’t know as much history as you. Or Economics. But I know, to a degree, modern-day technology and weaponry.

  • aesthete
  • bbjaylive

    Why would you want to bring those menial jobs back home? China sends America tons of cheap stuff and America doesn’t send them anything. It just credits their bank accounts with digits.

  • dragan

    Doing trade with countries like India and China, that thrive purely on labor wage arbitrage, is the true black mark for free trade. India and China simply provide cheap bodies and in turn supply low quality products and services. They do not consume US goods to the extent as to make a dent in the number of jobs lost due to trading with them.

  • dragan

    “Tons of cheap stuff” is exactly the problem. Since they don’t compensate for jobs lost here, they essentially reduce the quality of life for the Americans. Free Trade should be reciprocal. In the case with China and India, we use their slave labor for getting costs don but lose out on the revenue front by crushing our labor force

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    of great economists from Adam Smith and Bastiat, to Milton Friedman and Frederik Hayek.

    I know that is an appeal to authority, but in this case I think it is appropriate because almost nothing you said is supported by either theory or evidence.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    The periods in this nation since WW2 in which we produced the most jobs and had a high rate of wage growth are exactly those times when trade with those nations increased.

    Whether they buy things we make or not is not important, we pay for things in dollars and they have to bring those dollars back in some form or the other, Either through buying our food, or our treasury bonds, or they directly invest in US companies.

    The entire world has gotten rich since the major nations liberalized trade in the 1980′s. We have a rough time now because of actions of government, but putting up trade barriers would be a nail in our economic coffin.

  • JSobieski

    so your approach actually hurts US exports.

  • bbjaylive

    They do all the menial jobs, so we don’t have to. We get their manufactured goods dirt cheap. Therefore, this elevates the quality of life for the average American. Let them do all the low paying menial jobs, we’ll be fine with all the hi-tech high paying jobs.

  • bbjaylive

    The trading relationship America has with China and India is a win-win situation. You must be living in a time warp if you think that what is manufactured in China and India are “low quality products”.

    As China and India gets richer as nations, then naturally their demand for US goods will increase but even if it doesn’t SO WHAT? About 70% of US GDP is personal consumption. America can can consume its own goods.

    As to the numbers of jobs lost, those jobs really don’t matter. Losing those jobs is like scraping off dead skin.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    is to insist that over time trade actually causes more jobs and higher wages. Although I agree with what you said, it sounds callous.

    Free trade does cause temporary displacement of some workers and I don’t want to sound like I don’t care. But in the long run we are so much better off.

    Attempts to place us in a protectionist bubble would not only cause us to pay a lot more, but it would slow growth and result in crony capitalism, bailouts, and shoddy goods and service.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I hit the wrong reply

  • bbjaylive

    Also, I would say that it is more that technology creates more jobs than free trade and especially if the capital to make that technology came at a greater cost to the manufacturer than labour did.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    but over the long run standard of livings increase. Standard of living is a bit harder to quantify and compare over time periods, it might include average wage increases but would also include lower costs, and other things that are harder to measure.

    Such as, a top of the line automobile of the 1970′s is not as comfortable, safe, efficient, or long lasting as a low priced automobile of today. these sort of incremental advantages are real, but do not show up in statistics.

    And they are caused by technology, but also by trade. Because trade increases competition.

  • lineholder

    If there is anything at all that this nation should have learned during the last three years of watching stagnancy in the private sector and high unemployment rates is that we should not take employment opportunities for granted.

    I don’t know where you are on the income scale, bbjaylive, but I know plenty of people who would be more than willing to do those menial jobs you describe as “dead skin” if it would let them get out of the social welfare system!

  • JSobieski

    The cost to the economy of jobs “saved” by government intervention are incredibly high–whether by stimulus or tariff.

    There are still plenty of menial jobs available in the US. Not to mention lots of unfilled jobs in fields like spot welding, plumbing, mechanics, CNC programmers, etc.

  • JSobieski

    industrial equipment (Caterpillar anyone?), food, architectual services, pharmaceuticals, etc.

    Your view of the economy is narrowly focused on certain subsets of consumer goods. If you look at the wider range of products, we do quite well.

    If you want a chart of the top 10 PRODUCTS exported to China, see the link below.

    https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

    None of the things on the chart are consumer goods, which is why you may not be aware of them.

    $10.8B in power generation equipment.
    $7.2B in electrical machinary and equipment.
    $6.4B in vehicles.
    Read the list. BUSINESSES in China import US products.

  • lineholder

    It’s stuns me that so many people seem to be willing to simply give up entirely on considering ways by which free-market enterprise opportunities could still exist, even for some of the types of jobs that bbjaylive made reference to above!

    I mean….you’re kidding, right? High unemployment with ever-increasing dependency on government welfare programs, and we’re going to automatically start elimination potential jobs opportunities…to what end goal?

    But no, I wouldn’t support a modern day WPA. Never have done so and still don’t even now.

  • acat

    What *didn’t* we *lose* by doing this?

    I will remind you that, for most of the Cold War, we were playing dominoes with South America, Africa, the Middle East, with certain events in Korea and Southeast Asia showing what could have been.

    You’re looking at this too narrowly, DeVine One.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    lose that skepticism when it comes to tariffs.

    However, I don’t see anyone advocating that government eliminate potential job opportunities.

  • JSobieski

    http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/tradeagreements/fta/tg_ian_001983.asp

    That rate of increase exceeds the 15% world wide increase in US exports.

    That is a lot of jobs. How can you be so heartless—those are real people. People with families, homes, … and JOBS!!!!!

    Apparently Columbia exported $9.3B in merchandise to the US in 2006—so people do find their products to be helpful to their lives.

    Columbia exports nickel and copper to the US, but I can see why most attorneys wouldn’t consider such materials to be helpful. After all, those are materials used to actually make things.

  • lineholder

    And to be honest with you, I’m not even referring to the tariff end of it either.

    It is stunning, JSobieski. Day in and day out, Conservatives constantly bemoan and groan about high spending costs on the part of government, entrenched entitlement programs, etc., etc., etc.

    Yet in almost the same breath, they talk down and belittle jobs that they apparently see as being beneath our notice as American citizens….”dead skin”, as bbjaylive called it.

    Oh, no, we can’t have anything like that…only high-paying, hi-tech jobs will do for us, eh?

    I don’t know what it is going to take for Conservatives to start thinking outside the cotton-picking box and become creative and innovative that we can be leaders is bringing about the kind of changes we say that we want to see happen in this country of ours, but I sure as the dickens hope it happens SOON!

