The American Worker should be Protected!

I said DATA, not Economics, can tell us how must digging of amber the barbarians have to do to obtain so many arms. {you got wax in your ears?}

Economics is multidisciplinary by definition, but that does not change the fact that there are another disciplines.

What we have here is debate between innovation and Economic Content (simple DATA).

We are going to imagine you visit an I-Pad factory in China:

You arrive via robot driven taxi. Outside the building is a sleeping security guard in front of the only human access door (with cobwebs on it), he has a romance novel in his hand; he represents the fat guy sitting at the robot reading the romance novel that replaced the cute chick whose ass I used to admire who worked in the shop with fifty more workers. You look down to the left and see robotic trucks delivering raw materials at a port, you look to the right and see robots loading robotic trucks with boxes of finished product. We of innovation are going to imagine for purposes of argument that you are the first human to touch the I-Pad in your hand; no human touched any part of it.

Now we imagine all the human innovation to create the I-pad is done; the engineers...got their salary for the years they worked. All of those who worked on it now teach; they represent the theoretical physicist that taught my three Physics classes. Now it is just product arrives in America and we buy it.

We are going to imagine for purpose of argument there is no better mouse trap than the I-Pad. It serves our needs. For purposes of argument we are going to ignore future software upgrades.

For purposes of argument you see, China is the Robot.

If you give us Economic Content, or DATA, and say what the cost would be if the I-Pad was manufactured here, then we could say you gave us some decent Economic Content.

The purpose of all this is to determine how to tax the robot.

If we put an Impost on the I-Pad, such that it pays the teachers, pays off the irresponsible debt used to acquire the product, and unemployment of displaced workers, you say there would be a trade war between the Robot and the Human. Right?

For all the DATA you have in this topic, you might as well just say whether a vote for Obama or a vote for Romney will make DATA happy.

Assuming for purposes of argument the president is king of the economy to James Carville ("It's NOT Camelot Stupid").

Can we assume that Obama will raise regulations, tax the rich, and raise minimum wages such that the theoretical I-Pad can never be produced here?

Is a Democrat what we need to protect the American worker?

Can we assume a third party Libertarian candidate will return us to the indirect taxes we had prior to the Civil War, which in effect will either tax the robot though Imposts or Excises to pay down our debt?

Is a Libertarian what we need to protect the American worker?

Can we assume that Romney will reduce regulations, reduce taxes, and reduce minimum wages such that the theoretical I-Pad can be produced here, eliminating costs of shipping (as we have yet to reach Michio Kaku's Age of Magnetism), so the product will be cheaper manufactured here?

Is a Republican what we need to protect the American worker?

We have a man standing there in the unemployment line or on welfare, he is doing nothing, all things being equal in ability to the Chinese, the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) is not inferior to the Chinese, pardon my FRENCH, to compensate the man we are faced with whether to tax the rich who use robots, taxing the robot, tax the consumer, or tax others who are innocent...blah, fracking blah...

It's a politics forum, so what do we do? Please elaborate with something other than just DATA.

 

Just more waffle! Let me know when you can make an economic comment on an economic's forum (even if its just a genuine attempt to critique orthodox theory)

 

Aristotle's household management says you are the waffle.

 

Really? because I believe unquestioned free trade is based on an ignorance of economics!

You would need to show that the benefits of free trade (to countries with much lower wages) outweigh the negetive effects.

I have no problem with free trade when it is between countries with similar wages, worker protections, and environmental protections.

 

There's no unquestioned free trade. Where do you get that idea from? Dynamic comparative advantage, for example, certainly provides a rationale for protectionism to aid economic development. The problem of course is that those in favour of protectionism do not bother with the economics. Its nothing more than a rant in favour of economic irrationality

Your opinion isn't going to offer anything powerful; crikey you thought Marxist labour analysis is supply & demand based! Comparative advantage ensures gains from inter-industry trade because of differences in wages (bit obvious really as its typically based on factor abundance which then, as shown by a simple isoquant analysis, impacts on the rate of return for the factors of production)

 

I doubt that those in favor of free trade with China fully thought through the economic consequences either.

