U.S. Antidumping Rules Kill American Jobs

[KDriving]

wwwgethiredjobsecretscom

[KDriving]

Learn SECRETS on how to get any job you apply for

[kmelfina]

There's no point in competition and lower prices if people are forever unemployed because of the lack of AD laws -.-;

[jonescomplete]

@kmelfina what are you saying lmao

[grantcivyt]

@kmelfina Did you watch the clip? AD laws have a cost to the economy that results in jobs being lost. The problem is those jobs are harder to see, but it doesn't mean they aren't lost.

With the AD laws, one industry's jobs are saved. Without the laws, everyone that consumes the final products saves. It would be more economical to drop the laws, tax the consumers, and pay the affected workers not to work. The savings would actually outweigh the costs.

Most workers would find other jobs.

[pwnear]

Ron paul 2012

[nosuchthing8]

Also, we in America had a huge number of AD cases when the economy was doing very well in the 90s. AD cases help keep americans employed.

[nosuchthing8]

If the example in the video (SI) was found to dumped, that means that the SI was sold cheaper in the US than in the HM. In other words, the foreign company has a closed market and is selling SI at a very high price in its home market, and a lower price in the US. They are gouging buyers in their country while selling SI at artifically low prices in the US. (Assuming a market economy case). This violates international laws.

[nosuchthing8]

Sorry, you lost me at .46. In point of fact, dumping occurs where there is a difference between the price of merchandise, comparing the HM price to the US price. So if in theory something should cost $100, and the US price was $99, and the HM price was $200, dumping exists. Note that there is a trivial difference here ($1 per unit) because the HM is closed. Company X doesn't pass on the $1 saving to anyone in America. But jobs are lost.

[frankcharles511]

We are going Galt

[ChrisRhenfeldt]

According to what i know in microeconomics, cheaper inputs shift the supply function and also give cheaper prices to consumers. By how much depends in the elasticity of the demand function ( the relation between marginal change in quantity demanded and marginal change in price)

[Esoteric0714]

This video is misleading and inaccurate. Cheaper imports and components do not lower prices for the consumer, they raise profits for the corporations.

[briperez]

@Esoteric0714 And where does competition come to play in your logic? If company X is selling something at a higher price than company Y, people would buy more from company Y because it is cheaper... Company X would have to compete or die by lowering their prices even more than Company Y.

[Esoteric0714]

@briperez Competition can, in certain limited cases, undermine potential profit for the very reason you illustrate. Competition is thus eliminated by firms in the aggregate for this very reason. This is why there is a tendency in unregulated markets, like the U.S., for one firm to eliminate competitors. (e.g.: Standard Oil, Wal Mart, etc). It eliminates the threat of competition.

[AtibbsSPARTAN]

Protectionism supports fat cronies...not America.

[aallppiinnee]

Obongonomics.

[RationalismDefined]

Unfortunately, politicians do not make decisions based on what is best for the nation. The only thing that matters to them is pandering to their voter base ( not that you can really blame them ) by supporting measures which directly benefit them quickly enough for the result to be used as a campaign slogan.

[Hashishin13]

@RationalismDefined Thats how they want you to think of it. They actually care FAR more about who contributed to their political campaign. Actually providing for their voting base or the country is not really their concern, as long as they can appear to be doing at least the former if not the latter as well. Voters only vote about who they know, political campaigns are how politicians make themselves known and campaigning is a dollars and connections game, not a message based one.

[a4finger]

great video!

Unfortunately politicians are too stupid to realize that the purpose of an economy is NOT to create jobs. The purpose of an economy is to increase the standard of living. Well, a few politicians understand. such as

Ron Paul for President 2012!

[666sigma]

My brother works for Dow Corning. He worked them in Midland, MI for almost 30 years. He has been in China for almost 5 years.

The restriction of the importation of RAW materials will NEVER increase jobs. The same cannot be said of labor. Shipping labor abroad to slaves in China is not in our long term interests. It is actually dumb economic policy. I know some Fantasy Island economist will reply with some Utopian world theory about FREE trade, but their underlying assumptions are wrong.

[DackIsBack]

Hey, I'm kinda happy that toxic pollution is outsourced to China... lol.