    And they wonder why nothing changes!

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    China and India are the two largest markets in the world. If they don’t cheat us, then there is a reciprocal benefit to entering into trade agreements. There are however markets where there is no benefit to the US because the markets aren’t developed by 1.50 per day jobs (and those markets aren’t India and China). My point is that “all free trade all the time” is as backward as “no free trade ever”. When the US benefits, yes to free trade, where there is no benefit walk away.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    We live in a very global society now and to try and shut ourselves out of it with trade barriers would only see us fall behind as the rest of the world went ahead.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    China and India are worth entering into agreements with even if they do cheat us. Again,if there is a benefit do it. There are no absolutes.

  • JSobieski

    I agree with you that the dignity of the unskilled laborer is not something to besmirch (I would not mock them in the way that GC mocks people who support lower taxes in the context of trade).

    I think the challenge of how we deal with people displaced from the increasingly volatile job market may be the key to saving capitalism itself. Maybe the budget/deficits/debt/entitlement issue has moved that issue to #2, but I think they are related.

    The facts are:
    (1) There are plenty of unskilled labor positions that go unfilled because people don’t want to do that kind fo hard work for such little pay
    (2) It is a lot cheaper to help people with a safety net than it is to try and help them with protectionism.

    Let me make an analogy to prexisting conditions and Obamacare.

    Leftists point to the pre-existing conditions issue and want make the entire system inefficient to deal with that problem.

    Conservatives want to preserve the overally efficiency of the system, and deal with the preexisting conditions as an exception/safety net issue.

    If we have an efficient capitalist economy, we will have the money to deal with the 10% outliers.

    If we don’t, we will have more unemployed, more problems, etc. that no economy can long support.

    Keep the machine running efficiently, and we have options as to how to deal with those left behind. Make the engine run less efficiently, and we will become desparate—like Greece.

  • JSobieski

    I wonder how much US manufacturers would appreciate being able to import Columbian copper and nickel without having to pay the tariff?

    Low tariffs can actually be a form of competitive advantage–just ask Hong Kong.

    One man’s outputs are another man’s inputs.

  • JSobieski

    A country with nothing to offer has nothing to trade.

    Which is why tourism is the #1 industry for a lot of places, including Greece.

    There is no reason to use government to impede trade with a country that has nothing offer.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    The two massive bailouts actually came in two of the industries that have most aggressively outsourced labor to other countries: the auto and banking industries. Their problem being that in sending jobs to other places they ripped a hole in the US labor market and then didn’t develop new markets for their goods because the cheap labor didn’t allow people to afford their products. The US’s strongest negotiating position with any partner is a wide, diverse market. I simply only ask that when we give that away, there is a payoff. Trade only increases jobs and wages if both markets can sustain open and free trade.

  • JSobieski

    Banking jobs in the US have not gone overseas—they were lost due to technology. The fact that this trend happened at the same time that banks expanded overseas doesn’t equate to causation.

    The problem in 2008 was caused by an asset bubble. The resulting chaos killed demand… not a hole in the labor pool. You described in the problem in precisely how the UAW, Teamsters, and other unions would.

    Outsourcing negatively impacts a small subset of workers, but it positively impacts the prices on good for everyone else in the economy. By making product X less expensive, I have more money to spend on other things and to invest in other things. Making some components in the supply chain less expensive can actually help keep manufacturing downstream in the US.

    Your analysis is basically that if we dropped an extra $10,000 to each employee from a helicopter that everything would work out because employees would be able to afford the goods that they make.

    Until the credit crunch (cause by the popping of a bubble), people could buy whatever they wanted. That was in fact . . part of the problem.

    There are losers when it comes to free trade. There are losers when it comes to not having communism. The idea that only diverse economies should be engaged with in trade is simply untrue.

    The reasons for wanting less trade with Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the fact that it basically produces nothing besides oil, but rather other things having nothing to do with economics.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Cheap labor but the problem comes when we export labor and nothing else, the labor market here is harmed and that harm is never offset by the development of the new market (i.e. the purchasing of other goods) because the 1.50 a day market never develops. I have no issue with free trade as long as there is reciprocal value.

  • lineholder

    to growth in the economy, doesn’t it? If growth in our economy isn’t enough to support increases in the costs of the safety net, then it hasn’t be considered from a different viewpoint, doesn’t it? And that’s the direction we’re heading in…at the speed of light!

    It’s just really frustrating, JSobieski, to see Conservatives of all people being so closed-minded in their outlook on things.

    It is possible that those low-skilled manufacturing jobs people keep denigrating to the high heaven could be decentralized via advances in technology in such a way that people could assemble products from their own homes. And if that were to take place, then it could, possibly, break the strong hold social welfare has in inner city areas…where businesses normally do not want to set up shop, for a lot of different reasons.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    When someone disagrees, they have to be a democrat or better yet a communist? Did I call you names? I stated repeatedly I have no issue with outsourcing or free trade provided the market in the other country provides opportunities for us goods. When employment suffers, the entire economy goes down a sinking tide also sinks all boats. The magical price reduction you talk about on the supply side never occurs. Did automobile prices drop with outsourcing? There is a simple reason for this: markets set prices not producers. Producers will always charge the highest price the market will bear. This is regardless of the cost of production including labor.

    Under your argument about price being less, a T-shirt sold at Wal-Mart for $5 pre-outsourcing would be $3 post outsourcing but that does not happen. It is $5 after, only the producers profit went up (which for the producer I have no problem with). Now the problem becomes when less demand occurs because less people can afford $5 t-shirts. Then the value would have to drop to demand level or supply would drop if demand disappeared (or dropped below the cost of supply). Supply and demand always look to achieve equilibrium, regardless of cost of production.

    Again, look no name calling…

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    would have said no outsourcing ever regardless of potential benefit.

  • aesthete

    In part, your economic argument (specifically the part dealing with welfare) is ironclad: welfare raises reservation wages (the wage at which a person is willing to accept a job) and hinders job creation and economic development in the lower rungs of an economy as well as having the side effect of increased cost for those goods and services due to the higher cost of labor inputs. Even in the most developed economies, this is a problem.

