Look at all these comment.. Do any of you come from working class families? Do any of you still have grandparents left, that maybe retired from GM? Some people, just don't live in the same world. Some folks are just sheltered, and naive intellectuals.. All of the factories are closed here.. If we all go back to school, where are we going to all work? Will a masters degree become worthless?
I'm genuinely curious as to how protectionism will in any way help the general public. Sure, it might help some very specific parts of the economy (manufacturing), nobody could possibly deny that. But why care only about one specific sector and force other parts of the economy, parts which provide people with jobs and salaries?
What jobs did Free Trade Provide? ,Working at McDonalds? Free Trade Destroyed all manufacturing in the United States which was the back bone of our country. Free Trade put millions out of jobs. Americans cannot compete with Slave Labor. We need tarriffs to bring back manufacturing. How could anyone in their Right Mind say Tarriffs will hurt us, unless your not American. Just look at what Free Trade did to America.
Actually the only thing which I have seen which has experienced deflation is computers, and computers aren't made with cheap foreign labor but in the good old USA or other 1st world countries. Everything else has experienced normal inflation, well except recently imported oil is real expensive, duh.
Hi paleo, the journey through the great betrayal is slow going, mostly because of Spanish comps coming up for school. However, I've come across a point that so far hasn't been appeared so far in the free/fair trade war. I may have mentioned it before but didn't elaborate, and that is the theory of value being used by the fair traders. In order for fair trade to work, as Buchanan is speaking of, some kind of intrinsic value needs to be accepted, which quite frankly, doesn't make much sense to me.
I just had a great idea, paleoradio should devote a segment called "the benefits of free trade!" As much as it might feel like pins are being run through your body, it might give your listeners a more accurate picture of the issue. You hint in this video of the beneifts, why not elaborate on them, as you have done w/ costs? There's plenty to be shared on the benefits side. It would be interesting for sure.
That sounds like a plan. I could talk about getting manufactures and textiles off our backs, allowing us to be a service economy. I could talk about the spike in employment in Mexico and Bangalore. I could talk about the luxuries of Walmart and cheap goods. I could even talk about helping out our Communist friends over in China. But I don't think these are the benefits you are getting at. :)
My program is an advocacy program. I allow callers to balance out my positions on various matters. I speak my mind, give my opinion, and let the chips fall where they may.
My program is not a news broadcast. I am not dedicated to "he said / she said" journalism. I am not bound by the fairness doctrine, though I allow people I criticize or ideas I hammer to be defended by people on the program or on the phone.
You have completely ignored the economic impact of the past 13 years or so since NAFTA, which as you know has been a time of rapid de-regulation of int'l trade, with the economy grown 50%, avg unemployment at 5% (compared to 7.1% before), and manufacturing output up 63%! Is this due to trade, or in spite of it? You MUST consider all data, to accurately analyze trade impact. This is one thing I'll be looking for in the book, and esp for some new NTT or model you keep talking about.
I haven't ignored numbers since NAFTA. Even in this video I say that there have been benefits, but that I think they are short-term and short-sighted. I should have said narrow-minded due to their inability to take serious the other factors of value I have mentioned elsewhere.
NAFTA? The trade agreement regulated by multi-nationals in the WTO? The blatantly unconstitutional trade agreement?
We have discussed output elsewhere. I won't do so again. At least not here and now.
You have cited, as Pat does, American protectionism as a shining example of the benefits of nationalism. But raw stats are worthless, without comparative analysis and a theory from to draw conclusions. For example, you must compare that to other times of high tariffs, and then compare THOSE to times of low tariffs, and see if there is a correlation to growth, price level, etc. And even if you do that, this still doesn't necessarily prove causation, and so you must have an analytical model.
Pat does this. He compares the "then and now" in every book that he deals with the issue. He deals with it in The Great Betrayal, Where the Right Went Wrong, and Day of Reckoning.
You should stop using American nationalism as "proof" for protectionism. This is flawed, in the same way as saying "All US presidents were elected officials. Therefore, all elected officials are US presidents." You can't just wave around cherry-picked stats; you need to have an analytically-supported method from which to draw conclusion from the data. Since it is obvious that you will continue to dismiss anything I say as ivory-tower economist brainwashing, I have begun to read Pat's book.
I don't use it as "proof" for protectionism. I'm not cherry-picking stats here. No more than you or others would be. I am attempting to look at what I believe is best for America, in a sense that recognizes the fact that America is (or at least was) more than cheap goods. We recognize that America is made up of culture, economics, law, traditions, etc. We try to be well rounded, not allowing one aspect to dominate all the others. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well I wasn't talking about Walmart per se, but rent-seeking on a macro sense, where it is very prevalent. American nationalism is of course every town's right to choose, it's just that in my opinion, they will be poorer as a result. But people generally reject nationalism with their wallet. Why do you think Walmart continues to be the nation's leader in retail? Because they raise everyone's REAL WAGES, and people flock to this. Most of Walmarts clients are middle and lower income households.
Poorer as a result? If money was what American life was all about, as free traders would have it, then you may be right. But some people take great pride, something they deem a value, in culture, identity, and a working and producing citizenry.
The trade off with what we spend as to what we lose is what I and other economic nationalists are concerned with. We spend less, granted. But at what cost?
What is the average pay for employees at Wal-Mart? Just curious.
Community/locality producing are very noble and well-intentioned causes. The problem is that using the argument usually winds up being convenient excuses by the politically powerful to impose enormous costs on the general population. It becomes perverted when it goes through the political process, because it gives incentives for rent-seeking. This didn't go on in early America to the extent it is done now. When you combine these costs, among many others, nationalism becomes a very costly policy.
Wrong. In most cases, it is people who like to keep their identity. Olivet (where I go to college) and Marshall (the town next door) are two great example. Battle Creek held out for a long time and it wasn't until the people in power broke a deal with Wal-Mart that they began planning to build in my township.
Is nationalism more costly than what you propose? Certainly. But it comes down to what a nation, a community, a culture, an identity, and an American job are really worth. I say a lot.
...matter is that innovation like this is what drives an economy forward. That's what is really happening when capital flows to the cheap labor. Add capital, and you have yourself people who's production levels were pathetic before, but can now produce 2, 3, 10 times as much as before. It's all about scarce resources, that's what fair traders never seem to get. To you guys, trading 2 units of exports for 1000 units of imports is somehow a bad thing. This cannot be true in the long run.
First, I think it is hysterical that you keep equating the economic nationalism of Hamilton and the American School with what currently flies under the banner of fair trade.
Secondly, my complaints about Walmart have nothing to do with efficiency. They are quite efficient. Technology and $0.63 an hour make a good team.
My problem is that I don't look at everything through that lens. I see communities, local identities, and local/regional/national producers as being of great value.
Walmart has been a pioneer in innovation in retailing, which or course all competitors don't like, because they must match it or lose profit. They were the first to popularize the barcode checkout lanes, which greatly reduced the information costs of retailing. My dad used to be an inventory guy for Savon in L.A. That job no longer exists anywhere in the country, and no matter how much that might upset Pat Buchanan, since we could have people doing inventory jobs instead, the fact of the...
Unfortunately for all the fair-traders, consumers overwhelmingly feel a little different when it comes to Walmart. By voting with their dollar, they have chosen the efficiency in production and economies of scale that Walmart has to offer, with consumers pocketing the savings to spend on other things. For a great critique, probably the best I've seen, watch the South park, "Something Wall-Mart this way comes." You can watch it online free at southparkzone*com. Simply hilarious and oh so true.
Do you really have that difficult a time distinguishing what is currently being paraded as fair trade with the economic nationalism of Hamilton on even American Economics?
Consumers speak with their pockets. Yes, American love cheap stuff. But it would be rather naive to think that "the good" is determined by such things.
Efficiency in production? Can you please name what makes their efficiency better than ours... without talking about the $0.63 per hour they make?
It depends on what you mean by imports. Goods are so interdependent nowadays that it's sometimes hard to oppose imports, because your country may have a hand in its production, even though it's called an import (cars, computers, machinery are good examples.) Again, this requires vast amounts of information that's very costly to obtain, which is why gov't always has a horrible time implementing "fairness," because its hard to determine what the level playing field is, and then how to get there.
Here's one of those emperical studies I was telling you about, dealing with some of the effects of Wal-Mart, if you ever have lots of time to kill:
google: "The Impact of Wal-Mart on Self Employment"
I still am convinced that you seriously underestimate the benefits of free trade, which as I've told you, aren't as evident and obvious as the costs. In order to understand, it takes a rather complex train of thought, to "see" the unseen, which is just as vital as the seen, perhaps even more so.
I haven't touched this issue yet, but it has to do with price level. Wal-Mart is every fair-traders sworn enemy, it's the perfect example to use. Accounting for the secondary effects, Wal-Mart has, single handedly, slowed inflation by an estimated 1%, an unprecedented feat. When you consider that inflation is one of the biggest long-term job killers that exists for the agg economy, it follows that benefits are neither "occasional, short term, or short sighted" as you claim. Exactly the opposite.
C. I have seen firsthand the effect Wal-Mart has on local communities. I have seen local sellers who sell good produced by local or national companies go out of business. The American village and city is going the way of the dodo, and Wal-Mart smiles.
D. What impact does Wal-Mart have on our trade deficit?
E. I don't see everything in money figures. People are more than consumers, and towns are more important than cheap goods
The best example for free trade is Hong Kong, which has had enormous success in the standard of living, jobs, and overall prosperity of the region. You speak of free trade utopia, but fair-trade is even more so, because it relies upon an utopian central planner with vast amounts of information given, which is very costly to obtain. It would need to know most every price of goods, money, and labor, and be able to predict future demand. This is why fair-trade is the truly "faith based" sham.
I do not buy into all the tenets of fair trade. As I have said many times over, I am an Economic Nationalist of the American (or National) Economic school of thought.
Unless or until you familiarize yourself with the writings of economic nationalists, you will continue to equate Fair Trade (as advocated by socialists) with American Economics.
...TONS of studies, mostly available for free, by the Journal of International Economics, Foundation for Economic Education, Federal Reserve, Brookings Institute (to take another viewpoint), Economic Research Service, Cato Institute, Business Reference Services, Journal of Economic Theory, Bernard Schwartz Center for EPA, Mises Foundation, BEA, International Trade Bureau, World Bank, and literally hundreds of independent economic studies, just for starters. Faith based? Not quite, Paleo.
Faith based in that it relies heavily upon the "just give it time" argument. It is also, technically speaking, an untries hypothesis. We have no clear cut example of laissez faire free trade to work off of. Our WTO regulated "free trade" agreements are a far cry from Mises utopia.
I bring up dumping because you have mentioned it in the past, and it is a very important branch in the gospel of fair-trade because it is a non-tariff barrier, which has become more popular/feasible nowdays than tariffs and quotas. I find it interesting that you say "so called free trade is based upon faith-based economics." You must be joking. There's plenty of neoclassical, NTT, and other relevant, well-developed theories, and mountains of evidence for it. What evidence you say? You can find..
For a classic case of dumping, look no further than 1904, when German producers of bromine formed a cartel, Die Deutsche Bromkonvention, and began dumping mass quantities of bromine into US markets to drive their competitors out of business especially Herbert Dow, who sold to any willing buyer. Enraged, the German cartel dropped price of bromine exports to the US, selling at huge losses for a while, trying to force Dow out. Care to guess how successful they were in this dumping scheme of theirs?
Here's a reiteration of an argument I made to you some time ago talking about rent-seeking, by Dr. Bhagwati: "Many economists also believe that even if protection were appropriate in theory, it would be "captured" in practice by special interests who would misuse it to pursue their own interests instead of letting it be used for the national interest..But another important cost of protection may well be the lobbying costs incurred by those seeking protection." (aka Fair trade isn't really fair)
Once again, nobody denies this. But to act like the power of special interest groups is not (or was not) behind our free trade agreements would be absurd.
We had economic nationalism. No need to speculate. Just look at history. How did it play out? What role did lobbyists play? Stop speculating at what could be and look at what was.
I have spoken extensively on the ungodly amount of influence lobbyists have. I think we need change, whether under free trade or economic nationalism.
2. The dumping argument is one of the most unfair and ridiculous branches of fair trade, popular only because it is a non-tariff trade barrier. The case for dumping suits is very dubious indeed. Remember the Poland Golf-cart controversy? Poland had no domestic market for golf carts, and the U.S. government took an anti-dumping suit against them anyway! This is how the dumping argument is often misused and easily manipulated, resulting in problems very different from its original intention.
I do not recall whether or not I a have used the argument from dumping on the air or over the phone. I may have, I just don't recall. Pat Buchanan does (I think) when talking about televisions and motorcycles. Don't quote me on it though. Regardless, it is not at the heart of my argument.
8. That is BS. Still, to boil America down to nothing but a market of goods and services is pathetic. We are a nation, a nation made up of much more than a market. These various factors (community, culture, traditions, the common good, etc.) should and must be taken serious. Sorry that people don't see everything through the lens of markets, but society just doesn't work that way. Thank God.