But yeah, if something can't be produced without using Scrubbers, It's probably not worth being produced, or at least polluting isn't a good enough reason for the lower price... price VS cost... when we ruin our own country to produce cheap goods like China, that will be a sad day.

[stcmsw102]

Good video. However, as a chemist, I have to point out the fact that silicon is not a metal, so "silicon metal" does not exist. While silicon finds major use in solar panels, Dow Corning's silicone products are used in this application as adhesives and sealants, for which I think better examples could have been chosen--the amount of silicon needed to make the silicone sealant is insignificant in comparison to the amount in the actual photovoltaic cells.

[DOHC2L]

@stcmsw102 "the amount of silicon needed to make the silicone sealant is insignificant"

No, when it comes to economic production everything is significant. Costs of production is the only thing a firm controls, and the market compels firms to innovate how they produce goods & services to remain competitive with other firms in the market. I know that wasn't the point you were making, but your point wasn't relevant to the point of the video.

[stcmsw102]

@DOHC2L please don't misquote: "in comparison to..." was the crucial part of that sentence and you omitted it. Anyway, the point I am making is that while the video makes a good economic case, calling silicon a metal and singling out the use of silicon to produce silicones for a product that is mostly made of silicon anyway do (at least for me) detract significantly from the presentation of the real issue here.

[UTubekookdetector]

I remember the Spartan Light Metal Products case, they got shafted. Good work Cato! These protectionists have the blinders on, to them everything is a zero-sum game. It didn't work when Hoover was in office, it won't work now. Heck, even Bill Clinton embraced free trade.

[elricmlbone]

you want a real eyeopener, look into sugar barriers. We pay huge premiums on sugar to support small domestic sources and force us to use crappy corn syrup as a sweetener.

[BostonWasHere]

Nice graphics, but fundamentally short sighted. When other countries sell to the US at lower than market rates and at a loss to them, AKA dumping, the US dollar is lessened in the global economy. Thus making the our produced goods worth less and harming the buying power of both US citizens and corporations. Another side effect of dumping is that our national debt increases as our weakened dollar is less able to pay off the debt that has been incurred.

[kev3d]

@BostonWasHere What on earth does private companies purchasing raw materials at below market cost have to do with the national debt?

[johammbass]

2 people are mentally retarded

[Shanockdotcom]

Ayn Rand called it.

[jtbpnw]

One word sums up the primary problem for American jobs; Unions.

[lllraverslll]

hey joker.... how about all these machines that make these products now???

plenty of machines and computers replacing our jobs machines that don't pay taxes and yeah the big guess that own that crap get tax breaks...

how about u give me a break

[lllraverslll]

@lllraverslll tell me how many machines you see and how any humans? starting at 0:23 /watch?v=6KRjuuEVEZs

enough said

[angpetru]

@lllraverslll Very interesting. Can you tell me what part of that video shows the engineers who helped develop those 'job killers' and produce them? The factory workers who helped assemble them? The miners and others who work at the company refining the materials used in it's construction? The computer technicians who helped program them? The repair technicians that service them? The computer technicians and scientists that are currently working on newer better models? I don't see them...

[Lombokstrait1]

@angpetru most computer technicians will be out of work in a few years. Computers are begining to fix eachother now or fix themselves.

This event will extend to robots as well and other machines.

Machines making other machines and other machines fixing those machines.

It's gathering momentum right now.

[angpetru]

@Lombokstrait1 OKAY, so assuming you are correct (I am not saying you are right, but for the sake of brevity I will GIVE you that step without a counterargument) That is ONE of the SEVEN job types that I asked about in my comment. What about the other six? Do computers make their own programing? Do they improve upon their own design? Are they able to SELF-CORRECT programing errors? Robots cannot innovate, therefore I do not fear a robot apocalypse or droid armies...

[Lombokstrait1]

@angpetru Do you computers make there own programming: just a matter of time. Probably already do.

Do they improve their own design? I dunno. But they will be if processing power continues to accelterate, which it will. Self correct? I dunno.

I'm not talking about a robot apoc. I just talking about jobs. And the six other job type are now all tied into robotics and computers.

The chinese are worried what to do with all their workers.