    In the context of free trade, you lose me. If you’re simply making an argument about the dignity (and to some extent, recuperability) of low-skill, low-wage jobs in America, I agree on principle. In practice, there are some jobs that it doesn’t make sense for companies to do in the US en masse. No American is going to accept a job where the paycheck for a 12-hour day is $2. No American is going to work in sweatshop conditions. Yet, these very same jobs and conditions are a HUGE improvement for third-worlders transitioning out of subsistence economies. It has been documented in places like Thailand that child prostitution and other horrors will increase substantially when a manufactory closes down. There are more choices available to the American worker, in part because the American worker is well-educated and “”, and in part because markets are freer. Artisanal shops and goods are complements which I can see the US doing well, but we’re not going to return to the sort of large scale un-individualized low-wage manufacturing that third-world countries do.

  • aesthete

    is comparative.

    Comparative advantage exists. It is the entire *reason* for the difference in wages between various professions. Denying that comparative advantage exists is like denying that gravity exists: sure, you can choose to not believe in it, but it is something that affects you (and on which you base your choices) every single day.

    It’s a comparative advantage world. We’re just living in it.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I had not thought of and a very compelling argument. I don’t know if I am ready to believe the mantra “Free trade always works for US interests” but I had honestly not considered the counterargument that US workers would never accept sweatshop conditions and that is an upgrade in other places. There would be no reason for tariffs or not accepting free trade in these markets because the US is not competitive. Really, this is what I want an analysis each time we enter into an agreement as to the cost/benefit instead of being told “trust me it will work out”. Thank you, Aesthete.

  • aesthete

    Labor is a good like any other, and its availability at lower prices provides an opportunity for firms to lower their prices in an attempt to eliminate a competition. In a free market, IMO, the better correlation is that both the auto industry and financial industry in the US are some of its most highly regulated markets. Medicine is not being “outsourced”, yet costs have gone up and “bailouts” and subsidies of various forms have been put into place for that industry. It is also a highly regulated part of the economy. Conversely, consumer electronics have been massively impacted by foreign trade, but has not experienced any of the problems that you note. It is also a sector of the economy that is comparatively lassiez-faire.

    Predictable price shifts (i.e., not due to national disasters, discovery of tons of resources, etc) are usually gradual due to a number of stabilizing mechanisms in the economy, but the fact is that spending on clothes, food, consumer electronics and the other goods which are most impacted by free trade have declined as a percentage, and that the quantity of both consumed by Americans has increased. Nominal wages and prices are less important than how much of your time at work is dedicated to buying these goods: by that token, such goods are much cheaper.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    It does exist, it is not the only factor in trade. Countries with similar comparative advantages do trade with each other and they trade similar products. That was what I was trying to state.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Apple charges 800 for an IPad because the market demands an IPad at that price. If Apple suddenly got a new labor agreement that reduced their cost of production 50%, they wouldn’t drop IPads to 400. They’d book the new savings as profit (as well they should). Supply is made by producers who take a chance that a profit will be valued at a profit. The producers then seek maximum possible return (again as they should). My only argument is that we should look at any agreement and ensure that the agreement has value for the US and not take it on faith that it is.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I mean a good is valued at a profit.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    more later

  • aesthete

    Another thing I’ll note briefly is that low wages aren’t forever: economies with low wages that continue to perform well and converge with the rest of the world don’t stay static. One of two things happens:

    1) Something HORRIBLE happens (i.e., political, economic, or social upheaval), and the economy is a basketcase, perpetually stuck in a negative feedback loop of bad institutions resulting in bad decisions resulting in worse institutions, etc.

    2) Something really GOOD happens: a series of fortunate circumstances combine with good, developing institutions to propel the country out of the margin and into a positive feedback loop, where good institutions result in good economic decisions resulting in stronger institutions, etc. These performers typically grow quickly and liberalize their markets in other areas. This opens up opportunities which give formerly low-wage workers leverage: they can now leave and work somewhere else without subjecting themselves and their families to starvation or horrors within illicit trades. Diversified economies also allow for investment in other parts of the economy to yield dividends. This development often requires workers with more education and human capital. Workers with more education (say, a literate labor force with an 8th grade education on average) won’t work for the low wages they used to work for, so either the low-wage, low-skill jobs will peter out and be taken up by another country lower on the rung.

    I don’t think that free trade *always* works for US interests, but I do think that unless there’s a compelling non-economic reason (to use an extreme example, Nazi Germany accounts for 80% of our imports or the UK has a controlling interest in our politics due to dominance of trade), I think that the dynamic, self-correcting nature of markets are generally a surer bet than government policy. I also appreciate some of the fringe, non-economic benefits of free trade (closer ties with other nations which allow for political ties and ability to advance our interests that way). Not always a benefit, but I find that the benefits of trade tend to be wildly understated by many.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    just so damned inconvenient for free trade absolutists.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    our manufacturing, (which by the way has far from disappeared) could be strengthened again by getting the government the hell out of the way.

    Hundreds of thousands of regulations, and very high taxes are a burden that cannot be negated by raising trade barriers.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    to throwing bricks. smile, but you are better than this man. Just admit that you haven’t done the work to refute Pat and DeVine and are relying on the conventional “wisdom’” that blames everything on unions and education alone.

  • JSobieski

    The point about communism was to highlight the following:

    systems that maximize the public good might be disadvantageous to a subset of people.

    There are people who lose their jobs because of free trade.
    There are people who lost their jobs in Communist Poland because it was no longer communist.

    There will always be some people disadvantaged by otherwise good things. That is my point.

    Never called you a communist.

    Never said you were a democrat.

    Did say that your economic analysis is what you will get out a Union leader talking head on TV.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    you act as though they have no competition.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    economy. NOW, we face re-building our economy. NOW, the middle class is dying!

  • JSobieski

    would stick in my craw.

    No congrats on that. Particularly since the reason for using Russian helicopters in Afghanistan has nothing to tariffs or the lack thereof.

  • aesthete

    the iPhone cost $599, could only be used on one network, and had far less features than today’s iPhone. Such a price was the result of a temporary monopoly — it is a cliche, but Apple really is very good at *creating* new markets that it can’t hold onto indefinitely.

    I partly agree in that there is no true idealized perfect market: information asymmetries, government policy, etc all play a role. However, profit as an economic concept is a short term phenomena: it’s a lure that attracts competition (both from established players and newcomers) until an equilibrium is reached. In the case of the iPad, there are no real competitors. I’m not saying this as an Apple fanboy (though I am one :) ), but there simply are no competitive offerings which are as stable and useful as the iPad as there are in the case of the iPhone. When it gets to that point, we will either see a price change from Apple or a loss of market share (either of which would act to reduce aggregate profits in their given market).