4. All theory and "evidence" shows that the losses from trade are much higher than the benefits.
5. The founding fathers overwhelmingly hated trade liberalization.
6. Since politicians are NEVER influenced by special interests and the politically well-connected, we should have faith that they will enact a trade policy that is in all our interest.
7. Mutually agreed upon transactions of citizens trading their private property should be coerced, in the name of nationalism and the public good.
4. Free trade advocates don't see, like Smith and our founding fathers, that not all sectors are equal. There is a difference between serving Big Macs and making machines.
5. Yes, they were. And our constitution is evidence of this.
6. Nobody denies this. But this is happening right now! Special interests are playing a huge role in the so-called free-trade agreements. I am all for limiting the role of lobbyists.
8. This shows a great lack of understanding our position, or history.
If there were a fair-trade creed, here's what it would look like:
1. I believe in a government that should try to maximize social benefits, such as they have done in wages, rent control, affirmative action, hate crimes, and social welfare programs.
2. When we produce at lowest cost, we are "being competitive." When other countries do, it's "dumping."
3. The Chinese gov't is bad for meddling with their currency. Our gov't would never think of meddling with ours.
1. Why create a straw man when you have close to 150 years of economic nationalism to analyze?
2. Dumping is not merely creating goods at low prices. It is heaving large amounts of these goods into the market of a competitor.
3. We shouldn't meddle with ours. But when a country intentionally tampers with theirs in order to place themselves at an advantage over America, we should take notice. It would be foolish not to.
Outsourcing happens in a not so "free" trade global environment meaning manufacturing the goods can occur in substandard foreign conditions with the products being brought back and sold to American consumers. However, often the governments where the manufacturing is done won't allow them to sell there in an open market (e.g. protectionism) meaning "free" trade is not so free because the trade goes in the foreign host manufacturing country's favor.
The post WWII business culture and ideology of building a strong America first and foremost was sold down the river as shareholder profit became the golden calf of our generation. No longer do these modern trans-national globally concerned corporations make it their duty to invest in manufacturing and enterprise in the USA foremost using American workers with the commitment earlier generations showed but rather exploit whenever, wherever, and however it is legal and profitable for them to do so.
We have never had laissez faire. It is a theory without any read history to back it up. We currently have regulated trade by the WTO, the the so-called free trade agreements we currently have are riddled with various stipulations and exceptions.
AAAAAH! I was watching Sir Economics, Lou D. tonight on the news, and my head almost exploded. He mentioned that Hillary's proposed solution to the housing slump was to freeze interest rates and sort of stop everything in its tracks. I quote, almost verbatim "At least give her credit for having an idea. Is it the right idea? I just don't know.." So he "doesn't know" if freezing rates- which is really removing market signals which are set by the market for loanable funds-is a good idea? Unreal.
So I'm hoping tomorrow that I will hear a little bit about the biggest threat to us poor-folk: expansionary monetary policy and deficit spending. In my judgement, there are 2 main weights that are dragging the economy downward (Trade isn't one of them, as you can imagine;), high inflation - which is just a form of tax that hurts poor people the most -- and high federal deficits. There are two areas that we can have a big impact, help our economy, and free the next generation from these chains.
You look at some number trend and say "See see? We had tariffs and here are the good results!" It is tempting to fall into this causality trap immediately, but beware the folly of this type of thinking, which has led to some very reckless and irresponsible policy. I cannot stress enough this critical point.
No, I am simply saying that you can't go around warning (theorizing) about how bad things will be when all empirical and historical evidence points to the contrary. Your dogmatic faith in free trade won't even allow you to recognize the fact that what I am advocating is not far off from Adam Smith, and the United States for most all of its existence.
There's no "moving the goalposts" about it. In order to claim "Between 1860-1920, high tariffs produced higher real wages, higher standard or living, etc.," you're going to need some kind of model/theory to use in an empirical study. Without it, you just have empty speculation based on ideology, which comprises most of the fair-trade case. I have given you numbers based on such studies, for example, as the Kletzer study (2001) on import job losses. What theory are you using to prove your case?
I'm simply pointing out numbers that are on the books. I am simply playing journalist and historian here. Reporting what happened, how it worked, and what the numbers are.
I'm not an economist. Never pretended to be one. But I work from the paradigm of the American School (National System) or Economic Nationalism. This has been obvious from the outset.
I know you may not be comfortable with it, but what I have told you is the correct scientific method in economics. This is why I discouraged you long ago from getting into a statistical crossfire, because without the right context, it becomes quite dubious. It's the reason why Japan is held up as the idol for successful protectionism policy, which I explained part of earlier to you. It's the reason why we have models in the first place. It gives us a context in which to view raw numbers.
The correct method of economics? Well, I am all for Comparative Advantage. We just disagree with how this should be understood. As for international trade, I have stated many times over that this is fine and dandy, so long as we don't flinch from various exceptions. You know what these are, we have talked about them. I side with Smith, you side with Mises. I am an economic nationalist, you are an economic internationalist. Two towers, very few points of contact.
The whole key behind the workings of economic analysis and theory is the phrase "Ceteris paribus" which is to hold all other factors equal. This is the purpose and usefulness of economic scientific inquiries, and your claim of the "Golden years of tariffs" fails this most basic feature of the method. I base my claims upon the Law of Comparative Advantage and on international trade theory. What law or theory do you base your arguments on? Buchanan didn't have a straight answer to this, do you?
Nothing like moving the goalposts here, Joe. You make absurd claims about what "would" happen in a system such as one I propose. I point out the historical fact that America lived in such a system for almost it's entire history. I pointed out a specific period of time (1860-1920) and asked you show me how well the numbers match with your predictions. So how do you reply? With this? Give me a break.
And when didn't Buchanan have a straight answer? Video? Book? Can you substantiate this?
How can you claim I don't care about people when I am advocating what I believe is the most feasible way of achieving higher pay, better standard of living, and more jobs for the masses? I think you forget that an equivocation tax will have the effect of layoffs for other people, lowering everyone's real income (tell that to the single mother working 2 jobs and barely putting food on the table now), including businesses, and transferring even more power to politically well-connected interests.
Oh, tariffs lowered real wages? We lost jobs at record numbers during the golden years of the tariff system? See, here is the problem, Joe: history proves you wrong. We have a very lengthy track record of economic nationalism in America. Your predictions are bogeymen. So tell us, what were real wages like during those years? What about unemployment? What about women even having to work? Much less two jobs!!! What about commodity prices? I have the numbers... and they aren't bleak.
A. You can put up barriers between the states, despite Article 1 section 10; it's done all the time, just subtly with a different dressing.
B. The exact same principle of balance of payments applies to world, state, county, town, and so it follows that should be in favor of less trade between the states.
C. Dobbs didn't even understand the analogy of free trade of apples and free trade of a person's labor, in that the price of both is determined by supply and demand. What is this guy thinking?
B. This only works when you are an economist who has no sense of nationalism or citizenship. We have, or at least should have, a familial bond with those other states and communities that make up this great land. Should we take pride in our resources? Sure. Should states seek to respect other states workers? Yes. Should they also work and trade with them in areas of need and luxury? Yes. Local, regional, national, then global. You guys have it bass-ackwards.
It IS surprising that Dobbs takes some of the best in the field, including 5 Nobel Laureates; names like Dominick T. Armentano, Steve Beckman, Bruce Caldwell, Richard M. Ebeling, Robert H. Frank, Michael J. Rizzo, Peter J. Boettke, just to name a few, and calls them"jackasses and idiots," and you claim they don't care about individuals, families, national allegiance, and so on. I see some of these guys every once in a while. I will pass your concern on to them and get their reaction.
Playing name-dropping doesn't fly here. As I said, free traders have their names, economic nationalists have their names, socialists have their names. Does us little good.
I can see it now, "Sir, do you hate people?" haha Regardless of what their answer may be, these folks tend to see America as an economy rather than a nation, and they see people as economic units rather than citizens, families, and communities with identities. Sorry, the way it is...
In that case, you should be calling for a trade wall against all the other states, if you really want to help Michiganians, because the trade deficits we have with all the others must really hurt us, don't you think? Yes, Lou was trained in econ, but you have to ask yourself what school of thought, and what year. Harvard economics then was old Keynesian, which Friedman's theories dismantled a few years later with the emergence of stagflation. I wonder if ol' Lou has kept up with the times...
A. Trade barriers against the states would be unconstitutional.
B. We are a nation. One state advancing at the cost of another is quite a bit different than a state or a country taking a hit from another country. Unless your view of citizenship is nation-state is like the free-traders.
C. If keeping up with the times means buying into destructive trade policies, then thank God he refuses to let go of the past. And thank God so many Americans agree with him.
As an economist (or soon to be one,) I am used to all the rage and name-calling that gets thrown at me by just about everyone not in the profession. That's the name of the game I guess. Unfortunately, you have also jumped onto this bandwagon, suggesting that economists whistle away the day, while people suffer. I think you should know better. Economists are always actively engaged in opposing or supporting policies that we feel are beneficial and consistent with economic priciples.
Yes, I believe that economists, by and large, do not see society as individuals, families, communities, and nations. They talk about people as units, and most could care less about national allegiance. "Why John Doe instead of Juan Doe?" is a common sentiment. The dollar is the end game.
I don't see things that way. I see people Americans, Michiganders, citizens of Battle Creek, and (in my case) members of the Bannister family.
My favorite video ever is the one where your hero Lou Dobbs calls economists "complete idiots," "jackasses," and "completely out of their minds." I just had to laugh, because he just looked so ignorant. It doesn't even occur to him that there's a reason why economists take one position, and the general population another. Perhaps they understand certain workings of the market that he doesn't? Or maybe the entire economics profession is in the back pocket of big business. Yeah, that must be it.
Lou Dobbs, the guy with a BA in Economics from Harvard? Ah, that one.
Perhaps these so-called gurus have led us blindly into national ruin and permanent debtor nation status? These folks have bought into an ideology and christened it an economic dogma. Yeah, people don't buy it because they are on the ground floor. They are the damn numbers these economists scribble on paper in ivory towers and later call collateral damage. Seriously, they people don't buy the numbers, they know better.
Buchanan makes a few basic faulty assumptions in that Hardball debate. Where he should be blaming monetary policy for the rapid currency devaluation, instead he blames trade. Valuation of money, like any other good, mostly has to do with its stock. He also failed to mention one other key reason for elevating prices, and that is the changing price of inputs. This is due to scarcity of resources. He also confuses the price of labor with its marginal costs, which depends on relative productivity.
"In the long run there cannot be such a thing as moderate protectionism. If people regard imports as an injury, they will not stop anywhere on the way toward autarky. Why tolerate an evil if there seems to be a way to get rid of it?"
"When anyone complains about unfair competition, consumers beware."
"Whenever someone starts talking about "fair competition" or indeed, about "fairness" in general, it is time to keep a sharp eye on your wallet, for it is about to be picked."
Another way to look at it is to remember the Ross Perot prediction, of the "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving America to foreigners. We now see that it never actually occurred, given 310,000 jobs lost to imports, but over 17 millions jobs gained yearly, for a net gain of nearly 2 million jobs averaged out after the passing of NAFTA. There is very little evidence to suggest that trade is a major source of our economic woes. Passing high "equalization measures" a la Smoot/Hawley, only hurts us.
Even Robert Reich, one of the primary promoters of NAFTA admitted that the sucking sound has come to pass! When debating Buchanan, he never denied it. He just said they were all wrong. The jobs didn't go to Mexico, they went to China! But hey, what do they know?
Smoot Hawley.... this will need another comment. :)
Let's look at Smoot Hawley. Raised tariff rate to 53% in 1930 and 59% in 1932. Now, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations raised tariffs to 62%. Relatively close, but TA is still a few % points ahead.
The clincher is here: TA applied to 92% of imports. What about SH? Less than 1/3!
Topping it off, imports accounted for only 4% of GNP in 1930. What does this say? SH only impacted 1.3% of GNP!
You guys have created a bogeyman out of SH like you have economic nationalism.
I'd be happy to give you the numbers: adjusted jobs lost yearly is roughly 15 million, adjusted for seasonal and other short-term corrected turnover losses. So this means that: Jobs lost yearly due to free trade= 310,000.
Jobs lost due to other reasons: 14,690,000.
I don't seek to dehumanize anyone, I just want to put it in perspective. As you can see, this means that if we imposed 100 percent tariffs on imports, we would barely change the number of jobs lost each year.
Oh, not don't be silly. A large reason (though not the entire reason) that people leave this country is not to produce and sell in foreign markets. They love the American buyers! So they fire American workers, ship off their jobs, produce elsewhere, ship back, sell here. Why?
The answer to that question reveals that a demand for reciprocity or equalization to be reasonable, prudent, and urgent.
Do you not see a distinction between jobs lost one way over another, or various types of jobs lost?
The murder analogy is nonsense. It's more accurate to say "2% of workers laid off is due to outsourcing, and 98% of workers laid of is due to other reasons." We should impose huge costs on the many to benefit the 2%. You say you can't help the 98%, BUT YOU CAN! In fact, it's very easy, just impose taxes or ban entirely interstate capital flows, or simply progressively tax productivity. It happens all the time, just look at health insurance. Why settle for benefiting a measly 2%?