I am not arguing with this. I am just saying that the negetive consequences can outweigh the direct benefits. Here is what we both can agree on: free trade lowers prices for the market goods directly involved. Now let's discuss those job losses, and whether these lower prices actually create other jobs to replace the ones lost...

 

I somewhat agree; that is ignoring that we must maintain our strategic production ability in case of a cut off of their manufacturing.

Even dissimilar wages are not really a problem if the Domestic executives...rich owner of the principle means of production's wealth, that is derived from their cheap labor, is taxed to compensate for any discrepency between our labor laws...

If they build the I-Pad there for cheap labor, the price should stay the same for the I-Pad, we can figure that will complicated math, and the wealth of the domestic company executives...taxed by whatever amount is needed to make the difference, plus shipping costs added for good measure to make up for the added polution toward Global Warming of transportation.

The consumer can certainly benefit from lower priced goods, but the rich owner...of the principle means of production should not have a windfall at domestic worker expense. Considering that many of them vote Democratic, and then skirt around our laws, which the Democrats champion, is kind of funny.

Now I am certain Reiver will whip out some more unintelligible gobbledegook.

 

Its all understood: huge gains because of specialisation according to labour intensity, but a trade imbalance generated by Chinese and US savings rates.

When? You've made so many basic errors its difficult to ascertain what you're trying to say.

Basic error! Trade allows consumption outside the production possibility frontier. That doesn't create unemployment. Have a look at imports as % of GDP (available via the World Bank for over 200 countries) and try and correlate it with unemployment rates. Good luck!

 

There is some from the lower priced computer in the hands of the ignorant, they could use it to make money if they applied themselves. But, really, I am not so sure such benefits exceed those to the traitor who benefits from slave labor and less regulations and pollution laws.

 

You are using as your argument the world not us, the lower priced goods are certainly going to be of greater benefit for them than for us. There is some benefit in their uplifting, less aid for sure, but we have to deal with our taxes and our laws.

So you have to find figures that only corelate to our jobs, using only our GDP and our Unemployment rates...when calculating whether a domestic using foreign cheap labor benefits us.

Like say for instance can you prove that the uplifting of the consumption outside that "production possibility frontier" corelates to more jobs here, and there is no loss or there is a gain?

I have zero problem with a foreign made product made by foreigners, I have a problem with the I-Pad and our taxes on the major benefificiary of using cheap labor we simply by law cannot have. Go figure why?

Prove something to me, do not ask me to go look at foreign benefits.

 

Hopefully Anders is thinking up a good answer, rather than getting supply & demand wrong. Whilst I wait, here's an empirical study on NAFTA (an example of trade liberalisation that gets frequent non-economic attacks):

Francis and Yuqing (2011, Trade liberalization, unemployment and adjustment: evidence from NAFTA using state level data. Applied Economics, Vol. 43, pp. 1657-1671)
This article specifies a supply and demand model of the labour market to examine the effects of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on the US labour market. Regression results suggest that NAFTA decreased yearly unemployment growth by 4.4%. Equivalently, NAFTA brought a structural break to the US state level unemployment. The second finding is that the labour market began feeling the impact of NAFTA immediately after its implementation and the labour market has continued to feel its effects probably through 2001

Not surprisingly it finds an increase in labour demand (something always ignored by the nationalists)

 

Now I feel a little better, MORE!

 

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafapplec/v_3a43_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a13_3ap_3a1657-1671.htm

Oh, and by the way if we are not subscribers we cannot learn enough crap from it. So have something we can get for free instead of "USD 36.00?"

Since you have it please quote some more or something.

 

But what type of "demand" is this? Demand for good paying jobs, or demand for low paying jobs? If the latter, increased demand for labor could still be a bad thing if the quality of this demand changes.

 

Given specialisation according to capital intensity its 'good jobs'. So far you've supplied naff all to support your position. How about Dutt et al. (2009, International trade and unemployment: Theory and cross-national evidence, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 78, pp. 32-44)? That does find unemployment-increasing effects from trade liberalisation? Golly, you might be onto something! Then again it finds that this is a short run effect and the new steady state is characterised as unemployment-reducing. Oops!