    I think your points are very good (and you always have good input in the bbjay threads), and I don’t agree with bbjay’s “goods for paper” outlook. However, I do think that your analysis is just a little bit flawed vis a vis comparative advantage and economic (not accounting!) profit. I tutor microecon IRL, though, so I am perhaps overly sensitive to that sort of stuff :)

  • JSobieski

    Are you following the fight to the death patent cases in the smart phone/tablet market?

    Those guys would take a huge loss just to hurt the other side. Seriously, the competition in that space is more than intense. You actually have things like corporate espionage with infiltration on both sides.

    Samsung and Apple are at war with each other.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    far from being one of the biggest outsourcers, the auto industry is an example of reverse outsourcing as many many foreign auto companies built plants in the USA.

    the Banking industry did not in any significant way outsource. maybe a few computerized accounting functions and a help desk here and there. I don’t remember having to go to Mumbai to get a loan.

  • JSobieski

    Protectionism is far more expensive than other solutions.

    Not to mention that protectionism ultimately REDUCES the number of jobs, because industries service each other.

    Steel tariffs? Hurts autos, aerospace, and industrial equipment.
    Rubber tariffs? Hurts retailers of tires.

    If you want to mimize the harm of tariffs, you should at least limit them to consumer products. Of course, an Ipad is both a consumer item as well as business equipment. So are computers, TVs, boats, cars, etc.

  • bbjaylive

    …when you are recovering from the worst financial crash since the Great Depression and have real unemployment at over 15%. Most of those people didn’t just decide to quit their jobs. The government already has automatic stabilizers to give relief to those who are victims of the natural or artificial booms and busts of capitalism and technological advances that leave some jobs obsolete.

    The government sector and voluntary sector could collaborate in providing guaranteed jobs to anyone who wants one, so that they can get back onto the career ladder.

  • aesthete

    Facts without a context (facts which, in fact, no one here denies and which all of us explain in the context of other data and with a solid, consistent causal explanation) are perhaps the first step towards knowledge, but are in and of themselves not a case. It is a fact that green is a color. It is a fact that green is my favorite color. My stating of those two facts do not prove that green is everyone’s favorite color, or that they should be everyone’s favorite color. It is irrelevant that everything I’ve said is factual; those statements lack a context which make them an argument which can be rebutted.

    This is why we need symbolic logic and proof-writing in classrooms, folks.

  • JSobieski

    After going after me for allegedly calling you a communist, you are arguing against an argument that nobody is making.

    Nobody things selling missile technology to Iran works for US interests.

    What many say is that protectionism will always hurt the domestic economy, not help it.

    That is different than what you are saying. Sometimes we need to take an economic hit (losing out on selling guidance systems to Iran) for non-economic reasons.

    However, raising taxes will never help the economy. We want taxes as low as possible, while being able to pay for things like a military and a court system (and a safety net). When you start using taxes to try and guide the economy (social engineering) you will inevitably fail.

    I use “you” in the generic sense—not speaking about you in particular.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I had said a national right to work law was necessary. I doubt too many union bosses were spouting that position. I doubt the AFL-CIO is putting out “free trade agreements are sometimes good” press releases. Basically, you took out two straw men (Democrat thinking and union bosses) beat me over the head with them, then tried to say you didn’t, and then did it again as a parting shot. I agree you with on entitlements (including the home mortgage deduction), smaller government, lower personal and corporate taxes, elimination of corporate welfare and 80% of free trade. I just think hitting me with a straw man on the small point where we disagree was a bit of an overstep (similar to the one you called out ColdWarrior for). If you don’t that;s cool; I still think you are my friend.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I read Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Frederick Hayek.

    Pat Buchanan, I will indeed call names. He is a backward looking man, he is a person trying to hold on to an idealized past that was not really everything he says it was.

    He is also a borderline racist and anti-Semite. And I do not say those things lightly. I have read his columns for many years. He knows nothing about real economics, he has a total misreading of history, and he has an outdated Triumphalist view of (white) America.

    It is the other way around Mike, you are too good for him. His views are the views of the distant past, they have no place in a modern world.

    That does not mean that he is not right on some things, Yes even liberals are right on some things. But it is his overall view of life that is wrong. We will not be taken over by the dusky brown hordes, we will not be destroyed by a sinister yellow peril.

    If we do fall as a nation it will be because of the people giving in to the seductions of the political classes.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I worked in the banking industry on the data side in staffing that carried out outsourcing. Your underwriting went to Mumbai, the servicing of your loan went to Mumbai and if you had technical difficulties it went to Hungary. I actually agreed with the outsourcing as more efficient and cheaper…you will notice I approve of free trade with India. It was meant to show free trade doesn’t prevent bailouts.

  • bbjaylive

    I don’t know why you’re arguing that I think the US should be spending wastefully to keep certain jobs that are lost to foreigners because of free trade. I never argued that. I’m saying it’s a win-win, and it frees up more advanced jobs for people.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    and Apple still doesn’t cut the prices of the IPads because of labor. If competition from Samsung caused a drop in demand, they’d cut the prices due to the market forcing them too. This again has nothing to do with cost of production.

  • JSobieski

    Second, I criticized one statement that you made–and I stick by that criticism because democrats, union leaders, ect. focus exclusively on demand-side economics.

    On one issue, you sounded to me like a democrat. If you can find ONE center-right economist who will agree with the following statement, please let me know:

    “Their problem being that in sending jobs to other places they ripped a hole in the US labor market and then didn?t develop new markets for their goods because the cheap labor didn?t allow people to afford their products”

    You wont find an economist on our side of the political spectrum who would agree with this analysis.

    If that is better wording, then I agree I should have used the better wording.

    Your analysis in that one sentence is not something a center-right economist would say. It is something a center-left economist would say.

  • JSobieski

    “Their problem being that in sending jobs to other places they ripped a hole in the US labor market and then didn?t develop new markets for their goods because the cheap labor didn?t allow people to afford their products”

    In terms of the sentence above, I am not aware of any conservative economists who would agree with you.

  • onemovoter

    I’ve seen what it’s like being on welfare and how the programs are set up. They are set up to keep you on the program and work against you trying to get out of it. Some are able to figure out how to get out of the trap, others aren’t so lucky.

    Here is a solution I found when researching the problem of how to fix the problem of the welfare trap. I found that if we asked nationally that each religious organization, like churches, etc, to take on one or more welfare case in their community, and help them with all their needs and get them on their feet, we could eliminate the entire case load of the welfare system across the country.

    This wouldn’t take one dime of taxpayer money to do. I know the left would hate this because they wouldn’t be in control of “helping those in need” while using other people’s money to do so.