The analogy is quite fitting. One is far more natural, the other is murderous. I think it works just fine.
When you say 2%, can you please translate that into people for me. See, the number game is fun, and I know why economists play bad new low and good news high. But seriously, translate that. And then instead of jobs, put a face with that, and a family, and a home, and taxes for school, and a welfare check. That will help me compute these numbers.
Ah, so you'd prefer bureaucrats to decide which industries are suffering directly or indirectly from foreign competition, and which are not. Just tell me how you are going to achieve this given the political system we have now. The federal gov't record on this is extremely dubious, because it requires the central planner to have near perfect information, which is very costly to achieve. With constantly changing consumer demands and constant fluctuations in input prices, this is just impossible.
It doesn't take a bureaucrat to realize which industries are important to the sovereignty of a nation, much less recognizing which industries have been hit most by horrific trade agreements.
The federal record on this? Please tell me you are joking. Please tell me you have done some reading on the issue. From 1860-1920, the heyday of economic nationalism under Republican leadership, tell me just how BAD we did. Please, enlighten us here.
You want to know why we see jobs leaving all over the place in MI, my town included? Trade? Nope. Horrible state policy decisions? Yes. If I'm a business owner, give me one good reason why I should locate in MI when I could I can just as easily build in Indiana or Ohio, where taxes are lower that businesses and citizens must pay? Instead, we raised taxes in the Granholm administration, further repelling and discouraging business. Trade is not the culprit here, as the numbers I provided suggest.
If you seriously think that it can all be reduced down to poor decisions made at the state level, then we have ourselves a serious problem. I have said on more than one occasion that taxes (state and federal), regulations (state and federal), and inflation due to our fiat money system play huge roles in the crisis. But to accept these as being problematic while not seeing what results from these PLUS free trade is downright absurd. Free trade doesn't work at all times in all places the same.
Here's what the dollar inherently represents: a claim on a future US good or service. Every foreigner paid a dollar for his good/service has 3 choices for which to spend the dollar, and so it follows that the dollar will return to the US, boosting demand for a US good or service. You speak of an equivocation tax, which will have the effect of cutting off imports, thus raising the cost on all consumers, and giving pink slips to workers in sectors which rely upon intermediate import components.
The dollar will return to the US? I'd like to know where it's coming from! 31 consecutive years of trade deficits, a trade debt well over $6,000,000,000 dollars (trillion for those lost in the zeros), and we've lost over 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs. You don't think for a second that these play into the price of the dollar? You don't think that these are the result of our so-called free trade policies? Even looking at how illegals funnel money back home shows this to be well wishing.
How do we know that more jobs will be created here? Simple, just think about what the dollar represents and the choices foreigners have with it (currency flows) and you should have your answer. This is not "faith-based," it is empirically and theoretically well supported. Exports and imports form a parallel trend. Cutting off imports will necessarily eliminate jobs in export AND other non-export industries. This is because over 50% of imports are intermediate purchases or other non-final goods.
What the dollar reprsents? Less than the yen, the euro, the pound, and the looney. Not too enticing.
Who is talking about cutting off imports? Do you think for a second that if we put an equalization tariff on abusers like China and Mexico that all of a sudden we would have no more imports? We are still a massive consumer market!
You want me to feel bad at the loss of import jobs when you don't give a rat's rear abotu the loss of our manufacturing base? That's bizarre.
To put it in perspective, about 15 million jobs yearly are lost for all sorts of reasons: consumer tastes change, malinvestment, innovation, better productivity. Taking one random sample out of these 15M, the chances that the job was lost for a reason OTHER THAN foreign competition is...98%. That means that only 2% of jobs lost are due to foreign production. For outsourcing (services) the number is even lower: roughly 1%. So you fair-traders sure are one heck of a concentrated special interest.
Once again, when you say "only 2 percent" you are forgetting the personal element of the job and the reason for the loss. That is like saying, "98% of people die from natural causes, only 2% due to murder, so if you are upset over murder then you are a special interest." Absurd.
The other thing is that with consumer taste changes normally comes new jobs.
You can't help tastes, but you sure as hell can stop giving incentives to people who could give a rats read abotu the American worker.
I only used some name-calling because you felt I wasn't mean enough;) Be careful to distinguish exactly what I said: record manufacturing growth, meaning output. Productivity! It's why we have a great standard of living, and why the rest of the world has been eating our dust for some time now. I did't say jobs, because ceteris paribus, we have lost nearly 18 million jobs to better productivity (this is what I was trying to describe to you yesterday, about opposing better technology, etc.)
Output, yes, we talked about this over the phone. See, free traders seek nothing but profit. There is no personal element to work. There is no family element to work. They never once consider communities or their nation. Nations are meaningless.
Here again we have an issue where innovative technology potentially creates jobs shore side. If the need is there, new jobs are opened. Outsourcing and offshoring are about tax havens and slave labor, not "need."
Hey, I was the one that didn't want to get into the numbers and stats in the first place; you brought that one up first. But you can't deny that there are many numbers that fly in the face the free-trade naysayers, esp. when they talk about the 'harms' of Nafta/Cafta, and so on. Like for example, the record manufacturing growth, net job growth...and that is DESPITE a tumbling dollar, crippling debt, capital investment bubbles, and horrible tax policy.
Talk about numbers all you want, we've got number too. And the American people most certainly understand this problem. There is a general disdain among the American populace for offshoring, outsourcing, and downsizing. Outside of the economics field you won't find many people praising such business practices.
Manufacturing job growth? Enlighten me here. All my numbers point to the contrary.
I forgot to mention this to you, but this is the book that finally turned me from a former fair-trader/protectionist into a true free trader. He addresses all concerns raised by Buchanan, Dobbs, Ralph Nader, and all the other slobbering, foaming, fair-trade buffoons.
Men standing up for the American middle class and the assault of free trade utopians upon their jobs and way of life are slobbering, foaming, and buffoons? Well, count me as one who is proudly among them.
You wondered where some of my numbers were came from, and I had to dig around to find exactly where I first read them. Found it! "Free Trade Under Fire" by Dr. Douglas Irwin. He uses trade related numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for his book as well. His main point is the same as mine, that trade is NOT the problem with our economy, and attacks against free trade are misplaced. My favorite stat: that only 17% of American workers are placed in direct competition with int'l producers.
Even if it is only 17%, this would result in almost 1 out of every 5 laborers in the workforce.
Free traders look at numbers are nothing more than digits on the screen. Work is impersonal. Everything boils down to the dollar. We put an AMERICAN face on that lost job. We put an AMERICAN family at the table that no longer has the income to pay the mortgage.
One of these I know off the top of my head, manufacturing in America hit its peak in: 2007. Yes, believe it or not, output (total production) of US manufacturing goods hit its peak last year. Aren't you for eliminating the competition for select business sectors? I know I have asked you before to state specifically, not abstractly, what you are proposing. I support lowering costs domestically AND eliminating tariffs, quotas, duties, and all other barriers to market entry and exit. You support..?
... acknowledging the fact that the policies of both this nation and our trading partners place American producers at a gross disadvantage. This is economic realism. Unless or until we deregulate and decentralize in such a way as to where American producers are not put at an artificial disadvantage and workers punished for things outside their control, we must use measures that equalize the situation. This is constitutional, this is conservative.
Well anyway, to return to the statistics debate, there's a few numbers that you should also tell your audience. In order to subsidize and protect domestic jobs from competition, it costs US taxpayers $140,000 per textile job, $350,000 per tool manufacturing job, and a whopping $600,000 per sugar sector job. These are just a portion of the massive inefficiencies that occur when consumers are told what they may and may not buy.
Why did it not cost this before? I am promoting nothing more and nothing less than what the founders practices those who followed them practiced until Woodrow Wilson. Where were those costs?
Can you please tell us how much tax revenue American has LOST with the offshoring and oursourcing of manufacturing and textile jobs? Average income, average tax rate, number lost. You do the number crunching and get back to me. :)
So you think it's worthless to hear opinions from people who've spent many more years than you or I studying and dealing with these issues? It was actually helpful to me, because Toomey gave a slightly different answer than I anticipated, having to do with international vs. domestic borders of trade.
No, not entirely worthless. I just don't put stock in too much of it any longer. As I said, if people wanted to have a PhD pissing contest, we'd be here a long time. This is not only in relations to economics either.
Liberals with a PhD, libertarians with a PhD, fusionists with a PhD, protectionists with a PhD, a lot of people with a PhD with a lot of differing opinions.
Ok, so over the past 3 days I have talked to Dick Armey and Pat Toomey about their thoughts on Fair trade and what, if anything, should be done to "discourage captial exports," such as you have proposed. To Toomey, I laid out the argument exactly as you have. The answer was a resounding "no," even in the context of a game-theory situation, which is, in theory, economically feasible. But still they rejected it, as I have. One reason: it is commonly used as a convenient excuse for protectionism.
Hahaha, didn't I warn you about getting into the statistics debate? More on that later. You'd be interested in your arch-nemesis: Doug Irwin, Dartmouth PhD (many books on free trade.) To take a "mean blow," Buchanan's degree is in journalism, not economics. You're right, opponents should read opposing views. Lucky for me, Hillsdale education requires this, which is why I've had to tolerate Krugman, Keynes, etc. But, I will embark on the painful experience (I imagine) of reading Pat's book.
Of course Krugman doesn't have a monopoly, I only mention him because he is probably the most well-known founders of it, in addition his contributions of mathematical formalization of models that supposedly render managed trade helpful. The point it that it even if it's assumed that the gov't has sufficient information on what is "fair" how are you supposed to implement them to get the desired result? How often does government intervention into markets get the result that was intended?
The best known founder of economic nationalism was Alexander Hamilton. We could throw all the great presidents leading up to and through the roaring 20's if you'd wish, but Krugman just so happens to be the mainstream darling on the matter. I would also like to think that Buchanan trumps old Kruger.
It worked well for the first 150 years of our nation. Look at the stats from the advent of the Republican party up through the 20's and you'll see that the numbers were nothing but positive.
I haven't read Buchanan's book, but I've seen Smith's exemptions. These are highly specialized and limited. Even Krugman, perhaps the architect of strategic so-called fair trade policies such as the ones you are supporting, has himself admitted the complications and difficulty of implementing the theories that he himself created! This is because managed trade policies requires a benevolent, all-knowing government that tries to maximize social benefits. This fails in principle and in practice.
Krugman is by no means the architect. He may be an advocate and one who has popularized (in the mainstream media) the term, but he has no monopoly on it. Buchanan, Sam Francis, and most contributors to Chronicles Magazine and The American Conservative advocate the same concepts. In fact, it was the policy of America all the way through the earlier portions of the 1900's.
I'd love to discuss the results of such policies, but I will be posting a video detailing them shortly.
You're no fan of the "seen and the unseen" function that is served by economics? I'm really surprised to hear you say that. From what I've observed since beginning my education in economics, I would say that this is why the study of economics is so important. This is why the opinion of economists generally is contrary to popular opinion, because the untrained eye only sees "the unseen." This is what intrigues me so much about econ, and one reason I chose it as my field of study.
It seems to me you still can't make up your mind as to what exactly you are advocating. Just before I posted on here, some guy suggested we ban imports on shoes (this is the operation of tariffs), to boost domestic manufacturing. Your reply was: "I don't advocate banning anything." Also: "to set American workers in unfettered competition does more harm than good." If you REALLY believed this to be the case in the aggregate, then you should be for banning things! You can't have it both ways.
I have made it very clear as to what I am advocating: fair trade economic nationalism. This doesn't necessarily require banning goods, though Adam Smith (in his often overlooked Exceptions) found a handful of exceptions for banning goods. To say this is to misunderstand economic nationalism.
Have you read Smith's exceptions or Buchanan's Great Betrayal?
In the light of economics, protectionism is interpreted to mean a flat-out denial of int'l trade theory (using Ricardo, Marshallian models, widely accepted by economists), to serve ulterior motives, or a basic misunderstanding of it. With all due respect, I believe you are in the latter catergory. Trade should apply the ideas of Bastiat, in that there are many forces that are seen, but it takes a good economist to see the unseen; what must be foreseen. This is why I believe your argument fails.
Sorry, but I am no fan of Bastiat or Ricardo. I support free markets, as understood by Smith, over against laissez faire free trade. I believe the latter to be messianic and millennialist rather than realistic. I think Buchanan dealt with this rather well in his book, The Great Betrayal. Just my opinion.
I find it interesting that both you and those writers from the NY Times hedge from actually calling for protectionism. If you remember, he doesn't actually say "Slap on tariffs," but doesn't give any alternative either. One friend of mine was in direct contact with Roberts on this one, and the final verdict was more wishy-washy statements having to do with discouraging capital exports. I would love to call in to your show to discuss this further, but I'm unaware as how to do so.
Because protectionism, like isolationism, is used by opponents to give a specific school of thought what they hope to be a negative connotation. Titles don't matter much to me, but in politics they tend to mean everything.
People will look at MI and say "See see? Because minimum wage was raised in 2006, MI has lost X number of jobs." And many others will say "But because the wage was raised, the unemployment isn't even worse than it is." There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. I could fire back at you statistics suggesting the exact opposite. It is much more practical and helpful to try and discover how you think about and interpret the data. That is what I'm trying to get out of you here.