 

I am so happy to see you and the replies you have generated. For the first time, I see an awkened state of the obvious. For the moment. let's assume we impose a 25% tariff as Donald Trump recommended and go from there. What most Americans don't realize is that when we import less low cost items and begin making them ourselves, we actually increase our U.S. revenue base, get people off the handouts (unemployment), and people begin to make themselves useful. Now, the great news is this: The domestic demand and cost of domestic goods will of course reach equilibrium and prices will be affordable to everyone who has one of these NEW JOBS. So, the tariffs will give us a break from the present condition and level the playing field with the countries that have no OSHA, EPA, Minumum Wage, Human Rights, etc, etc. Our technology will no longer be sent overseas to be stolen and copied. Let's get going again!

 

Severe economic damage magnified by trade war. You fellows need to teach yourself some basic economics

 

Prior to the Housing Bubble popping, I talked a Whitey muscle man I knew into spending two weeks standing around those "illegal" pick up places for day labor where the housing contractors showed up to get their illegal labor. He reported back they did not want "White Like Me," and he did not see any blacks being picked up either. He said they were too smart to waste their time; so much for Affirmative Action. So from my perspective the Housing Bubble in majority Black Atlanta Metro area, of CNN's Bernita Jones fame, was not just built with bad debt but with illegal labor that was not majority Black. I could get into the contractor in New Orleans who complained about the lazy Blacks who were not working...who has illegal workers. In Florida my blue tarps were installed by an out of work roofer from the mainland who helped me for free, he was looking forward to lots of work due to everyone's bad fortune; later my FEMA blue roof was installed by a White Texan overseer, can you guess the makeup of every one of the workers?

Some people kind of suspect that if there were no illegal workers they would have to be our workers. You say the costs would go up. And I think we know that is true.

The service sector provided the bad debt and the manufacturing sector used cheap labor to build the Library addition, which is attached to the Police department, where they caught 60 illegals after work was completed, kind of like yen and yang the illegals had to go around back to get into the Library and the front of the Police department is in the back of the Library, and let's not forget the local hospital, where they caught 90 illegals after work was completed; so I assume all of them 150 did not get their last paycheck and that is good economics.

Your thingy said, "The second finding is that the labour market began feeling the impact of NAFTA immediately after its implementation and the labour market has continued to feel its effects probably through 2001..."

See we had this little thing called a war around 2001, you know military industrial complex, where the stock at my old employer went from $19 to $52 in about a year. Let's not forget the Housing Bubble, which it appears even Spain had; ours was fueled by the tax decrease in response to irrational exuberance over the Dot Com bubble, which had its effect on taxes known as the Bush Tax Cuts. Most of us would not understand what we are seeing, math that is, nor can some of us still do what we used to do, but conclusions do not convince as much as seeing how they are reached; we learn that from the Global Warming detractor's conclusion that Yamal tree ring data means there was a fraud. Just expecting people to accept the word of some economists is not happening when there is so much unemployment and people are constantly being told it was not the Bush Tax cuts that caused it, it was Obama's taxes. So we may have some results with regard to unemployment numbers that have nothing whatsoever to do with free trade. I bet it would be a rather complicated process to filter out the noise of Dot Com bubbles and Housing bubbles.

What I want to see is something more than phrases like "Severe economic damage magnified by trade war. You fellows need to teach yourself some basic economics."

Low cost goods from "no OSHA, EPA, Minimum Wage, Human Rights, etc, etc." anyone can assume would give people jobs in the service sector distributing and selling them. Low cost computers for instance certainly gets them in more hands, and our people who can without any other major investment use them to make money; and such gains go for any other tools they get cheap.