[lockdown260]

@Lombokstrait1 As an comp. engineer I can definitely say computers don't make their own programing. A programmer will always be needed as computers can only do what you tell/design them to do. Put in a different way, the # of problems they can tackle is limited to the # of problems the programer knows about. When new problems surface a programmer will be needed to sort them out. Computers may be useful in designing OTHER computers but they cannot correct themselves. A human is always needed.

[Lombokstrait1]

@lockdown260 ok. then what's to stop them from correcting eachother?

And you're right it may always take A programmer to design software. Notice I emphasized A... Meaning you'll need less of them... probably a LOT less of them.

Which is nice because I need the software stocks I own to increase their profit margins.

The future is golden.

[lockdown260]

@Lombokstrait1 Believe me you'll still need the same amount or more. Engineers work in teams in real life. Programming is no exception.

What's to stop computers from correcting each other? Simple: their own programs limitations. Like the old axiom states, computers can ONLY do what you tell them to do. Believe me you get nothing but trouble when computers write their own programing (infinite loops for the fail). Comp. engineers aren't going anywhere.

[Lombokstrait1]

@lockdown260 Aren't going anywhere? LOL... I think theyare going or already went to India and China... and from there, companies wil try to shrink the people they need. It is the corporate way, they do this on every level.

It's called a skeleton crew.

[lockdown260]

@Lombokstrait1 Bullcrap. Manufacturing jobs, yes. Engineering, No. US based companies(save for car companies) tend to do their designing here. I can't name many US based products that were designed in China or India. In fact I can't name many products at all that were designed there.

[Lombokstrait1]

@lockdown260 If I have more computing power then I will need less people to help me. I will still need the best of the best though.

And for this statement: "I can't name many US based products that were designed in China or India."

One word: hubris.

[karozans]

@Lombokstrait1

LOL. I work at IBM and I program robots for a living.

The AI and robots fixing robots and computers programming computers is hundreds of years away.

[Lombokstrait1]

@karozans Hmmm I know of one software company that has computers fixing eachother.

Hundreds of Years... to leap to robots???

I think you are wrong or maybe we need to adjust this. Do I think people will always (for a long time) be involved? Yes. Do I think we'll need a lot less people to do the work needed. Yes. And that is the point.

[karozans]

@Lombokstrait1

The computers don't fix anything of their own cognition. With every system there is human beings at the top level issuing commands.

In a sense, yes robots build other robots now such as a robot building a car, but again, humans are always at the top.

The point at which a computer/robot can design a new computer/robot , build the new computer/robot, and then use the new computer/robot to make a new improved design and repeat this process is hundreds of years away.

[Lombokstrait1]

@karozans I'll bet you're wrong about the hundreds of year. But that was never my point. This is now too repetitive. I need a software program that can reply to you.

[XCritonX]

@lllraverslll The only people who need to be scared about robots replacing them are people who have lower IQs than the robots. Manual labor jobs are dead ends and most of them will be phased out very soon. If you don't know how to use your brain to work you will be chronically unemployed in the knowledge based economy.

[Lombokstrait1]

@XCritonX Your opinion overly simplistic. With Moore's law well in effect maybe even accelerating those brianiac's you're talking about will soon be out of luck too.

In 10 years computers will be able to do most things.

The knowledge based economy is over... the real computer age is almost here.

You better be rich or get rich soon or you are screwed.

[XCritonX]

@Lombokstrait1 You have been watching to much Terminator. Moore's law is dead, the pace of computer speed increases is dropping, most progress is in creating more energy efficient chips for mobile applications.

Anyone who works with their mind and is scientifically literate knows that we are not going to see computers taking over our jobs anytime soon. Computers as of yet have no intelligence they can not really think. They are just complex machines, nothing more.

[1czelaya]

@XCritonX I completely agree, in the sense, that integrated circuits are approaching the barrier where quantum mechanical effects become more prevalent. Overall, there has been a shift in research in solid state chemistry & physics for more novel "materials(science)" that can dissipate heat. Until a ENTIRELY new technology for computing comes into play-most likely purely photonic technology coupled with rapid memory synchronization, computers will not continue there exponential growth.

[Lombokstrait1]

@1czelaya Have you read the MIT periodical on technology? photonic technology is almost ready. Intel is about 5 years away from getting this commercialized.