You've now shifted the debate into the realm of statistics, which as you well know can become an endless mess. So I'd like hold off on this for the time being. Instead, please address my earlier points as to why your argument is fundamentally different from classic protectionism, because so far, you haven't told me why. Remember, the opposite of allowing free trade is protectionism (all costs implied, i.e. classic Ricardian model);. If you know of a 3rd way, by all means, I'd like to hear it.
I don't have a problem being identified as a protectionist, though I prefer economic nationalist. Kind of like someone being called an isolationist when they are a non-interventionist.
My issue wasn't with the title (I don't think), but with feeling that I was guilty by association with certain libs you mentioned.
Now I realize that we are both in MI and see our tanking economy, and so if I may borrow a classic wishy-washy phrase from H.Clinton, "I can certainly understand where you're coming from." But enacting taxes as a reaction to anti-business gov't practices is the wrong approach, b/c of the HUGE costs implied in the form of lower real wages nationwide, lost jobs in other sectors (this is the application of Say's law,) and massive increases in federal rent-seeking, which is out of control already.
During the era of Republican tariffs, we had something quite different than the laissez faire crowd would like us to believe. Real wages, despite a doubling of the US population, rose 53%. Commodity prices fell 58%. Annual growth of the US economy averaged over 4% annually! And from 1869-1900, our GNP quadrupled. Not a bad scorecard.
Anyway, I've heard your 'theory' before, but not frequently. It's not often you come across a libertarian opposing free trade, for this reason or any other. It is von Mises, as early as the 1920s, that is credited with the phrase "One gov't intervention begets another" (Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.) As is always the case with free trade, the gains to the winners heavily outweigh the losses to the losers, which is why when I saw the title of your video, my eyebrows went up.
I'm not much of a libertarian. I'm with them on non-interventionism, gun-rights, drug laws, etc., but we certainly part ways on some cultural and economic issues. I'm closer to Buchanan and Samuel Francis than Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, even though I like all of them.
I have no job, I'm a leech on society, also known as a "5th year college senior." Who else would have minutes to kill in the middle of the night blogging good sleep time away?
I was not my intent to purposely trying to seek out liberals and then compare them to you. I had just recently read the article and thought it was appropriate and perhaps of interest to you. I am the first to reject ad-homonym or other baseless attack. That's all. (The Susan Demas comment was meant as a joke, btw.)
You wouldn't have the pristine job you have if it were not for your ability to reason, my friend. I am in no way upset with you. I enjoy the discussion, especially with someone of your caliber. Tell your boss he is in my prayers.
Susan Demas! haha That gave you away. I knew it was a joke. You're a good man.
Most aspects of laissez-faire could be characterized as "faith-based," for someone seeking to use rhetoric to undermine a policy. To use this term is utter nonsense, in addition to this fantasy that everyone calls the "level playing field." The reason why most people use this term is because they see from an absolute or competitive advantage viewpoint only. What you're saying is that, if one nation has a noncomparative advantage over the other, trade becomes a zero-sum game. Wrong wrong wrong.
Level playing field. Will a playing field ever be completely level? No. But to deny that the taxes and regulations our politicians have forced on the American producer does not place him at a horrific disadvantage is rather silly.
Comparative advantage. Well, if their advantage were merely the result of geographical determinism, then all would be well. Unfortunately, it has to do with our policies. These are unnatural advantages and disadvantages. Hardly worthy of Smith's understanding.
It doesn't concern me what party historically supported X policy. What I am concerned with is what economics has taught us, ever since the mercantilists put into action their policies in the 16th century. Why compare you to Schumer and Roberts? Simple, if you read the article, you'll see the same fundamental logic that you've used, coming from slightly different angles of course, but the same underlying principle nonetheless.
Let's find some hard-line liberals who support free trade and then equivocate. Not good argumentation, bull.
What have we learned from economics. Well, that while free trade results in cheaper goods, it has also resulted in the loss of manufacturing jobs, low-skilled jobs for our poor, record trade deficits, and a loss in tax revenue from outsourcing, offshoring, and the unemployment (or lower paying jobs) that results from the two.
This article by Chuck Schumer and Paul Roberts has more to do with the mobility of means of production, but it is related to what you're saying. It seems to me that your argument ends up at the same reasoning used for decades by Schumer, the old protectionists, or maybe even mercantilists. So if "putting US workers in competition..." is not in their interest, I'm assuming that the solution is to remove the competition? This is just old-fashioned protectionism wrapped up in a brand new package.
Why compare me to Schumer and Roberts when you could compare me to George Washington, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and the Republican party prior to the economics of Wilson and FDR? The Republican Party was one of economic nationalism all the way through the roaring twenties. Liberals, not conservatives or Republicans, were advocates for faith-based free trade economics. All this to say that we both have the good, the bad, and the ugly advocates in our camps. Be fair.
Protectionism always has as its intention "looking after the majority of Americans." You are saying that, because of high gov't intervention in the form of import taxes, wage floors, etc., the "deck is stacked against the US workers." But really what you are saying is that other producers' goods are more relatively inexpensive to our goods, in the context of higher marginal costs (=less supply.) For more:
Politicians have put into law taxes and regulations that enter into the cost of American made goods. American producers must abide by these laws. If they don't, they're in trouble.
Foreign governments do not impose the same burdensome taxes on their producers and place tariffs and quotas on our exports. This allows them to sell on the cheap.
Let's be clear, tariffs are taxes, plain and simple. If indeed you are advocating higher tariffs (which still you haven't actually taken a position) , then you're saying that one wrong justifies another. How can even more regulation be the solution to already high regulation?
But a tariff is a tax on foreign products. Sure, this tax would enter into the cost of the product, but at least the cost of the foreign made product would be on par with that of the American made product. Would it cost more? Yes and no. It may force us to pay $10 more a year for goceries, but the impact of a sustained work force offsets this by leaps and bounds. Less unemployment, less welfare.
You should call my show tonight. My featured video on my channel gives the details.
So let me see if I understand your point: minimum wages, taxes, and other regulations all hurt our economy, and so to offset these negative effects, we need to impose tariffs, which are the same as taxes, on goods that consumers want. You don't exactly say what your solution is, but this seems to be where you're going with this.
So long as our politicians mandate regulations and taxes that enter into the cost of American products, it is grossly unfair for those same politicians to place Americans in competition with nations that do not have these regulations and taxes being factored in to their products.
BTW- Ron Paul has said many times, when asked where government revenue will come from under a Paul administration, that the constitution affords the right to impose tariffs.
Free markets work and the customer is always right, unless he chooses an imported good? I would expect S.Demas to say something like this. Creative destruction, popularized by Schumpeter, has existed for centuries, benefiting standard of living for millions worldwide. Is it any wonder that economists(-Krugman) overwhelmingly preach free trade as desirable? M.Friedman wouldn't even call the countries you rail against (India, China..) "competitors" but rather cooperators. Why do you think this is?
All I am saying is that the government's economic policies should not pit the American worker against third world countries when the same government mandates gross amounts of regulation and taxation on American companies that stack the deck against domestic producers. Nothing more.
There are good people on both sides of the aisle who support both sides of the debate. It is not a left-right debate.
Wow, Mr. Paleo, I'm quite shocked at your economics here. The best solution for job creation is, say it with me: Government mandates. Yes, with government mandates, every job in every sector can be maintained. This is another classic example of concentrated benefits vs. dispersed costs, with the gov't as the engine of income redistribution. (cont.)
I support radical deregulation. But so long as our government mandates minimum wage laws, corporate taxes, environmental regulations, and the a mountain worth of red tape, it is against the interest of the American working class to put them in competition with countries that don't have those costs included within their products.
Since when has looking after the majority of Americans a bad thing? This holds especially true in Michigan.
Your jobs in Michigan are being outsourced because of horrible tax policies and intractable unions, among other reasons.
Manufacturing employment in the US peaked in 1945. This "outsourcing" phenomenon is hardly new.
I grew up in the deep south. I don't know a single person who wanted their kid to grow up to be a textile worker. Should we instill protectionist tariffs to retain textile jobs?
Paleo, you seem to be sliding from conservatism into a very weird populist place.
Other reasons include the natural tendency of labour to seek its own value. Does it even make sense to make something domestically if it can be made cheaper elsewhere?
Why not ban import of shoes, so we can have a domestic shoe industry again? So what if shoes triple or quadruple in price? As long a someone in Michigan can have a job... right?
Take this to its extreme, and just have a government-funded "jobs" program. WPA all over again.
Yes, it makes sense. Production is important. This is especially true in manufacturing.
I don't advocate banning anything. I simply say that we shouldn't advocate an economic policy that hurts the American working class.
What is the average price for Nike shoes?
I don't want government-funded programs. I want radical deregulation and tax reform. But until this happens, and until trade partners stop playing quotas and tariffs on our goods, we should not act as if the world is flat.
When Bush imposed tariffs on steel some years ago, it kept domestic steel prices high. But, what steelworkers made in extra income was way more than offset by higher consumer prices.
Protectionism never works in the long run. What we need is a system of trade agreements that in fact level the playing field. Ideally, zero tariffs across the board. But, political interests prevent this. And we all pay.
Commenting as I listen...you are worrying me here at the outset paleo. A price below what American gov't mandates employers to pay employees? So now you are for gov't telling us how much we can pay somebody? In the free market, which I thought you were a proponent of, the min. wage is $0/hr. If we wanna let go'vt tell us how much to pay somebody for labor, why not for a car, a house, a tv set. Min wage is price fixing plain and simple.
Wow, paleo, you run amok on your economics here. Real incomes are not down. Read 'income confusion' a recent column by our esteemed friend Thomas Sowell.
No, I am not for government telling us how much we must pay someone. I am simply saying that so long as the current taxes and regulations are in place, to set American workers in unfettered competition does more harm than good. So long as we are burdened with the mandates of the welfare state, free trade will only pit us in a game where there is two radically different (and unfair) set of rules. Unfortunate, but real.
Free trade can only work in a free society, you can't have free trade + corperate welfare + the hadicaping of small buisness+ the income tax. You either pick tryanny, or liberty. Those are your only options.
What we have with China is not free trade, unfortunately.
baigandine 1 year ago
Look at all these comment.. Do any of you come from working class families? Do any of you still have grandparents left, that maybe retired from GM? Some people, just don't live in the same world. Some folks are just sheltered, and naive intellectuals.. All of the factories are closed here.. If we all go back to school, where are we going to all work? Will a masters degree become worthless?
MrBuyUSA 1 year ago
I'm genuinely curious as to how protectionism will in any way help the general public. Sure, it might help some very specific parts of the economy (manufacturing), nobody could possibly deny that. But why care only about one specific sector and force other parts of the economy, parts which provide people with jobs and salaries?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
What jobs did Free Trade Provide? ,Working at McDonalds? Free Trade Destroyed all manufacturing in the United States which was the back bone of our country. Free Trade put millions out of jobs. Americans cannot compete with Slave Labor. We need tarriffs to bring back manufacturing. How could anyone in their Right Mind say Tarriffs will hurt us, unless your not American. Just look at what Free Trade did to America.
rocksiphone 1 year ago
Actually the only thing which I have seen which has experienced deflation is computers, and computers aren't made with cheap foreign labor but in the good old USA or other 1st world countries. Everything else has experienced normal inflation, well except recently imported oil is real expensive, duh.
Userduder 3 years ago
Read Ha-Joon Chang article, *Kicking away the ladder: an unofficial history of capitalism, especially in
Britain and the United States*. Yes, protective and revenue tariffs work (and lower taxes)--history says so, not abstractions.
mujaku 3 years ago
Hi paleo, the journey through the great betrayal is slow going, mostly because of Spanish comps coming up for school. However, I've come across a point that so far hasn't been appeared so far in the free/fair trade war. I may have mentioned it before but didn't elaborate, and that is the theory of value being used by the fair traders. In order for fair trade to work, as Buchanan is speaking of, some kind of intrinsic value needs to be accepted, which quite frankly, doesn't make much sense to me.
labulldog5 3 years ago
I just had a great idea, paleoradio should devote a segment called "the benefits of free trade!" As much as it might feel like pins are being run through your body, it might give your listeners a more accurate picture of the issue. You hint in this video of the beneifts, why not elaborate on them, as you have done w/ costs? There's plenty to be shared on the benefits side. It would be interesting for sure.
labulldog5 3 years ago
That sounds like a plan. I could talk about getting manufactures and textiles off our backs, allowing us to be a service economy. I could talk about the spike in employment in Mexico and Bangalore. I could talk about the luxuries of Walmart and cheap goods. I could even talk about helping out our Communist friends over in China. But I don't think these are the benefits you are getting at. :)
paleocrat 3 years ago
I do think Walmart is a benefit. That's my personal view. It helps lots of poor people.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago 4
@stealthswimmer Poor people who would not be so poor but for Walmart.
baigandine 1 year ago
My program is an advocacy program. I allow callers to balance out my positions on various matters. I speak my mind, give my opinion, and let the chips fall where they may.