  • bbjaylive

    The types of jobs in such a program would envision to be those low-skilled manufacturing ones, and as for being decentralized, as I said in another post, the federal government could set a minimum wage for it and allow the voluntary sector in the form of communities and charities to decide what kind of work they want to do in rebuilding their community.

    Saying that social welfare has a hold on these people is a bit of a misnomer though, places like Detroit are barren wastelands of poverty.

  • lineholder

    You didn’t read all of what I wrote, did you?

    Short-version of a long story…

    I work for a company involved in retail sales. The customer base trends conservative and customers are constantly requesting more American-made goods. This company currently purchases a range of retail goods (including clothing) from China, with a 15-month lead-time that has proven to be more of a headache than it’s worth during the past three years. The company would consider purchasing goods from an American-based source, if costs of goods could be even remotely competitive and it could be proven that delivery of goods could be maintained. It would let the company have more flexibility on lead-time…better response to market and economy changes…stronger controls over inventory, etc.

    Then I started thinking about the apprenticeship option included in the educational voucher system in the state of LA and how it might open some doors to provide education while providing jobs…with products that could be marketed to a company such as the one I work for.

    No sweat shop environment involved. Work is done from the student’s home. Piece-rate payment. Possibly an option for jobs for young people living in inner city areas where dependency of social welfare is high.

    I’ve already done the costing analysis, and it is possible that it could work. The company has 700 locations nation-wide, so local transport to retail locations might actually be feasible.

    Good work study program for the students, too.

    Just find it irritating that so few Conservatives are willing to think outside the box on things like this.

  • acat

    Telecommuting and its’ follow-on telepresence are increasingly going to force those who want to live in high-cost areas to defend their higher value….

    That said, technology eliminates as many jobs as it creates. For every webmaster, how many travel agents had to change careers?

    For every industrial-revolution-era woolen mill, how many cottage-industry weavers had to change jobs?

    What technology does is to – overall – reduce the “work” (meaning force applied over time) through automation, and change the nature of “work” (meaning “career path”) .. but not create or eliminate “jobs”.

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Now it has gone from I am not a democrat or a union sympathizer to I am center-left. By saying “you won’t find an economist on our side”, you implicitly state I am on the other side. How about this one:

    I disagree with you argument because…and not use words like “democratic thinker, center-left, our side, and union bosses”. I am willing to hear your arguments and I might find it compelling like with Aesthete above but to argue with straw men, not so much.

  • aesthete

    depends in part on labor inputs. In much the same way that capital inputs have reduced the price of, say, agriculture so that a subsistence agriculturalist simply can’t compete on price, so too labor inputs are part and parcel of reducing prices to increase market share.

    There are some exceptions and adjustment processes work differently in different markets and for different products and services, but this is generally the way that it works: competition simply cannot pocket large sums of profits for large periods of time without someone else challenging them on price. The price point of a competitor’s product is a function of its inputs, including labor inputs.

  • lineholder

    /

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Protectionism – Pros: Some increased jobs temporarily

    Cons – Higher prices, less competition, more cronyism, unsustainable.
    lower economic growth.

    Free Trade – Cons, Some displacement in the job market

    pros: – greater hiring in the long run and higher living standards. greater economic growth, greater personal freedom.

    In my mind these are not even debatable. In the past we did have some high tariffs, (including the recent past) but just because we did have some economic growth does not mean that we did not suffer from slower possible growth. That is the unseen. Opportunity costs!

    When a nation is beginning to industrialize they might put up with such a situation because when you are coming off of the farm the factory wages look good. But when growth finally slows and your economy MATURES the average people are stuck with lower wages, and much higher prices. That is what happens under protectionism.

    So after initial industrialization all of the major nations including the USA and Britain began to lower barriers to trade. Raising them again is a horrible mistake.

  • JSobieski

    If you can find a center-right ECONOMIST saying those things, please share the link.

  • bbjaylive

    when you’ve got several millions of people unemployed now through no choice of their own? It doesn’t make any sense to talk about it as if it is an important issue at this moment in time.

    Anyway, how could you possibly quantify the welfare state?

  • acat

    Apple *depends* on the “Cult of Mac” fanboi buyers who must have the latest iPhone/iPad/iWhatever….

    I worked for a “Cult ofMac” guy once, who offered to sell me his out-of-date iPhone for half of what he’d paid a year before. (and that was still more than AT&T was asking .. so I declined)

    He wanted very much to sell his old phone quick so his wife wouldn’t complain as much about the new iPhone he’d bought on his way to work … at full price.

    Apple dropped the price on the first iPhone when the second came out, just as they dropped the price on the first iPad when the second came out, and they dropped the price on every iteration of the iPod Nano when the next iteration came out.

    The thing is, there’s still plenty of profit for Apple in the older model… which is why Apple.com keeps selling them.

    As Apple has done with the Mac series, they’ll cut the price to “realistic” levels when there’s “realistic” competition, and not a moment before…. and the “Cult of Mac” will keep buying ‘em.

    Mew

    (full disclosure: Cat’s household is mixed, about 60% Mac, including an iPad but no iPhones, and 30% Windows, and 10% IRIX)

  • JSobieski

    Are you honestly saying that Samsung has no impact on the prices of iPads and iPhones?

    I don’t think you will find many economists who agree with that proposition.

    If Apple could sell an iPad for $1M/each, they would. However they can’t. One reason why they can’t is that the second they made such sales others like Samsung would cut in.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    because it frees up resources which are then used on other things.

    Otherwise we would not have lived through a huge boom lasting nearly 30 years during the personal computer revolution.

  • bbjaylive

    I think I remember reading that despite the Technophobes best attempts at sabotaging and destroying the inventor of the woolen mill, it created something like 370,000 new jobs. New technology requires more people to maintain it for example.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    we are broke?

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    The market price might move due to competition but producers only figure in labor in minimum price but no manufacturer is looking for min price. Let me give an example in the tablet market, the IPad sells for 500 today on Best Buy while the Samsung sells at 400. Apple did not reduce the cost of the IPad to 400 because the market did not force it too. Four hundred is not the bottom price for Samsungs; they are not selling at the bottom. The market had no demand for HP touchpads at 400 so HP sold them at 99 and destroyed the supply. The 99 was a price built on cost of production (i.e. cost of production sets the minimum but other factors set the final cost). Markets determine value of products…cost of production vs value determines if the product can continue to be supplied.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I actually agree Apple charges the most they can get “Cult of Apple” ups what they can get.