When I took economics...I used a Remington Rand. And soon got a top of the line 8086 running at 12 MHz turbo, IBM clone, from Japan, its hard drive installed later after I got tired of batch files for configurations and virtual drives was 10 MB, it weighs a ton and I still have it. Some of those old programs would run on a DOSbox in a handheld Nintendo DSi if they did not have such an aversion to homebrew. I believe both of them machines, the typewriter and the 8086 would still be working if the kiddies had not destroyed them. But, both of those machines had a problem, when I had to use math I had to write in a formula because the typewriter could not do it and WordStar of the time would not allow me to use my character set with my Okidata.

You say, "you fellows need to teach yourself some basic economics," but if we teach ourselves we go look for a book on "Free Trade" and find several in the search against it, and one I saw was written by a professor of economics. So which one of them is better than that?

I do not think theory or models without verifiable current data, the time it takes to become an economist, is going to work. We are not going to go out and buy books or research papers to debate.

You had better do a little more to teach us, because if we have to teach ourselves we will just buy the book by the professor that is against free trade. Then we are happy. We can say, but professor so and so said so.

Stevenswld just said "Donald Trump recommended," well (*)(*)(*)(*), isn't he rich or something from applied economics? But, yeah, he is service sector. Right?

We could go down the road of more economists say such and such, like with Global Warming, but in the end us unwashed types need to see the math, and the data that is used. Even if it causes our heads to explode, because we forgot it and first would need to whip out all our old Algebra, Precalculus, and Calculus books. Back when I was taking math for engineering...I also bought the books used in the economics classes; guess which ones make a bigger stack? Some of us are just too fracking tired and brain dead to figure anymore, for ourselves to get it, but we might make something out if the data and figuring of someone else if they can show how they filtered out the noise of bubbles.

So if you want us to learn, you teach or give us more than so and so said so conclusions and cute little go learn crap. We got Donald Trump said so, and if that is not good enough prove it.

Most of us know it is all academic anyway; the magical they are going to give amnesty to illegals again and again, and they are going to continue to promote free trade.

 

Your statement is pure stupidity. The world COMPETES and always will. Now, if you want to throw your future away so the worlds dumbasses can flourish, go ahead. But, I am a social darwinist and I won't be going with you. Your line of reasoning may appeal to children but not to anyone with an ounce of sense.

 

Firms compete. That's a jolly good thing too. Indeed, by referring to competition you've inadvertently brought up the issue of monopolistic competition and the gains from economies of scale (a gain from trade ignored by the standard comparative advantage analysis)

 

BULL!

When the worlds dumbasses can't flourish, they do barbarian things, commie things, monopollock things; and when they are neomerchantlists we cannot be just with them without a major trade war on a global scale between Europe and the Americas... There is something to be said for we all must sacrifice for the common good; I just do not want to sacrifice our strategic abilities with their monopoly on any segment of manufacturing simply because Africans are not cheap enough. It is one thing to have a vidalia onion and parmesan cheese, an Arabian and a Thoroughbred, an Italian car and a red neck hick pick-up truck design, and another to have Asian computer manufacturers and all others servants.

 

The zero sum game from trade (where one loses at the other's expense) has been rejected since Adam Smith. Where the heck have you people been?

 

Well, we spell it "labor" not "labour," so we bees American.

I just cannot seem to understand how firms compete with one side having high tariffs or subsidies on top of low wages:

"Because of the high Chinese tariffs and taxes already in place, the vehicles are sold only in the thousands or even hundreds in China, and only to the most affluent. (A Jeep Grand Cherokee that begins at $27,490 at dealerships in the United States costs $85,000 or more in China.)

The White House announced last week that it would ask the World Trade Organization next Monday to open an inquiry into Chinese restrictions on imports of American broiler chickens.

More significantly, Chinese government agencies and companies have been furious about a current American investigation into whether Chinese solar panels exported to the United States might have received illegal subsidies or been dumped in the American market at prices below the cost of manufacturing them." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/b...some-vehicles-from-the-us.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2011-12/21/content_14297469.htm

"It’s no secret China is aggressively subsidizing its solar manufacturers, driving down prices for solar panels and components. Here’s the question: Is that a bad thing?"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...on-china-s-solar-products-will-cost-u-s-.html

Good question there.