My program is not a news broadcast. I am not dedicated to "he said / she said" journalism. I am not bound by the fairness doctrine, though I allow people I criticize or ideas I hammer to be defended by people on the program or on the phone.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You have completely ignored the economic impact of the past 13 years or so since NAFTA, which as you know has been a time of rapid de-regulation of int'l trade, with the economy grown 50%, avg unemployment at 5% (compared to 7.1% before), and manufacturing output up 63%! Is this due to trade, or in spite of it? You MUST consider all data, to accurately analyze trade impact. This is one thing I'll be looking for in the book, and esp for some new NTT or model you keep talking about.
labulldog5 3 years ago
I haven't ignored numbers since NAFTA. Even in this video I say that there have been benefits, but that I think they are short-term and short-sighted. I should have said narrow-minded due to their inability to take serious the other factors of value I have mentioned elsewhere.
NAFTA? The trade agreement regulated by multi-nationals in the WTO? The blatantly unconstitutional trade agreement?
We have discussed output elsewhere. I won't do so again. At least not here and now.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You have cited, as Pat does, American protectionism as a shining example of the benefits of nationalism. But raw stats are worthless, without comparative analysis and a theory from to draw conclusions. For example, you must compare that to other times of high tariffs, and then compare THOSE to times of low tariffs, and see if there is a correlation to growth, price level, etc. And even if you do that, this still doesn't necessarily prove causation, and so you must have an analytical model.
labulldog5 3 years ago
Pat does this. He compares the "then and now" in every book that he deals with the issue. He deals with it in The Great Betrayal, Where the Right Went Wrong, and Day of Reckoning.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You should stop using American nationalism as "proof" for protectionism. This is flawed, in the same way as saying "All US presidents were elected officials. Therefore, all elected officials are US presidents." You can't just wave around cherry-picked stats; you need to have an analytically-supported method from which to draw conclusion from the data. Since it is obvious that you will continue to dismiss anything I say as ivory-tower economist brainwashing, I have begun to read Pat's book.
labulldog5 3 years ago
I don't use it as "proof" for protectionism. I'm not cherry-picking stats here. No more than you or others would be. I am attempting to look at what I believe is best for America, in a sense that recognizes the fact that America is (or at least was) more than cheap goods. We recognize that America is made up of culture, economics, law, traditions, etc. We try to be well rounded, not allowing one aspect to dominate all the others. Nothing more, nothing less.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Well I wasn't talking about Walmart per se, but rent-seeking on a macro sense, where it is very prevalent. American nationalism is of course every town's right to choose, it's just that in my opinion, they will be poorer as a result. But people generally reject nationalism with their wallet. Why do you think Walmart continues to be the nation's leader in retail? Because they raise everyone's REAL WAGES, and people flock to this. Most of Walmarts clients are middle and lower income households.
labulldog5 3 years ago
Poorer as a result? If money was what American life was all about, as free traders would have it, then you may be right. But some people take great pride, something they deem a value, in culture, identity, and a working and producing citizenry.
The trade off with what we spend as to what we lose is what I and other economic nationalists are concerned with. We spend less, granted. But at what cost?
What is the average pay for employees at Wal-Mart? Just curious.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Community/locality producing are very noble and well-intentioned causes. The problem is that using the argument usually winds up being convenient excuses by the politically powerful to impose enormous costs on the general population. It becomes perverted when it goes through the political process, because it gives incentives for rent-seeking. This didn't go on in early America to the extent it is done now. When you combine these costs, among many others, nationalism becomes a very costly policy.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Wrong. In most cases, it is people who like to keep their identity. Olivet (where I go to college) and Marshall (the town next door) are two great example. Battle Creek held out for a long time and it wasn't until the people in power broke a deal with Wal-Mart that they began planning to build in my township.
Is nationalism more costly than what you propose? Certainly. But it comes down to what a nation, a community, a culture, an identity, and an American job are really worth. I say a lot.
paleocrat 4 years ago
...matter is that innovation like this is what drives an economy forward. That's what is really happening when capital flows to the cheap labor. Add capital, and you have yourself people who's production levels were pathetic before, but can now produce 2, 3, 10 times as much as before. It's all about scarce resources, that's what fair traders never seem to get. To you guys, trading 2 units of exports for 1000 units of imports is somehow a bad thing. This cannot be true in the long run.
labulldog5 4 years ago
First, I think it is hysterical that you keep equating the economic nationalism of Hamilton and the American School with what currently flies under the banner of fair trade.
Secondly, my complaints about Walmart have nothing to do with efficiency. They are quite efficient. Technology and $0.63 an hour make a good team.
My problem is that I don't look at everything through that lens. I see communities, local identities, and local/regional/national producers as being of great value.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Walmart has been a pioneer in innovation in retailing, which or course all competitors don't like, because they must match it or lose profit. They were the first to popularize the barcode checkout lanes, which greatly reduced the information costs of retailing. My dad used to be an inventory guy for Savon in L.A. That job no longer exists anywhere in the country, and no matter how much that might upset Pat Buchanan, since we could have people doing inventory jobs instead, the fact of the...
labulldog5 4 years ago
Unfortunately for all the fair-traders, consumers overwhelmingly feel a little different when it comes to Walmart. By voting with their dollar, they have chosen the efficiency in production and economies of scale that Walmart has to offer, with consumers pocketing the savings to spend on other things. For a great critique, probably the best I've seen, watch the South park, "Something Wall-Mart this way comes." You can watch it online free at southparkzone*com. Simply hilarious and oh so true.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Do you really have that difficult a time distinguishing what is currently being paraded as fair trade with the economic nationalism of Hamilton on even American Economics?
Consumers speak with their pockets. Yes, American love cheap stuff. But it would be rather naive to think that "the good" is determined by such things.
Efficiency in production? Can you please name what makes their efficiency better than ours... without talking about the $0.63 per hour they make?
Walmart on show tonight!
paleocrat 4 years ago
It depends on what you mean by imports. Goods are so interdependent nowadays that it's sometimes hard to oppose imports, because your country may have a hand in its production, even though it's called an import (cars, computers, machinery are good examples.) Again, this requires vast amounts of information that's very costly to obtain, which is why gov't always has a horrible time implementing "fairness," because its hard to determine what the level playing field is, and then how to get there.
labulldog5 4 years ago
It is so hard to define imports! haha The statistics are out there, Joe. People have reported on it. I just want you to do some leg-work.
For example, what % of the products on their shelves are Made in China?
paleocrat 4 years ago
Here's one of those emperical studies I was telling you about, dealing with some of the effects of Wal-Mart, if you ever have lots of time to kill:
google: "The Impact of Wal-Mart on Self Employment"
I still am convinced that you seriously underestimate the benefits of free trade, which as I've told you, aren't as evident and obvious as the costs. In order to understand, it takes a rather complex train of thought, to "see" the unseen, which is just as vital as the seen, perhaps even more so.
labulldog5 4 years ago
I not only underestimate the benefits of free trade, I think that those benefits that do exist are overshadowed by the harmful effects.
What % of goods sold at Wal-Mart are imports, as opposed to American made goods?
paleocrat 4 years ago
I haven't touched this issue yet, but it has to do with price level. Wal-Mart is every fair-traders sworn enemy, it's the perfect example to use. Accounting for the secondary effects, Wal-Mart has, single handedly, slowed inflation by an estimated 1%, an unprecedented feat. When you consider that inflation is one of the biggest long-term job killers that exists for the agg economy, it follows that benefits are neither "occasional, short term, or short sighted" as you claim. Exactly the opposite.
labulldog5 4 years ago
A. I am not a hard-line fair trader.
B. I am not a fan of Wal-Mart
C. I have seen firsthand the effect Wal-Mart has on local communities. I have seen local sellers who sell good produced by local or national companies go out of business. The American village and city is going the way of the dodo, and Wal-Mart smiles.
D. What impact does Wal-Mart have on our trade deficit?
E. I don't see everything in money figures. People are more than consumers, and towns are more important than cheap goods
paleocrat 4 years ago
The best example for free trade is Hong Kong, which has had enormous success in the standard of living, jobs, and overall prosperity of the region. You speak of free trade utopia, but fair-trade is even more so, because it relies upon an utopian central planner with vast amounts of information given, which is very costly to obtain. It would need to know most every price of goods, money, and labor, and be able to predict future demand. This is why fair-trade is the truly "faith based" sham.
labulldog5 4 years ago
I do not buy into all the tenets of fair trade. As I have said many times over, I am an Economic Nationalist of the American (or National) Economic school of thought.
Unless or until you familiarize yourself with the writings of economic nationalists, you will continue to equate Fair Trade (as advocated by socialists) with American Economics.
paleocrat 4 years ago
...TONS of studies, mostly available for free, by the Journal of International Economics, Foundation for Economic Education, Federal Reserve, Brookings Institute (to take another viewpoint), Economic Research Service, Cato Institute, Business Reference Services, Journal of Economic Theory, Bernard Schwartz Center for EPA, Mises Foundation, BEA, International Trade Bureau, World Bank, and literally hundreds of independent economic studies, just for starters. Faith based? Not quite, Paleo.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Faith based in that it relies heavily upon the "just give it time" argument. It is also, technically speaking, an untries hypothesis. We have no clear cut example of laissez faire free trade to work off of. Our WTO regulated "free trade" agreements are a far cry from Mises utopia.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I bring up dumping because you have mentioned it in the past, and it is a very important branch in the gospel of fair-trade because it is a non-tariff barrier, which has become more popular/feasible nowdays than tariffs and quotas. I find it interesting that you say "so called free trade is based upon faith-based economics." You must be joking. There's plenty of neoclassical, NTT, and other relevant, well-developed theories, and mountains of evidence for it. What evidence you say? You can find..
labulldog5 4 years ago
For a classic case of dumping, look no further than 1904, when German producers of bromine formed a cartel, Die Deutsche Bromkonvention, and began dumping mass quantities of bromine into US markets to drive their competitors out of business especially Herbert Dow, who sold to any willing buyer. Enraged, the German cartel dropped price of bromine exports to the US, selling at huge losses for a while, trying to force Dow out. Care to guess how successful they were in this dumping scheme of theirs?
labulldog5 4 years ago
Here's a reiteration of an argument I made to you some time ago talking about rent-seeking, by Dr. Bhagwati: "Many economists also believe that even if protection were appropriate in theory, it would be "captured" in practice by special interests who would misuse it to pursue their own interests instead of letting it be used for the national interest..But another important cost of protection may well be the lobbying costs incurred by those seeking protection." (aka Fair trade isn't really fair)
labulldog5 4 years ago
Once again, nobody denies this. But to act like the power of special interest groups is not (or was not) behind our free trade agreements would be absurd.
We had economic nationalism. No need to speculate. Just look at history. How did it play out? What role did lobbyists play? Stop speculating at what could be and look at what was.
I have spoken extensively on the ungodly amount of influence lobbyists have. I think we need change, whether under free trade or economic nationalism.
paleocrat 4 years ago
2. The dumping argument is one of the most unfair and ridiculous branches of fair trade, popular only because it is a non-tariff trade barrier. The case for dumping suits is very dubious indeed. Remember the Poland Golf-cart controversy? Poland had no domestic market for golf carts, and the U.S. government took an anti-dumping suit against them anyway! This is how the dumping argument is often misused and easily manipulated, resulting in problems very different from its original intention.
labulldog5 4 years ago
I do not recall whether or not I a have used the argument from dumping on the air or over the phone. I may have, I just don't recall. Pat Buchanan does (I think) when talking about televisions and motorcycles. Don't quote me on it though. Regardless, it is not at the heart of my argument.
paleocrat 4 years ago
And finally, my personal favorite:
8. Emotions, populism, and conventional wisdom trump economics anyday.
labulldog5 4 years ago
8. That is BS. Still, to boil America down to nothing but a market of goods and services is pathetic. We are a nation, a nation made up of much more than a market. These various factors (community, culture, traditions, the common good, etc.) should and must be taken serious. Sorry that people don't see everything through the lens of markets, but society just doesn't work that way. Thank God.
paleocrat 4 years ago
4. All theory and "evidence" shows that the losses from trade are much higher than the benefits.
5. The founding fathers overwhelmingly hated trade liberalization.
6. Since politicians are NEVER influenced by special interests and the politically well-connected, we should have faith that they will enact a trade policy that is in all our interest.
7. Mutually agreed upon transactions of citizens trading their private property should be coerced, in the name of nationalism and the public good.
labulldog5 4 years ago
4. Free trade advocates don't see, like Smith and our founding fathers, that not all sectors are equal. There is a difference between serving Big Macs and making machines.
5. Yes, they were. And our constitution is evidence of this.
6. Nobody denies this. But this is happening right now! Special interests are playing a huge role in the so-called free-trade agreements. I am all for limiting the role of lobbyists.
8. This shows a great lack of understanding our position, or history.
paleocrat 4 years ago
If there were a fair-trade creed, here's what it would look like:
1. I believe in a government that should try to maximize social benefits, such as they have done in wages, rent control, affirmative action, hate crimes, and social welfare programs.