  • acat

    Total number on disability? Total number receiving food stamps? Total number receiving unemployment benefits, and for how long?

    I don’t know how they do things where you are, but over here we analyze the welfare state quite a lot .. and the conclusion I draw is that it’s too big to be sustainable.

    Seems to me that England faced a similar trouble in the ’70s … and other than the Sex Pistols, not much good came of it.

    It makes quite a lot of sense to talk about ways to change a problem .. if one views it as a problem. To mangle Thatcher, sooner or later the welfare state runs out of other peoples’ money, eh?

    To mangle another one-time world leader, one unemployed man is a tragedy, a million are a statistic.

    It seems you’re stuck in the second mindset. Get out from behind your monitor, go volunteer at a homeless shelter, and see just what “millions of people unemployed..through no choice of their own” means in human terms.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    that model can work for some artisanal goods, but I doubt it could work to replace the number and scale of current low-wage goods. When it comes to low-wage industries, there are certain quality control and management issues which come into play: that is one reason why manufactories came to exist in the first place. A system very similar to what you you describe was in place prior to the Industrial Revolution for many textile goods; work from home with piece-meal pay. Some successful models of that nature are still in place for many niche industries (especially in many areas of Germany) and co-ops, so they are not impossible — but they are generally the province of rural lower middle-income economies where one member of the family is “stay at home”, and where there are high trust institutions and certain connections between the producer and the community. I’m unaware of any large business where this model has succeeded to produce low-wage goods since textiles became an industrial good.

    I have no objection to your idea on principle, but pragmatically I think there would be serious problems with maintaining quality and consistency for goods, while also producing a high quantity of them. Could work great for certain high-quality artisanal goods, though, and it would be an interesting way to immediately create a unique and enduring corporate and brand ethos.

  • bbjaylive

    I don’t know how many times I am going to have to say this but the US can NEVER go broke and ZIMBABWE is NOT a realistic END GAME.

  • acat

    making a noble effort to understand a group with a significantly different culture than the one he (or she) is used to.

    Unlike, I’ll note, a certain Gamecock-at-law, who continues to cite a book without actually getting down to brass tacks.

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    What I said is they will charge the maximum the market will bear. Is that really hard to understand? You are darn right if the market would bear 1 million per IPad at a sufficient number to maximize profit, they would charge it. You are right the market would not bear 1 million because no one would pay it and Samsung would undercut them. What I did say is the cost of production does not have a bearing what they charge other than to say they have to make a profit.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    will remain barren wastelands of poverty no matter how many good intentioned social welfare ( or even workfare) programs you can trot out.

    That is because the root cause of their disaster is not trade or technology, it is greed, Greed, Racism, ignorance, corruption, and a general lawlessness.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    my knowledge of human history tells me otherwise. Beware of hubris, it has destroyed many an empire.

  • lineholder

    The cost of maintaining the systems is very high, even without calculating fraud and abuse of the system into it. And what onemovoter has said is true….once a person gets into the welfare system, it’s very difficult to get out of it because of the way the system is constructed.

    Psychologically, it does a huge amount of damage to remain dependent on the system for extended periods of time. It becomes the person’s “comfort zone”, and with the obstacles they run into in getting out of the system….it’s just a very defeating experience, mentally.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nteeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  • JSobieski

    Isn’t the entire discussion of tariffs and employment an implicit acknowledgment that labor costs are part of the competitive picture?

    You aren’t suggesting that labor unlike all other inputs, is somehow immune or outside of markets?

    I think Aesthete is right—labor is one of the ways in which companies compete with each other. Both in terms of comp as well as expertise.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    saying

  • bbjaylive

    When someone talks about a social safety net, I’m thinking of people on disability benefits and people on transfer payments from the government (automatic stabilizers) because they were made redundant in a downturn in the economy and apply for UE benefits. So people who need help because they are vulnerable and people who need to be caught by the net.

    When someone talks about the “welfare state”, I assume they are talking about people who have been caught by the net for a very long time and the net has become a hammock. I assume these people are on food-stamps and that a lot of them have children in inner city areas.

    That’s what I want quantified, because to me, you shouldn’t be dealing with this group until the first group is back on its feet, contributing to the economy, as I assume the first group is bigger and much easier to hire.

  • gekster

    Detroit has been run by liberals since I can remember, the 60′s.
    After the great society came to being, it was give poor people assistence with money instead if jobs.
    Not enough money, raise taxes, and chase the business and people with money away.
    Not enough money again, raise taxes again, and the cycle repeats, to where a once great city of capitalism becomes a liberal failure.

    And that leads me to a question to our new friend Boston Liberal.
    How do you liberal Detroit back to it’s once proud greatness.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I am betting you aren’t either. I am going to help you out…Your statement about jobs is wrong because eventually over time the markets do develop and long term global output is increased. This increasing in output generates jobs and wages globally. That is an argument. Asking me to give you links of economist who agree with me is not one that is compelling. I based my argument on my own observations of market disruptions in certain industries. I accept I might be wrong but in asking you for a counter argument, you descended into not providing an argument but a list of straw men that included democrats, union bosses, our side, etc. Give me an argument that counteracts what I said, I might agree with you.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Looking forward to details of what company, assuming you can share that at some point.

  • bbjaylive

    We are no longer on the gold standard. Thus, by definition, we can NEVER go broke. Dave_A has already touched upon the implausibility of hyperinflation.

  • aesthete

    After all, truth has never been conveyed in a paragraph.

    As far as asserting conclusions, you’re the last person on this thread who should be talking about that particular fallacy.

  • lineholder

    That’s what I get frustrated about…that Conservatives just don’t seem to be as open-minded as we might be sometimes at finding options.

    Yes, it applies nontraditional manufacturing methods that would require students to be self-motivated on both production and quality. (Are you an X-theorist or a Y-theorist where business management is concerned? See McGregor. Y-theory principle applies in this case)

    On the corporate ethos front…yeah, it would be coup of huge import, especially since we have customer demand for more of this range of goods, i.e. American produced, as it is. Plus, throw in the PR of helping students in inner city areas with earning an income….

  • bbjaylive

    I think “23 things they don’t tell you about Capitalism” by Ha-Joon Chang tries to make a case for protectionism (he’s basically making the case for state-capitalism) from the reviews I’ve read about it. Maybe you should read that.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Factors on the cost of production side of the ledger, companies look to reduce cost to maximize profit. This is independent of value of product which is determined by the market. HP touchpads were first offered at 500 bucks, the market rejected them. They were then offered at 99. Cost of production was the same at 500. Cost of production (or more accurately cost of supply) is a factor of break even point but no company looks to sell at break. I believe companies strive to maximize their profits. In order to do so, they want to maximize value and minimize cost. Value is determined by the market (and competition is part of the market); cost by things like efficiency, labor, transportation, etc.