Photonic/laser circuitry will eliminate heat and power issues. It's almost ready to go.

And when this occurs moore's law is boosted. Bye bye jobs.

Econonmics will change even more dramatically... the dismal science will become even more so.

[KaelinSaint]

@Lombokstrait1

You still have failed to give one concrete example of how Moore's so called law has ever in the history of the integrated circuit cost a single job, lowered the quality of life or increased the expense, to the consumer, of any product. Looks like nothing but a positive to me.

[Lombokstrait1]

@KaelinSaint ??? really? examples abound. Here you go. Lawyers losing hours billed.

But now that is truly a good thing.

Are you even paying attention?

Have you tried to go to a Border book store lately? You're an idiot.

[KaelinSaint]

@Lombokstrait1

Examples abound and you give me one? Really? Haha. How about the possibility that there are too many lawyers. It is a saturated market. People are utilizing less expensive, private mediation agencies instead of lawyers. Your example is a basic economic principle called creative destruction. Resources moving where they are most efficiently used.

Have you tried Amazon lately? Yeah, Amazon grows, Borders dies. Good thing for the economy and the consumer. Care to try again?

[Lombokstrait1]

@KaelinSaint No I'm good. Thanks. 

[Lombokstrait1]

@XCritonX wow. you don't know shit. Have you spoken with anyone from inel?

They may very well by-pass Moore's law.

And right now there is software that has computers fixing computers.... server farms. Also there is software that is actually writing news pieces for sports and business pieces. It's just the beginning.

[DOHC2L]

@Lombokstrait1 "wow. you don't know shit. Have you spoken with anyone from inel?  They may very well by-pass Moore's law."

Well you don't understand empiricism. Moore's Law can't be "by-passed" - you're suggesting it can be exceeded and you believe that would mean the law would no longer be true. But that's impossible. Empirical truths are not a result of the trend (the trend predicted from Moore's Law), the trend is the result of those truths! That is how you misunderstood Moore's Law.

[Lombokstrait1]

@DOHC2L Impossible? If it exceeds the law then doesn't it begin to define itself as something new? Maybe a new law or theory?

Flying was impossible. Traveling faster than the speed of sound was impossible.

New paradigms exceed your imigination and mine.

Just wait.

[DOHC2L]

@Lombokstrait1 "If it exceeds the law then doesn't it begin to define itself as something new? Maybe a new law or theory?"

No! The law holds true, only the outcome changes. In baseball a hitter's batting average doesn't determine what the outcome will be when he's at-bat. The 'law' of batting average is the # of hits / # of at-bats. But his batting average doesn't determine the actual play of baseball. The 'law' doesn't determine the outcome, see that's the mental mistake you're making.

[Lombokstrait1]

@DOHC2L Aren't you just wrapped up in labels though? I mean what if I had a cricket bat to up my batting avg. I mean a crickett bats are wider... or what if I had my teammates out in the field throwing other balls at the fielders... or even obstructing them from the ball I hit?

Then I change the game... it's no longer baseball... but something else.

So the mistake you say I'm making is irrelevant because the game only changes. It's called a game changer... lol. That is what photonics is.

[XCritonX]

@Lombokstrait1 As I said "to much Terminator". What you are describing with such childish wonderment is just some complex machines, not anything approaching intelligence. If you really understood what is behind these machines you will see they are very simple and fragile. The most basic 1 celled organisms are far more complex that any computer.

I suppose you think parrots are smart because they can imitate human speech. Its just a clever illusion of intelligence.

[Lombokstrait1]

@XCritonX Well the rate of progress has always been under estimated so your point of view is quite normal.

I could spout examples off that surrond us but this is now tiresome.

Bottom line... technology will allow us to have a lot less people working. This could be good and/or bad. I just know it will affect the econ models from the think tannk's vid.

[XCritonX]

@Lombokstrait1 Technology will only change the type of jobs, not reduce the total number. In 1890 90% of all Americans were involved in agriculture, now its about 0.5%. Technology reduced the labor of farming, freeing up labor for manufacturing and our lives improved. Further progress will free up labor from manufacturing to go into knowledge based jobs connected with engineering, science and technology. These areas have about 2 to 0% unemployment and demand is rising faster than supply.