2. When we produce at lowest cost, we are "being competitive." When other countries do, it's "dumping."
3. The Chinese gov't is bad for meddling with their currency. Our gov't would never think of meddling with ours.
labulldog5 4 years ago
1. Why create a straw man when you have close to 150 years of economic nationalism to analyze?
2. Dumping is not merely creating goods at low prices. It is heaving large amounts of these goods into the market of a competitor.
3. We shouldn't meddle with ours. But when a country intentionally tampers with theirs in order to place themselves at an advantage over America, we should take notice. It would be foolish not to.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Outsourcing happens in a not so "free" trade global environment meaning manufacturing the goods can occur in substandard foreign conditions with the products being brought back and sold to American consumers. However, often the governments where the manufacturing is done won't allow them to sell there in an open market (e.g. protectionism) meaning "free" trade is not so free because the trade goes in the foreign host manufacturing country's favor.
RealTalk7777 4 years ago
The post WWII business culture and ideology of building a strong America first and foremost was sold down the river as shareholder profit became the golden calf of our generation. No longer do these modern trans-national globally concerned corporations make it their duty to invest in manufacturing and enterprise in the USA foremost using American workers with the commitment earlier generations showed but rather exploit whenever, wherever, and however it is legal and profitable for them to do so.
RealTalk7777 4 years ago
We don't have free trade right now
milliradian 4 years ago
We have never had laissez faire. It is a theory without any read history to back it up. We currently have regulated trade by the WTO, the the so-called free trade agreements we currently have are riddled with various stipulations and exceptions.
paleocrat 4 years ago
AAAAAH! I was watching Sir Economics, Lou D. tonight on the news, and my head almost exploded. He mentioned that Hillary's proposed solution to the housing slump was to freeze interest rates and sort of stop everything in its tracks. I quote, almost verbatim "At least give her credit for having an idea. Is it the right idea? I just don't know.." So he "doesn't know" if freezing rates- which is really removing market signals which are set by the market for loanable funds-is a good idea? Unreal.
labulldog5 4 years ago
So I'm hoping tomorrow that I will hear a little bit about the biggest threat to us poor-folk: expansionary monetary policy and deficit spending. In my judgement, there are 2 main weights that are dragging the economy downward (Trade isn't one of them, as you can imagine;), high inflation - which is just a form of tax that hurts poor people the most -- and high federal deficits. There are two areas that we can have a big impact, help our economy, and free the next generation from these chains.
labulldog5 4 years ago
You look at some number trend and say "See see? We had tariffs and here are the good results!" It is tempting to fall into this causality trap immediately, but beware the folly of this type of thinking, which has led to some very reckless and irresponsible policy. I cannot stress enough this critical point.
labulldog5 4 years ago
No, I am simply saying that you can't go around warning (theorizing) about how bad things will be when all empirical and historical evidence points to the contrary. Your dogmatic faith in free trade won't even allow you to recognize the fact that what I am advocating is not far off from Adam Smith, and the United States for most all of its existence.
paleocrat 4 years ago
There's no "moving the goalposts" about it. In order to claim "Between 1860-1920, high tariffs produced higher real wages, higher standard or living, etc.," you're going to need some kind of model/theory to use in an empirical study. Without it, you just have empty speculation based on ideology, which comprises most of the fair-trade case. I have given you numbers based on such studies, for example, as the Kletzer study (2001) on import job losses. What theory are you using to prove your case?
labulldog5 4 years ago
I'm simply pointing out numbers that are on the books. I am simply playing journalist and historian here. Reporting what happened, how it worked, and what the numbers are.
I'm not an economist. Never pretended to be one. But I work from the paradigm of the American School (National System) or Economic Nationalism. This has been obvious from the outset.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I know you may not be comfortable with it, but what I have told you is the correct scientific method in economics. This is why I discouraged you long ago from getting into a statistical crossfire, because without the right context, it becomes quite dubious. It's the reason why Japan is held up as the idol for successful protectionism policy, which I explained part of earlier to you. It's the reason why we have models in the first place. It gives us a context in which to view raw numbers.
labulldog5 4 years ago
The correct method of economics? Well, I am all for Comparative Advantage. We just disagree with how this should be understood. As for international trade, I have stated many times over that this is fine and dandy, so long as we don't flinch from various exceptions. You know what these are, we have talked about them. I side with Smith, you side with Mises. I am an economic nationalist, you are an economic internationalist. Two towers, very few points of contact.
paleocrat 4 years ago
The whole key behind the workings of economic analysis and theory is the phrase "Ceteris paribus" which is to hold all other factors equal. This is the purpose and usefulness of economic scientific inquiries, and your claim of the "Golden years of tariffs" fails this most basic feature of the method. I base my claims upon the Law of Comparative Advantage and on international trade theory. What law or theory do you base your arguments on? Buchanan didn't have a straight answer to this, do you?
labulldog5 4 years ago
Nothing like moving the goalposts here, Joe. You make absurd claims about what "would" happen in a system such as one I propose. I point out the historical fact that America lived in such a system for almost it's entire history. I pointed out a specific period of time (1860-1920) and asked you show me how well the numbers match with your predictions. So how do you reply? With this? Give me a break.
And when didn't Buchanan have a straight answer? Video? Book? Can you substantiate this?
paleocrat 4 years ago
How can you claim I don't care about people when I am advocating what I believe is the most feasible way of achieving higher pay, better standard of living, and more jobs for the masses? I think you forget that an equivocation tax will have the effect of layoffs for other people, lowering everyone's real income (tell that to the single mother working 2 jobs and barely putting food on the table now), including businesses, and transferring even more power to politically well-connected interests.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Oh, tariffs lowered real wages? We lost jobs at record numbers during the golden years of the tariff system? See, here is the problem, Joe: history proves you wrong. We have a very lengthy track record of economic nationalism in America. Your predictions are bogeymen. So tell us, what were real wages like during those years? What about unemployment? What about women even having to work? Much less two jobs!!! What about commodity prices? I have the numbers... and they aren't bleak.
paleocrat 4 years ago
A. You can put up barriers between the states, despite Article 1 section 10; it's done all the time, just subtly with a different dressing.
B. The exact same principle of balance of payments applies to world, state, county, town, and so it follows that should be in favor of less trade between the states.
C. Dobbs didn't even understand the analogy of free trade of apples and free trade of a person's labor, in that the price of both is determined by supply and demand. What is this guy thinking?
labulldog5 4 years ago
B. This only works when you are an economist who has no sense of nationalism or citizenship. We have, or at least should have, a familial bond with those other states and communities that make up this great land. Should we take pride in our resources? Sure. Should states seek to respect other states workers? Yes. Should they also work and trade with them in areas of need and luxury? Yes. Local, regional, national, then global. You guys have it bass-ackwards.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Give me the context of C.
paleocrat 4 years ago
It IS surprising that Dobbs takes some of the best in the field, including 5 Nobel Laureates; names like Dominick T. Armentano, Steve Beckman, Bruce Caldwell, Richard M. Ebeling, Robert H. Frank, Michael J. Rizzo, Peter J. Boettke, just to name a few, and calls them"jackasses and idiots," and you claim they don't care about individuals, families, national allegiance, and so on. I see some of these guys every once in a while. I will pass your concern on to them and get their reaction.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Playing name-dropping doesn't fly here. As I said, free traders have their names, economic nationalists have their names, socialists have their names. Does us little good.
I can see it now, "Sir, do you hate people?" haha Regardless of what their answer may be, these folks tend to see America as an economy rather than a nation, and they see people as economic units rather than citizens, families, and communities with identities. Sorry, the way it is...
paleocrat 4 years ago
In that case, you should be calling for a trade wall against all the other states, if you really want to help Michiganians, because the trade deficits we have with all the others must really hurt us, don't you think? Yes, Lou was trained in econ, but you have to ask yourself what school of thought, and what year. Harvard economics then was old Keynesian, which Friedman's theories dismantled a few years later with the emergence of stagflation. I wonder if ol' Lou has kept up with the times...
labulldog5 4 years ago
A. Trade barriers against the states would be unconstitutional.
B. We are a nation. One state advancing at the cost of another is quite a bit different than a state or a country taking a hit from another country. Unless your view of citizenship is nation-state is like the free-traders.
C. If keeping up with the times means buying into destructive trade policies, then thank God he refuses to let go of the past. And thank God so many Americans agree with him.
paleocrat 4 years ago
As an economist (or soon to be one,) I am used to all the rage and name-calling that gets thrown at me by just about everyone not in the profession. That's the name of the game I guess. Unfortunately, you have also jumped onto this bandwagon, suggesting that economists whistle away the day, while people suffer. I think you should know better. Economists are always actively engaged in opposing or supporting policies that we feel are beneficial and consistent with economic priciples.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Yes, I believe that economists, by and large, do not see society as individuals, families, communities, and nations. They talk about people as units, and most could care less about national allegiance. "Why John Doe instead of Juan Doe?" is a common sentiment. The dollar is the end game.
I don't see things that way. I see people Americans, Michiganders, citizens of Battle Creek, and (in my case) members of the Bannister family.
Who talks that way? Economic nationalists.
paleocrat 4 years ago
My favorite video ever is the one where your hero Lou Dobbs calls economists "complete idiots," "jackasses," and "completely out of their minds." I just had to laugh, because he just looked so ignorant. It doesn't even occur to him that there's a reason why economists take one position, and the general population another. Perhaps they understand certain workings of the market that he doesn't? Or maybe the entire economics profession is in the back pocket of big business. Yeah, that must be it.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Lou Dobbs, the guy with a BA in Economics from Harvard? Ah, that one.
Perhaps these so-called gurus have led us blindly into national ruin and permanent debtor nation status? These folks have bought into an ideology and christened it an economic dogma. Yeah, people don't buy it because they are on the ground floor. They are the damn numbers these economists scribble on paper in ivory towers and later call collateral damage. Seriously, they people don't buy the numbers, they know better.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Buchanan makes a few basic faulty assumptions in that Hardball debate. Where he should be blaming monetary policy for the rapid currency devaluation, instead he blames trade. Valuation of money, like any other good, mostly has to do with its stock. He also failed to mention one other key reason for elevating prices, and that is the changing price of inputs. This is due to scarcity of resources. He also confuses the price of labor with its marginal costs, which depends on relative productivity.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Smoot Hawley? Anything?
paleocrat 4 years ago
On fair trade:
"In the long run there cannot be such a thing as moderate protectionism. If people regard imports as an injury, they will not stop anywhere on the way toward autarky. Why tolerate an evil if there seems to be a way to get rid of it?"
"When anyone complains about unfair competition, consumers beware."
"Whenever someone starts talking about "fair competition" or indeed, about "fairness" in general, it is time to keep a sharp eye on your wallet, for it is about to be picked."
labulldog5 4 years ago
Another way to look at it is to remember the Ross Perot prediction, of the "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving America to foreigners. We now see that it never actually occurred, given 310,000 jobs lost to imports, but over 17 millions jobs gained yearly, for a net gain of nearly 2 million jobs averaged out after the passing of NAFTA. There is very little evidence to suggest that trade is a major source of our economic woes. Passing high "equalization measures" a la Smoot/Hawley, only hurts us.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Even Robert Reich, one of the primary promoters of NAFTA admitted that the sucking sound has come to pass! When debating Buchanan, he never denied it. He just said they were all wrong. The jobs didn't go to Mexico, they went to China! But hey, what do they know?
Smoot Hawley.... this will need another comment. :)
paleocrat 4 years ago
Let's look at Smoot Hawley. Raised tariff rate to 53% in 1930 and 59% in 1932. Now, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations raised tariffs to 62%. Relatively close, but TA is still a few % points ahead.
The clincher is here: TA applied to 92% of imports. What about SH? Less than 1/3!
Topping it off, imports accounted for only 4% of GNP in 1930. What does this say? SH only impacted 1.3% of GNP!
You guys have created a bogeyman out of SH like you have economic nationalism.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I'd be happy to give you the numbers: adjusted jobs lost yearly is roughly 15 million, adjusted for seasonal and other short-term corrected turnover losses. So this means that: Jobs lost yearly due to free trade= 310,000.
Jobs lost due to other reasons: 14,690,000.
I don't seek to dehumanize anyone, I just want to put it in perspective. As you can see, this means that if we imposed 100 percent tariffs on imports, we would barely change the number of jobs lost each year.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Oh, not don't be silly. A large reason (though not the entire reason) that people leave this country is not to produce and sell in foreign markets. They love the American buyers! So they fire American workers, ship off their jobs, produce elsewhere, ship back, sell here. Why?
The answer to that question reveals that a demand for reciprocity or equalization to be reasonable, prudent, and urgent.
Do you not see a distinction between jobs lost one way over another, or various types of jobs lost?
paleocrat 4 years ago
The murder analogy is nonsense. It's more accurate to say "2% of workers laid off is due to outsourcing, and 98% of workers laid of is due to other reasons." We should impose huge costs on the many to benefit the 2%. You say you can't help the 98%, BUT YOU CAN! In fact, it's very easy, just impose taxes or ban entirely interstate capital flows, or simply progressively tax productivity. It happens all the time, just look at health insurance. Why settle for benefiting a measly 2%?
labulldog5 4 years ago
The analogy is quite fitting. One is far more natural, the other is murderous. I think it works just fine.