"A senior Chinese official demanded on Tuesday that foreign embassies stop issuing air pollution readings, saying it was against the law and diplomatic conventions, in pointed criticism of a closely watched U.S. embassy index."
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/China+pollution+debate/6737557/story.html#ixzz1z7S5ZdIk

So is there a fancy economic term, where one gains at the other's expense, for getting a couple of decades of clean solar energy at their expense?

 

Golly, aren't you just full of information!

It is the case that 'beggar thy neighbour' policies continue to be used (typically harming all populations given we get tit-for-tat, all the way to trade wars and losses summed up by the prisoner's dilemma). However, that only informs us of the need to strengthen multilateralism (and to minimise discretionary policy, particularly as governments are easily corrupted through pressure groups looking to profiteer at our expense)

 

Multilateralism does not sell well with Libertarians that used to be for returning to the indirect taxes we used prior to the Income Tax, which Ron Paul incorrectly in hundreds of his documents says the US got under a Democrat, that is we return to Impost taxes; basically prior to the "Fair Tax" becoming popular Ron Paul and Ron Pods were saying go back to the taxes we had prior to the income tax, and now with saying "tariffs are simply taxes on consumers," the whores and traitors are for taxes on consumers and against our Founder's preferred taxes.

The Fair Tax is a "special tax" on the goods bought from a foreign country, when they make everything; see Cambridge dictionary definition of "Free Trade."

And multilateralism does not sit well with the pro Clinton labor union, that was against his free trade, we saw running though the plant (like a bunch of commies in Seattle running though the streets when Cotter Pin was president and Nixon was meeting with an old buddy from China at the then Washington Plaza).

Depending upon your definition of "multilateralism" we can have it with Europe and the Americas and Imposts against others.

According to some senses of definitions of "Free Trade" we can have it and Imposts too, if their purpose is revenue and not protectionism for specific goods or services:

": trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods with tariffs used only as a source of revenue" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free trade

Then again Merriam-Webster spells it "labor" and you spell it "labour":

"international buying and selling of goods, without limits on the amount of goods that one country can sell to another, and without special taxes on the goods bought from a foreign country" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/free-trade

Since we do have "limits on the amount of goods that one country can sell to another" simply due to minimum wages and EPA, and OSHA, or differences in laws that place limits on amount of goods that we can sell, therefore, it is not Free Trade to buy from those with such advantage. If we had no regulations above theirs, under that definition of "without limits on the amount of goods that one country can sell to another," free trade would be possible.

Free Trade, another American definition:

"The interchange of goods and services (but not of capital or labor) unhindered by high tariffs, nontariff barriers (such as quotas), and onerous or unilateral requirements or processes."

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/free-trade.html#ixzz1zBcnPvt6

Since we have interchange of labor, cheap for goods and services or simply capital, which is an onerous or unilateral process due to differences in law's requirements, therefore, it is not Free Trade to trade for cheap goods and services that are the consequence of labor law inequity.

Basically under our earlier patriotic Libertarian taxes we did not tax your poor bread or whiskey, but only your rich who had fine China. Now the Libertarian traitors want a Whiskey Rebellion because they prefer fine China to the poor having no taxes until they become rich. They are traitors and snakes in the grass because the minute they get the Fair Tax they will complain about the prebate being against our Founder's principles.

Certainly the lovers of fine China, and traitors to the American people, are looking to profiteer at our expense with none of the taxes we had from Jefferson to Lincoln.

"To minimise discretionary policy, particularly as governments are easily corrupted through pressure groups looking to profiteer at our expense," we could have an Impost tax that is not discriminatory and the pressure groups looking to profiteer with cheap labor and regulations at our expense simply will not profiteer.

All functions of Supply and Demand still work with us returning to more of our previous taxes preferred from Jefferson to Lincoln, the only real losers are those that profiteer at our expense.

Basically you are saying that economics of Supply and Demand cannot be, that if we return to Impost taxes as the primary source of revenue we will be losers, due to it being more profitable for our consumers to consume that which they cannot make and trade freely due to our liberal laws.