[Lombokstrait1]

@XCritonX I think you're comparing different beasts altogether, agricluture and high-tech? They are a little different aren't they? I mean we had a giant direction to grow. The next direction of growth will leave a lot behind, Even those who think they have prepared well.

[KaelinSaint]

@Lombokstrait1

Postulate, hypothesis, concept, maybe even theory but definitely not law. Even if true, why must you be rich. I am not sure how that has anything to do with technological advances. Besides, it sounds like in the future you think will exist, I'll have to do nothing except sit on my ass and play video games.

[Lombokstrait1]

@KaelinSaint why must you be rich? Ummm because maybe you might have a difficult time holding on to a job, even a fancy think tank.

How are you gonna feed yourself in between video games. Also how are going to afford a place to live or pay any of your bills?

You will be out in the street with the OWS... LOL.

[KaelinSaint]

@Lombokstrait1

LOL!? Really? Your same tired argument has been made many times throughout history with every new innovation in productions. Every time some one LOL's and says how it's going to put everyone out of work. Every time the innovation increases production, lowers prices and improves the quality of life. With enough innovation it's only a matter of time before mankind can pursue purely intellectual, philosophical pursuits. Or even just pursuits of entertainment and fun. LOL LOL LOL!

[Lombokstrait1]

@KaelinSaint everyone out of work? LOL. Wow! yeah right that's what I said huh? Brilliant. .

Some of us will indeed have lots of fun. I plan to.

[Lombokstrait1]

@lllraverslll it's a fucking cartoon.

[alphy79d]

I love how easy these expansions are to understand. Thanks.

[NorCalExplorer]

Think the former Soviet Union. That is Where Obama is taking us.

[threecards333]

oppose economical nationalism. In the end most "progressive economic policies" are inherently nationalistic and xenophobic

[ForTehNguyen]

LOL protectionism

[longlivecrow]

When I see a cato video in my subs box, I seriously get turned on. This one gave me a chubby.

[jag10]

they dump it in the water, they dump it from the sky...

[mrtomsr]

follow the money, who are the US winners?

[migkillertwo]

It's amazing, if our politicians took one microeconomics course at their community college, these protectionist measures would go the way of the dodo bird. Thanks to their inexcusable ignorance, these politically connected unions and corporations are trying to use the boot of the state to drive out competition.

Fuck them.

[tallbergs]

@migkillertwo No the measures would still arise because companies lobby for

regulation that only they can overcome. Their competition is starved out and

Monopoly is the result. Separation of Business and State is what's needed and

the free flow of competition would keep ANY corp. from getting bigger than the

government. So schooling is not whats needed, ending the Fed Res is.

Cut up the credit card they hand (buy) every president and the problem would

VANISH.

[captainlucky1337]

@migkillertwo

Great logic seeing as how this is macroeconomics not micro.

To all the people seeing this video and thinking protectionism is bad and if only we stuck to comparative advantage, the US would still be trying to maximize selling corn and fur today while all the other countries would be prospering.

[migkillertwo]

"Not micro"

Except that you learn about comparative advantage in a microeconomics class.

"the US would still be trying to maximize selling corn and fur while other countries would be prospering"

If corn and fur were what we had a comparative advantage in and not industry, we'd be wealthier if we stuck to those goods, except (thanks to, among other things, generous deposits of fossil fuels and iron) we did have a comparative advantage in industry.

[captainlucky1337]

@migkillertwo

Uh maybe you learned about comparative advantage in a micro class but it is a macro topic seeing as how it's based on entire countries.

No we had an advantage in corn production, we had more resources in oil but as you know having more of a resource is not the same as having a comparative advantage. And plus we shifted from an agrarian to an industrial society from protectionism to begin with.

[diurdi]

@migkillertwo The politicians aren't ignorant. They're just doing what the lobbyists have bribed them to do.

[MerrillMedia]

Great evidence against protectionism. Protectionism hurts consumers and producers to benefit a very small special interest.

[thecfazz]

@MerrillMedia Very true! Protectionism is but a remnant of the flawed logic behind mercantilism. Protectionism may help those raw goods producers in the US, but it hurts the final goods producers and consumers!

[migkillertwo]

They're dumping silicon on our market, even though it's the world price?

[isfahelww]

OMG!!!!