When you say 2%, can you please translate that into people for me. See, the number game is fun, and I know why economists play bad new low and good news high. But seriously, translate that. And then instead of jobs, put a face with that, and a family, and a home, and taxes for school, and a welfare check. That will help me compute these numbers.
Sorry, I don't depersonalize people.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Ah, so you'd prefer bureaucrats to decide which industries are suffering directly or indirectly from foreign competition, and which are not. Just tell me how you are going to achieve this given the political system we have now. The federal gov't record on this is extremely dubious, because it requires the central planner to have near perfect information, which is very costly to achieve. With constantly changing consumer demands and constant fluctuations in input prices, this is just impossible.
labulldog5 4 years ago
It doesn't take a bureaucrat to realize which industries are important to the sovereignty of a nation, much less recognizing which industries have been hit most by horrific trade agreements.
The federal record on this? Please tell me you are joking. Please tell me you have done some reading on the issue. From 1860-1920, the heyday of economic nationalism under Republican leadership, tell me just how BAD we did. Please, enlighten us here.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You want to know why we see jobs leaving all over the place in MI, my town included? Trade? Nope. Horrible state policy decisions? Yes. If I'm a business owner, give me one good reason why I should locate in MI when I could I can just as easily build in Indiana or Ohio, where taxes are lower that businesses and citizens must pay? Instead, we raised taxes in the Granholm administration, further repelling and discouraging business. Trade is not the culprit here, as the numbers I provided suggest.
labulldog5 4 years ago
If you seriously think that it can all be reduced down to poor decisions made at the state level, then we have ourselves a serious problem. I have said on more than one occasion that taxes (state and federal), regulations (state and federal), and inflation due to our fiat money system play huge roles in the crisis. But to accept these as being problematic while not seeing what results from these PLUS free trade is downright absurd. Free trade doesn't work at all times in all places the same.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Here's what the dollar inherently represents: a claim on a future US good or service. Every foreigner paid a dollar for his good/service has 3 choices for which to spend the dollar, and so it follows that the dollar will return to the US, boosting demand for a US good or service. You speak of an equivocation tax, which will have the effect of cutting off imports, thus raising the cost on all consumers, and giving pink slips to workers in sectors which rely upon intermediate import components.
labulldog5 4 years ago
The dollar will return to the US? I'd like to know where it's coming from! 31 consecutive years of trade deficits, a trade debt well over $6,000,000,000 dollars (trillion for those lost in the zeros), and we've lost over 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs. You don't think for a second that these play into the price of the dollar? You don't think that these are the result of our so-called free trade policies? Even looking at how illegals funnel money back home shows this to be well wishing.
paleocrat 4 years ago
How do we know that more jobs will be created here? Simple, just think about what the dollar represents and the choices foreigners have with it (currency flows) and you should have your answer. This is not "faith-based," it is empirically and theoretically well supported. Exports and imports form a parallel trend. Cutting off imports will necessarily eliminate jobs in export AND other non-export industries. This is because over 50% of imports are intermediate purchases or other non-final goods.
labulldog5 4 years ago
What the dollar reprsents? Less than the yen, the euro, the pound, and the looney. Not too enticing.
Who is talking about cutting off imports? Do you think for a second that if we put an equalization tariff on abusers like China and Mexico that all of a sudden we would have no more imports? We are still a massive consumer market!
You want me to feel bad at the loss of import jobs when you don't give a rat's rear abotu the loss of our manufacturing base? That's bizarre.
PS- I have the FLU
paleocrat 4 years ago
To put it in perspective, about 15 million jobs yearly are lost for all sorts of reasons: consumer tastes change, malinvestment, innovation, better productivity. Taking one random sample out of these 15M, the chances that the job was lost for a reason OTHER THAN foreign competition is...98%. That means that only 2% of jobs lost are due to foreign production. For outsourcing (services) the number is even lower: roughly 1%. So you fair-traders sure are one heck of a concentrated special interest.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Once again, when you say "only 2 percent" you are forgetting the personal element of the job and the reason for the loss. That is like saying, "98% of people die from natural causes, only 2% due to murder, so if you are upset over murder then you are a special interest." Absurd.
The other thing is that with consumer taste changes normally comes new jobs.
You can't help tastes, but you sure as hell can stop giving incentives to people who could give a rats read abotu the American worker.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I only used some name-calling because you felt I wasn't mean enough;) Be careful to distinguish exactly what I said: record manufacturing growth, meaning output. Productivity! It's why we have a great standard of living, and why the rest of the world has been eating our dust for some time now. I did't say jobs, because ceteris paribus, we have lost nearly 18 million jobs to better productivity (this is what I was trying to describe to you yesterday, about opposing better technology, etc.)
labulldog5 4 years ago
Output, yes, we talked about this over the phone. See, free traders seek nothing but profit. There is no personal element to work. There is no family element to work. They never once consider communities or their nation. Nations are meaningless.
Here again we have an issue where innovative technology potentially creates jobs shore side. If the need is there, new jobs are opened. Outsourcing and offshoring are about tax havens and slave labor, not "need."
paleocrat 4 years ago
Hey, I was the one that didn't want to get into the numbers and stats in the first place; you brought that one up first. But you can't deny that there are many numbers that fly in the face the free-trade naysayers, esp. when they talk about the 'harms' of Nafta/Cafta, and so on. Like for example, the record manufacturing growth, net job growth...and that is DESPITE a tumbling dollar, crippling debt, capital investment bubbles, and horrible tax policy.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Talk about numbers all you want, we've got number too. And the American people most certainly understand this problem. There is a general disdain among the American populace for offshoring, outsourcing, and downsizing. Outside of the economics field you won't find many people praising such business practices.
Manufacturing job growth? Enlighten me here. All my numbers point to the contrary.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I forgot to mention this to you, but this is the book that finally turned me from a former fair-trader/protectionist into a true free trader. He addresses all concerns raised by Buchanan, Dobbs, Ralph Nader, and all the other slobbering, foaming, fair-trade buffoons.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Men standing up for the American middle class and the assault of free trade utopians upon their jobs and way of life are slobbering, foaming, and buffoons? Well, count me as one who is proudly among them.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You wondered where some of my numbers were came from, and I had to dig around to find exactly where I first read them. Found it! "Free Trade Under Fire" by Dr. Douglas Irwin. He uses trade related numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for his book as well. His main point is the same as mine, that trade is NOT the problem with our economy, and attacks against free trade are misplaced. My favorite stat: that only 17% of American workers are placed in direct competition with int'l producers.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Even if it is only 17%, this would result in almost 1 out of every 5 laborers in the workforce.
Free traders look at numbers are nothing more than digits on the screen. Work is impersonal. Everything boils down to the dollar. We put an AMERICAN face on that lost job. We put an AMERICAN family at the table that no longer has the income to pay the mortgage.
paleocrat 4 years ago
"We must use measures that equalize the situation."
Ok, so what are these "measures"? Taxes? Quotas? Some other vehicle? That's what I've been trying to coax out of you. Hahah.
labulldog5 4 years ago
One of these I know off the top of my head, manufacturing in America hit its peak in: 2007. Yes, believe it or not, output (total production) of US manufacturing goods hit its peak last year. Aren't you for eliminating the competition for select business sectors? I know I have asked you before to state specifically, not abstractly, what you are proposing. I support lowering costs domestically AND eliminating tariffs, quotas, duties, and all other barriers to market entry and exit. You support..?
labulldog5 4 years ago
... acknowledging the fact that the policies of both this nation and our trading partners place American producers at a gross disadvantage. This is economic realism. Unless or until we deregulate and decentralize in such a way as to where American producers are not put at an artificial disadvantage and workers punished for things outside their control, we must use measures that equalize the situation. This is constitutional, this is conservative.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Well anyway, to return to the statistics debate, there's a few numbers that you should also tell your audience. In order to subsidize and protect domestic jobs from competition, it costs US taxpayers $140,000 per textile job, $350,000 per tool manufacturing job, and a whopping $600,000 per sugar sector job. These are just a portion of the massive inefficiencies that occur when consumers are told what they may and may not buy.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Who is talking about subsidizing?
Why did it not cost this before? I am promoting nothing more and nothing less than what the founders practices those who followed them practiced until Woodrow Wilson. Where were those costs?
Can you please tell us how much tax revenue American has LOST with the offshoring and oursourcing of manufacturing and textile jobs? Average income, average tax rate, number lost. You do the number crunching and get back to me. :)
paleocrat 4 years ago
So you think it's worthless to hear opinions from people who've spent many more years than you or I studying and dealing with these issues? It was actually helpful to me, because Toomey gave a slightly different answer than I anticipated, having to do with international vs. domestic borders of trade.
labulldog5 4 years ago
No, not entirely worthless. I just don't put stock in too much of it any longer. As I said, if people wanted to have a PhD pissing contest, we'd be here a long time. This is not only in relations to economics either.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Oh, because Armey has a PhD in econ and knows much more about the ins and outs than I do. I just wanted to get his thoughts.
Are you going to post our discussion?
labulldog5 4 years ago
Liberals with a PhD, libertarians with a PhD, fusionists with a PhD, protectionists with a PhD, a lot of people with a PhD with a lot of differing opinions.
Yes, I will.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Ok, so over the past 3 days I have talked to Dick Armey and Pat Toomey about their thoughts on Fair trade and what, if anything, should be done to "discourage captial exports," such as you have proposed. To Toomey, I laid out the argument exactly as you have. The answer was a resounding "no," even in the context of a game-theory situation, which is, in theory, economically feasible. But still they rejected it, as I have. One reason: it is commonly used as a convenient excuse for protectionism.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Why did you even ask them? I could have told you there answer and you wouldn't have had to wait in line. :)
Where were you Monday??? We had some real good conversations. I talked about economic nationalism too. You would have loooooved it. haha
We'll hang out and yell. :)
paleocrat 4 years ago
Hahaha, didn't I warn you about getting into the statistics debate? More on that later. You'd be interested in your arch-nemesis: Doug Irwin, Dartmouth PhD (many books on free trade.) To take a "mean blow," Buchanan's degree is in journalism, not economics. You're right, opponents should read opposing views. Lucky for me, Hillsdale education requires this, which is why I've had to tolerate Krugman, Keynes, etc. But, I will embark on the painful experience (I imagine) of reading Pat's book.
labulldog5 4 years ago
It was GREAT talking to you. Well thought out, well versed on the topic, and a formidable debater. One of the best calls I've had in a long time.
Would you mind if I posted this discussion? It was good and gives great food for thought for both sides.
We need to get together. Coffee and chatter!
paleocrat 4 years ago
Of course Krugman doesn't have a monopoly, I only mention him because he is probably the most well-known founders of it, in addition his contributions of mathematical formalization of models that supposedly render managed trade helpful. The point it that it even if it's assumed that the gov't has sufficient information on what is "fair" how are you supposed to implement them to get the desired result? How often does government intervention into markets get the result that was intended?
labulldog5 4 years ago
The best known founder of economic nationalism was Alexander Hamilton. We could throw all the great presidents leading up to and through the roaring 20's if you'd wish, but Krugman just so happens to be the mainstream darling on the matter. I would also like to think that Buchanan trumps old Kruger.
It worked well for the first 150 years of our nation. Look at the stats from the advent of the Republican party up through the 20's and you'll see that the numbers were nothing but positive.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I haven't read Buchanan's book, but I've seen Smith's exemptions. These are highly specialized and limited. Even Krugman, perhaps the architect of strategic so-called fair trade policies such as the ones you are supporting, has himself admitted the complications and difficulty of implementing the theories that he himself created! This is because managed trade policies requires a benevolent, all-knowing government that tries to maximize social benefits. This fails in principle and in practice.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Krugman is by no means the architect. He may be an advocate and one who has popularized (in the mainstream media) the term, but he has no monopoly on it. Buchanan, Sam Francis, and most contributors to Chronicles Magazine and The American Conservative advocate the same concepts. In fact, it was the policy of America all the way through the earlier portions of the 1900's.
I'd love to discuss the results of such policies, but I will be posting a video detailing them shortly.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You're no fan of the "seen and the unseen" function that is served by economics? I'm really surprised to hear you say that. From what I've observed since beginning my education in economics, I would say that this is why the study of economics is so important. This is why the opinion of economists generally is contrary to popular opinion, because the untrained eye only sees "the unseen." This is what intrigues me so much about econ, and one reason I chose it as my field of study.
labulldog5 4 years ago
It seems to me you still can't make up your mind as to what exactly you are advocating. Just before I posted on here, some guy suggested we ban imports on shoes (this is the operation of tariffs), to boost domestic manufacturing. Your reply was: "I don't advocate banning anything." Also: "to set American workers in unfettered competition does more harm than good." If you REALLY believed this to be the case in the aggregate, then you should be for banning things! You can't have it both ways.
labulldog5 4 years ago
I have made it very clear as to what I am advocating: fair trade economic nationalism. This doesn't necessarily require banning goods, though Adam Smith (in his often overlooked Exceptions) found a handful of exceptions for banning goods. To say this is to misunderstand economic nationalism.