  • gekster

    We won’t never go broke, we can just print more money.
    That’s the ticket, just print more money.

  • JSobieski

    That is not a straw man argument.

    It is pointing out that I at least am unaware of a conservative economist who would agree with you.

    If you said that symptom X means disease Y, and I said “I am unaware of any doctor who would say that” it would not be (1) an insult to you or (2) a straw man argument.

    Rather, it is arguing by authority. I am simply asking you if you can cite a single conservative economist who agree with the sentence that I am contesting.

    If you don’t want to look for such a citation, fine. There is no reason however to be insulted by anything I have said to you.

    I never called you a communist, but YOU accused me of calling you that.

    I never called you ANYTHING, but you accused me of calling you quite a bit.

    I can’t find a single conservative economist who agrees with the contested sentence. I can find people on the left who do.

    That is very different from insulting you. Just as having a medical discussion with two non-doctors, it should not be insulting for someone to say “can you cite a doctor who would say that”.

    For whatever reason I rub you the wrong way—so maybe I should just say God speed and good night?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Nttttttt

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Nnnnnnnt

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I would just like a cost/benefit analysis before entering into any agreement including trade. Everything on the table, I don’t think I ever mentioned the word tariff. I don’t believe in taxes but I like to make sure all the data has been analyzed before I agree any agreement is in US interests.

  • Dave_A

    An economic ‘product’ is anything that someone will give you money for… Including money itself.

    In efficiency terms, it is better for national economies to specialize on certain sectors, than for an economy to try to be self-contained….

    For example, the Chinese are very good at mass producing consumer goods – but terrible at product design & invention.

    The US is very good at inventing things, organizing things, and so on – but terribly inefficient at making consumer goods…

    It makes more sense for the US to make things the Chinese need (this includes… dollars) and trade for consumer goods, than it does to force consumer goods production in the US.

    Remember: In terms of economic value (GDP) we are the world’s #1 producer.

    We are also the world’s #1 consumer.

  • lineholder

    Why put stipulations on it? If a way can be found to help either and/or both, why not do that?

  • acat

    I think most of what you want is over at http://www.bls.gov/ .. the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    They’re not perfect, but they’re *relatively* non-partisan…

    Mew

  • lineholder

    CNC cutting machines would go a long way to ensuring quality, at least where this range of products is concerned. So would programmable sewing machines. And Internet options for marketing/ordering of goods produced.

    Okay, so maybe I’m something of a visionary on this one…I won’t apologize for it, though.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Like I said I agree with you on most subjects, I was looking for an argument that countermanded my observations. I might have found the argument compelling. I accepted on your first explanation you were not calling me names. I was asking for your opinion that was different than mine, what the differences were, why you believe that way, etc. I apologize for giving the impression you were rubbing me the wrong way.

  • acat

    of cottage-industry weavers, not to mention the time that went into making “homespun” thread and cloth and .. clothes.

    If you’ll recall, Gandhi made the point that the British mills were changing the Indian culture by putting Indian weavers out of business.

    Mew

  • acat

    J. Sobieski has pointed this out quite often – American manufacturing productivity has gone up nicely while, at the same time, the number of Americans employed in the sector has dropped.

    This tells me we’re seeing a lot more shop floor automation, and that those tanks are now moving through robotic assembly stations, not being shoved along by teams of men.

    Technology changes the nature of work.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    “This is independent of value of product which is determined by the market.”

    Labor markets and the firms which use them compete on price, and they determine the “supply” part of the market.

    I think you’re familiar enough with economic concepts like supply-demand equilibria that a graph might help:

    Do you dispute the above graph, and the implication for price and quantity supplied? If not, then you should consider that a reduction in the cost of *any* business input will produce the same effect (again, in a competitive market with perfect information etc). Technology and reduced cost for production inputs result in a shift in the supply curve to the right in the long run. This is a very important concept: firms do not (and cannot) simply pocket the difference, because in a competitive environment they will be out-competed by firms that are willing to take a marginally lower profit per good for an overall greater profit due to increased market share and greater output of products.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Government out of banking (free up the credit markets), out of manufacturing, etc….

  • aesthete

    and if someone gets it done, all power to them.

    I just don’t know that it’s feasible.

    I am all for entrepreneurship, liberalized markets, and diversity in education, though: for sure, it would be quite novel if such an industry were profitable.

  • JSobieski

    there is no short term advantage to jobs.

    The benefit in steel/rubber jobs were offset in those same years by losses further down the supply chain.

    Automobiles became more expensive, and more UAW guys were laid off.

    More people working in retail tire stores lost their jobs than were saved by the tariff.

    if someone believes in supply side economics, then they believe that the economy is not a zero sum game.

    The idea that a tariff can simply divide the pie different is a fallacy. Dividing the pie in that way makes it smaller than it otherwise would be.

  • acat

    Second, while you’re *technically* right, the U.S. can avoid a bankruptcy by devaluing the debt through a period of hyperinflation, the private-sector and political cost would be rather .. painful.

    I would note that the Germans, nearly a century later, are *still* very averse to inflation after the Weimar hyperinflationary period.

    You need to look beyond your spreadsheet and read some.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    I don’t see how it can be harmful to have trade. Every specifc analysis of a tariff concludes that the cost per saved job is crazy expensive (actually worse than the Obama stimulus).

    If you refer to non-economic costs, then I do agree with you. However, in the economic sphere, allowing people to conduct transactions without prejudice to place of origin is in terms of the overall economy, always a good thing.

    Of course, for particular industries or companies it could be bad, but if you believe in capitalism you believe in capitalism.