Have you read Smith's exceptions or Buchanan's Great Betrayal?
paleocrat 4 years ago
In the light of economics, protectionism is interpreted to mean a flat-out denial of int'l trade theory (using Ricardo, Marshallian models, widely accepted by economists), to serve ulterior motives, or a basic misunderstanding of it. With all due respect, I believe you are in the latter catergory. Trade should apply the ideas of Bastiat, in that there are many forces that are seen, but it takes a good economist to see the unseen; what must be foreseen. This is why I believe your argument fails.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Sorry, but I am no fan of Bastiat or Ricardo. I support free markets, as understood by Smith, over against laissez faire free trade. I believe the latter to be messianic and millennialist rather than realistic. I think Buchanan dealt with this rather well in his book, The Great Betrayal. Just my opinion.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I find it interesting that both you and those writers from the NY Times hedge from actually calling for protectionism. If you remember, he doesn't actually say "Slap on tariffs," but doesn't give any alternative either. One friend of mine was in direct contact with Roberts on this one, and the final verdict was more wishy-washy statements having to do with discouraging capital exports. I would love to call in to your show to discuss this further, but I'm unaware as how to do so.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Because protectionism, like isolationism, is used by opponents to give a specific school of thought what they hope to be a negative connotation. Titles don't matter much to me, but in politics they tend to mean everything.
paleocrat 4 years ago
People will look at MI and say "See see? Because minimum wage was raised in 2006, MI has lost X number of jobs." And many others will say "But because the wage was raised, the unemployment isn't even worse than it is." There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. I could fire back at you statistics suggesting the exact opposite. It is much more practical and helpful to try and discover how you think about and interpret the data. That is what I'm trying to get out of you here.
labulldog5 4 years ago
You've now shifted the debate into the realm of statistics, which as you well know can become an endless mess. So I'd like hold off on this for the time being. Instead, please address my earlier points as to why your argument is fundamentally different from classic protectionism, because so far, you haven't told me why. Remember, the opposite of allowing free trade is protectionism (all costs implied, i.e. classic Ricardian model);. If you know of a 3rd way, by all means, I'd like to hear it.
labulldog5 4 years ago
I don't have a problem being identified as a protectionist, though I prefer economic nationalist. Kind of like someone being called an isolationist when they are a non-interventionist.
My issue wasn't with the title (I don't think), but with feeling that I was guilty by association with certain libs you mentioned.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Now I realize that we are both in MI and see our tanking economy, and so if I may borrow a classic wishy-washy phrase from H.Clinton, "I can certainly understand where you're coming from." But enacting taxes as a reaction to anti-business gov't practices is the wrong approach, b/c of the HUGE costs implied in the form of lower real wages nationwide, lost jobs in other sectors (this is the application of Say's law,) and massive increases in federal rent-seeking, which is out of control already.
labulldog5 4 years ago
During the era of Republican tariffs, we had something quite different than the laissez faire crowd would like us to believe. Real wages, despite a doubling of the US population, rose 53%. Commodity prices fell 58%. Annual growth of the US economy averaged over 4% annually! And from 1869-1900, our GNP quadrupled. Not a bad scorecard.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Anyway, I've heard your 'theory' before, but not frequently. It's not often you come across a libertarian opposing free trade, for this reason or any other. It is von Mises, as early as the 1920s, that is credited with the phrase "One gov't intervention begets another" (Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.) As is always the case with free trade, the gains to the winners heavily outweigh the losses to the losers, which is why when I saw the title of your video, my eyebrows went up.
labulldog5 4 years ago
I'm not much of a libertarian. I'm with them on non-interventionism, gun-rights, drug laws, etc., but we certainly part ways on some cultural and economic issues. I'm closer to Buchanan and Samuel Francis than Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, even though I like all of them.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I have no job, I'm a leech on society, also known as a "5th year college senior." Who else would have minutes to kill in the middle of the night blogging good sleep time away?
labulldog5 4 years ago
I was not my intent to purposely trying to seek out liberals and then compare them to you. I had just recently read the article and thought it was appropriate and perhaps of interest to you. I am the first to reject ad-homonym or other baseless attack. That's all. (The Susan Demas comment was meant as a joke, btw.)
labulldog5 4 years ago
You wouldn't have the pristine job you have if it were not for your ability to reason, my friend. I am in no way upset with you. I enjoy the discussion, especially with someone of your caliber. Tell your boss he is in my prayers.
Susan Demas! haha That gave you away. I knew it was a joke. You're a good man.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Most aspects of laissez-faire could be characterized as "faith-based," for someone seeking to use rhetoric to undermine a policy. To use this term is utter nonsense, in addition to this fantasy that everyone calls the "level playing field." The reason why most people use this term is because they see from an absolute or competitive advantage viewpoint only. What you're saying is that, if one nation has a noncomparative advantage over the other, trade becomes a zero-sum game. Wrong wrong wrong.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Level playing field. Will a playing field ever be completely level? No. But to deny that the taxes and regulations our politicians have forced on the American producer does not place him at a horrific disadvantage is rather silly.
Comparative advantage. Well, if their advantage were merely the result of geographical determinism, then all would be well. Unfortunately, it has to do with our policies. These are unnatural advantages and disadvantages. Hardly worthy of Smith's understanding.
paleocrat 4 years ago
It doesn't concern me what party historically supported X policy. What I am concerned with is what economics has taught us, ever since the mercantilists put into action their policies in the 16th century. Why compare you to Schumer and Roberts? Simple, if you read the article, you'll see the same fundamental logic that you've used, coming from slightly different angles of course, but the same underlying principle nonetheless.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Let's find some hard-line liberals who support free trade and then equivocate. Not good argumentation, bull.
What have we learned from economics. Well, that while free trade results in cheaper goods, it has also resulted in the loss of manufacturing jobs, low-skilled jobs for our poor, record trade deficits, and a loss in tax revenue from outsourcing, offshoring, and the unemployment (or lower paying jobs) that results from the two.
I am a man of faith, but I'm not gullible.
paleocrat 4 years ago
This article by Chuck Schumer and Paul Roberts has more to do with the mobility of means of production, but it is related to what you're saying. It seems to me that your argument ends up at the same reasoning used for decades by Schumer, the old protectionists, or maybe even mercantilists. So if "putting US workers in competition..." is not in their interest, I'm assuming that the solution is to remove the competition? This is just old-fashioned protectionism wrapped up in a brand new package.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Why compare me to Schumer and Roberts when you could compare me to George Washington, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and the Republican party prior to the economics of Wilson and FDR? The Republican Party was one of economic nationalism all the way through the roaring twenties. Liberals, not conservatives or Republicans, were advocates for faith-based free trade economics. All this to say that we both have the good, the bad, and the ugly advocates in our camps. Be fair.
paleocrat 4 years ago
...google "second thoughts on free trade" by Chuck Schumer and Paul Roberts.
labulldog5 4 years ago
Protectionism always has as its intention "looking after the majority of Americans." You are saying that, because of high gov't intervention in the form of import taxes, wage floors, etc., the "deck is stacked against the US workers." But really what you are saying is that other producers' goods are more relatively inexpensive to our goods, in the context of higher marginal costs (=less supply.) For more:
labulldog5 4 years ago
Politicians have put into law taxes and regulations that enter into the cost of American made goods. American producers must abide by these laws. If they don't, they're in trouble.
Foreign governments do not impose the same burdensome taxes on their producers and place tariffs and quotas on our exports. This allows them to sell on the cheap.
This is a sure recipe for disaster.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Let's be clear, tariffs are taxes, plain and simple. If indeed you are advocating higher tariffs (which still you haven't actually taken a position) , then you're saying that one wrong justifies another. How can even more regulation be the solution to already high regulation?
RonPaulisGod9 4 years ago
But a tariff is a tax on foreign products. Sure, this tax would enter into the cost of the product, but at least the cost of the foreign made product would be on par with that of the American made product. Would it cost more? Yes and no. It may force us to pay $10 more a year for goceries, but the impact of a sustained work force offsets this by leaps and bounds. Less unemployment, less welfare.
You should call my show tonight. My featured video on my channel gives the details.
paleocrat 4 years ago
So let me see if I understand your point: minimum wages, taxes, and other regulations all hurt our economy, and so to offset these negative effects, we need to impose tariffs, which are the same as taxes, on goods that consumers want. You don't exactly say what your solution is, but this seems to be where you're going with this.
RonPaulisGod9 4 years ago
So long as our politicians mandate regulations and taxes that enter into the cost of American products, it is grossly unfair for those same politicians to place Americans in competition with nations that do not have these regulations and taxes being factored in to their products.
BTW- Ron Paul has said many times, when asked where government revenue will come from under a Paul administration, that the constitution affords the right to impose tariffs.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Free markets work and the customer is always right, unless he chooses an imported good? I would expect S.Demas to say something like this. Creative destruction, popularized by Schumpeter, has existed for centuries, benefiting standard of living for millions worldwide. Is it any wonder that economists(-Krugman) overwhelmingly preach free trade as desirable? M.Friedman wouldn't even call the countries you rail against (India, China..) "competitors" but rather cooperators. Why do you think this is?
labulldog5 4 years ago
Free trade was not always a conservative dogma.
All I am saying is that the government's economic policies should not pit the American worker against third world countries when the same government mandates gross amounts of regulation and taxation on American companies that stack the deck against domestic producers. Nothing more.
There are good people on both sides of the aisle who support both sides of the debate. It is not a left-right debate.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Wow, Mr. Paleo, I'm quite shocked at your economics here. The best solution for job creation is, say it with me: Government mandates. Yes, with government mandates, every job in every sector can be maintained. This is another classic example of concentrated benefits vs. dispersed costs, with the gov't as the engine of income redistribution. (cont.)
labulldog5 4 years ago
I support radical deregulation. But so long as our government mandates minimum wage laws, corporate taxes, environmental regulations, and the a mountain worth of red tape, it is against the interest of the American working class to put them in competition with countries that don't have those costs included within their products.
Since when has looking after the majority of Americans a bad thing? This holds especially true in Michigan.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Economics has both civilizing tendencies and tendencies to corrode other social institutions.
I don't think that implies much but I do think it implies that not every form of human interaction should be given over to the model of free trade.
GBanville 4 years ago
Your jobs in Michigan are being outsourced because of horrible tax policies and intractable unions, among other reasons.
Manufacturing employment in the US peaked in 1945. This "outsourcing" phenomenon is hardly new.
I grew up in the deep south. I don't know a single person who wanted their kid to grow up to be a textile worker. Should we instill protectionist tariffs to retain textile jobs?
Paleo, you seem to be sliding from conservatism into a very weird populist place.
RogerOnTheRight 4 years ago
List some of those "other reasons."
I don't believe outsourcing is new, but it has certainly accelerated.
I know people who would love a textile job. Many are in my own family. Many are in my church. Many are on my block.
Conservatives have not always been classical liberals. This history of free trade has little roots in the Old Right or historical republicanism.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Other reasons include the natural tendency of labour to seek its own value. Does it even make sense to make something domestically if it can be made cheaper elsewhere?
Why not ban import of shoes, so we can have a domestic shoe industry again? So what if shoes triple or quadruple in price? As long a someone in Michigan can have a job... right?
Take this to its extreme, and just have a government-funded "jobs" program. WPA all over again.
RogerOnTheRight 4 years ago
Yes, it makes sense. Production is important. This is especially true in manufacturing.
I don't advocate banning anything. I simply say that we shouldn't advocate an economic policy that hurts the American working class.
What is the average price for Nike shoes?
I don't want government-funded programs. I want radical deregulation and tax reform. But until this happens, and until trade partners stop playing quotas and tariffs on our goods, we should not act as if the world is flat.
paleocrat 4 years ago
When Bush imposed tariffs on steel some years ago, it kept domestic steel prices high. But, what steelworkers made in extra income was way more than offset by higher consumer prices.
Protectionism never works in the long run. What we need is a system of trade agreements that in fact level the playing field. Ideally, zero tariffs across the board. But, political interests prevent this. And we all pay.
RogerOnTheRight 4 years ago
Commenting as I listen...you are worrying me here at the outset paleo. A price below what American gov't mandates employers to pay employees? So now you are for gov't telling us how much we can pay somebody? In the free market, which I thought you were a proponent of, the min. wage is $0/hr. If we wanna let go'vt tell us how much to pay somebody for labor, why not for a car, a house, a tv set. Min wage is price fixing plain and simple.
johnebii 4 years ago
Wow, paleo, you run amok on your economics here. Real incomes are not down. Read 'income confusion' a recent column by our esteemed friend Thomas Sowell.
johnebii 4 years ago
No, I am not for government telling us how much we must pay someone. I am simply saying that so long as the current taxes and regulations are in place, to set American workers in unfettered competition does more harm than good. So long as we are burdened with the mandates of the welfare state, free trade will only pit us in a game where there is two radically different (and unfair) set of rules. Unfortunate, but real.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Free trade can only work in a free society, you can't have free trade + corperate welfare + the hadicaping of small buisness+ the income tax. You either pick tryanny, or liberty. Those are your only options.
blakethepacifist 4 years ago