    Either wealth is created solely by the freely entered into decisions of private parties, or a substantial basis for the Republican party is simply wrong and invalid.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Company Apple would reduce price if Company Samsung were creating market share by undercutting them,. However this price cut is not due to the cost of supply, it is due to the market forcing them to do so (i.e. Company Samsung was grabbing market share). I assume Company Apple is already looking to minimize it’s cost of supply…the change in price is due to the market. The decision to undercut Company Apple is not a labor decision, it is a market decision. Companies look to reduce cost of supply as a matter of maximizing profit not maximizing value of product. Now, if the market tanks to the point where the value does not exceed cost, then Company Apple will either destroy their supply (like HP did) or they will make a cheaper product (think Acer) or they will decrease employment to meet less value. I just believe markets seek to establish an equilibrium between demand and supply. Cost of supply is to me on the supply side of the equation, value is a product of demand. If Samsung undercuts Apple successfully, Apple will respond to the lower demand by lowering price. If demand falls to a certain level, Apple will cut supply. If value increases, Apple will increase supply. Now until Apple went out on a limb, and created the supply in the first place, there would have been no demand…creating supply is the role of entrepreneurs whether it stays is market value. I know this is an oversimplification,

    How did we end up here when talking about free trade? I do not agree with tariffs as a funding source for the government or trade suppression tool. I just wanted cost benefit analysis before entering into trade agreements so we have an idea of the impacts/benefits.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    nt

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Your knowledge exceeds mine 1000 times. I am just a data admin/analyst guy who looks at econ topics as a hobby. I accept sometimes my views are wrong (or not wholly correct).

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    No sarcasm at all intended…

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I really do appreciate the conversation…again no sarcasm at all.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I want the data and the analysis. I want to see projections for job loss/gain/supply chain affects. I want to know what the goals of the agreement are, how will it be measured, etc. This is probably a side affect of my being a math guy in college who know works in data admin/analysis. Give me the analysis that shows me the value of the agreement, any agreement..where is the floor, where is the ceiling. Again, that is more a result of what I do and who I am.

  • JSobieski

    and would avoid at all costs a tariff on a product used by a lot of businesses (such as steel).

    I believe that the negative ripple effect would be less with an item that is clearly a consumer item (kids toys) rather than a broad based input for a lot of industries (steel).

    However, even a tariff on toys is still a bad idea… and retaliation will broaden the field of battle.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    for both saying you called me a name and also not making clear I accepted your explanation as to what you were doing. I was just asking for your opinion.

  • JSobieski

    if you do a find on “SOU” you will find it.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    no text

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    You would resign out of principal before implementing a tariff unlike that snake Jay Rockefeller who stabbed his constituents in the back.

  • JSobieski

    all you can do is show that the instances of it being false are zero.

    So the question is can we find an example of where tariffs made sense in an economic sense?

    There may be instances where a temporary restraint resulted in some long term benefit, but I am unaware of any such instances.

    GC would undoubtedly point to HarleyDavidson, but I don’t see how that is different than a government bailout. Wouldn’t it be better to allow HD to go into bankruptcy and come out stronger?

    I am an industrial engineer by undergrad education, but the kind of economic data you want to see doesn’t really exist since in economics there is no control group that exists for comparison. We can try to make educated judgments about would happen if X did not, but you don’t have a true control group.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Polls and banking and energy…those are the things I am good at. Free trade is obviously not my stock and trade…LOL

  • JSobieski

    Reagan defintely did things as President that were contrary to his words as a candidate (free trade may have been his biggest deviation).

    It comes down to priorities. No politician can advance all of their priorities—cutting deals is necessary. We just need better deal cutters—-Reagan was a great negotiator. GHW Bush? Not so much.

    If I could reform entitlements the right way, and the political tradeoff was increasing tariffs by 1%—I would do it in a heartbeat. I just like to think that I wouldn’t lie to myself or the public in terms of what I was doing.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    In the world of credit banking, you could back in the olden days pretty much know to staff up the old collections department when unemployment went up. Well until Dodd-Frank forced the banks out of the credit business so I tend to be uncomfortable with policies that elevate unemployment short term or long term.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I’d be there with you. The problem is I get yelled at when I call things like Social Security, Medicare, or Home Mortgage Deductions entitlements.

  • aesthete

    so I know of what you speak. It would certainly be nice to have all the data in a nice, easy-to-evaluate set which

    Unfortunately, we often have to settle for second-best in social sciences. As far as I’ve been able to ascertain (and I’ve looked at many cases, both popular and obscure, for trade), I haven’t found a single case where trade did economic ruin to a nation. Logically, it makes sense to me that trade is beneficial to the parties involved (else it wouldn’t have happened). I can think of a few examples where there was undue political influence or some other non-economic factor at play which , but none in which restricting trade was particularly enlightened as a general policy.

    While the minutia of trade between nations is fascinating, I know that I don’t have the time to look at all of the details of trade with every nation, and that oftentimes the data isn’t even particularly good. I don’t trust anyone in government to evaluate the data on my behalf. From a rights-based framework, I’m not too keen on government agents coming between me and someone I want to trade with. All of the cons resulting from trade can be resolved far better through alternate means. Therefore, as a rule I am strongly for trade. It is simplifying, I will admit, but I don’t see a more practical way to approach the issue, than to be for trade in general. If someone makes a compelling case against trade in general or trade with some nation in specific, I will revisit my position as any reasonable person would. So far, I haven’t seen that case.

    I will note that I am far more open to *bans* on trade from nations like China based on human rights violations or on national security grounds, than I am to restrictions of trade on economic grounds.

  • Dave_A

    Even if that production is in China, and especially for cheaply transportable lightweight goods of the type cottage-producable….

    That’s why mass-production beat-out the cottage industries back in the old ‘close-to-a-free-market-as-we-ever-got’ days: Economies of Scale…

    Further, you have to have a population that is willing to work, for that idea to work…

    Our biggest problem is that too many Americans would rather go on the dole, than ‘demean’ themselves by stocking the shelves at Wal Mart…

    Micropayments & small-business opportunities won’t get these folks off their butts… Only cutting their bennies will do that….

  • Dave_A

    The US is not competitive in all markets and should not try to be…

    It’s as insane as Microsoft trying to make cars, or Ford releasing a PC operating system…

    Or as a bowling-and-billiards company making motorcycles or small-boat motors (*cough* 1970s AMC and Brunswick *cough*)….

    Free markets are supposed to specialize & sharpen economies, not create giant inflexible vertically-integrated dinosaurs…

    But for some reason, some people seem to think that America should compete with EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in EVERY SINGLE MARKET…

    Rather than become the best in markets that cater to our strengths & use the profits to trade for stuff other countries are better at (say, like German pistols (the US doesn’t seriously ‘compete’ in handgun markets outside the US – rather, our pistol companies make abominations no-one but an American would buy – often in calibers no one else shoots (*cough* 45 Auto *cough*)) or Chinese dishware)….

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    gc

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    dead

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    bless

    no more later

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/us-usa-economy-manufacturing-idUSBRE8610QT20120702

  • Pingback: Before Selling Your Next Car: Conducting Background Checks | HelpWithDebtNow.com