Don't you see free marketeers? Taxing trade by a national entity is wrong, but taxing trade from a global entity is more than fine to the market socialists you have aligned with. You have 3 options Americans on this thread: 1) Pay American labor what it has earned through centuries of back breaking work to make you as powerful as you are. 2) Pay tariffs to bring in the junk you are having Chinese make for you, but knowing at least you taxes were being used for Americans. 3) Pay taxes on trade globally to line tables of bureaucrats with food they don't deserve, while 10 cents for every dollar goes to a bridge in Madagascar.
I've heard it all before. It only shows a complete innocence of trade analysis. And of course you will continue to fail to support your stance with empirical evidence. I'm asking you to support the belief that protectionism and employment are positively related. I've referred to a specific case as it has been extensively studied. I'm of course happy for you to refer to any evidence that you can find. Now stop with the use of incoherence to dodge. Present some evidence in support or admit that you cannot
But how do we determine what they "deserve"? Because Adam Smith said, in the year 1230 AD, Thousands of years before our civilization was imagined, that we need to have a free market. We all know how books get smarter when they are older. The "free market" should be allowed to determine that whoever gets a bunch of money right now.... they got that money because they deserve it. This is how we determine who the valuable people ARE in our society. I mean, they do a good job, they get rich, they are good. Who ELSE is good? YOU!? No. What if we said to ourselves: "We need helmets. We will not hire a worker unless they wear a helmet... We agree that all workers.............yes all workers must wear a helmet at .......at.........at ALL TIMEs.......WAIT OH SH WE CAN HIRE CHINAMEN!?!?! LOL!!!! YEAH LETS WEAR HELMETS LOL NO...NO... Of course I am joking omg that is so funny....... OMG LOL CHINA MEN WITH HELMETS..........OMG *catch breath* *catch breath* "OMG Lol yeah let's spend ten thousand dollars on helmets for the Chinamen when the government is not forcing us to- LOL@#% *WHEEZE* Omg of course we will not buy helmets, they don't matter. Horay America! YOU ARE SO GOOD AT EFFICIENT!!!!!!!! Do you have a problem with UN blue helmets? Your number 3 here is not good. Are you American?
Quit the BS, you know (*)(*)(*)(*) well they're related. The most common excuse is the operation wasn't competitive in the global market, as if American labor could possibly compete with Chinese workers averaging 136$ a month. You just like that fact, as you want redistribution on a global scale, you support protectionism in "developing nations" and as an anti-American you get to see our nation fall in the process. Win win. At least argue that old dumb stuff. Reiver does support protectionism. He is just troubled at how many Americans are catching on before the great plan is complete. Empirical proof is all over this thread. It just takes time for one to look up all the dumb economic terms he digs up to mask the fact. Not to mention, the empirical proof that extensive education doesn't help one to be more genuine.
LOL AD INCOHERENCE Please invent the latin term. I have been agruing AD INCOHERENCE That is my only flaw. I described the wages of our partners, the excellently skilled chinese population, in direct relation to our american wage. what data are you looking for? Do you think my already stated comparison was UNFAIR? DID YOU READ IT?
Are you that innocent of economics? Given the multiple variables, one would need an econometric study. Your incoherence does, though, have some value. You're neatly summarising how protectionists have to hide from the empirical literature
They were arguing for free markets in their own nations. Of course the people shipping jobs overseas don't care about China, they care about profits. Yes I am American, and I believe in the founding principle of aligning ourselves with no nation. I would pull out of NATO, United Nations and the WTO immediately.
Definition of EMPIRICAL 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data> 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory> 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws> 4 : of or relating to empiricism
COME ON Professor Tweed Suit You can do better than this. All you have to do is expect me to care! I do care! I will hilariously summarize multiple topics in a facetious kow tow ritual, because I know you probably know more than I do. Your problem is that you don't type as fast as I do, and so you can't type jokes. I said: America ships jobs overseas because it is cheaper Right wing econs say at the time: (in the 1990s) this will increase our potential for new service employees... ok yeah we lose manufacturing eomployees... but we win service employees! and your response to me was WHAT!? WHAT DID YOU SAY TO ME? I DID NOT HEAR YOU. WHAT WILL WE DO ABOUT THE INCREASING EFFECT OF THE OBVIOUS PROBLEM OF THE DISCREPANCY IN LABOR COSTS.... I MEAN STEP ONE IS LABOR COST OF LIVING,,,,,,, THEN WHAT ABOUT LABOR SAFETY COST,,,,,, I MEAN HERE IN AMERICA WE PAY FOR NEON VESTS AND HELMETS AND I try very hard to never condescend towards anyone. So when someone condescends to me, well that is just silly.
Quote:Andy Grove: How America Can Create Jobs The former Intel chief says "job-centric" leadership and incentives are needed to expand U.S. domestic employment again http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con...358596.htm Quote:The first task is to rebuild our industrial commons. We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. (If the result is a trade war, treat it like other warsfight to win.) Keep that money separate. Deposit it in the coffers of what we might call the Scaling Bank of the U.S. and make these sums available to companies that will scale their American operations. Such a system would be a daily reminder that while pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptabilityand stabilitywe may have taken for granted. I fled Hungary as a young man in 1956 to come to the U.S. Growing up in the Soviet bloc, I witnessed first-hand the perils of both government overreach and a stratified population. Most Americans probably aren't aware that there was a time in this country when tanks and cavalry were massed on Pennsylvania Avenue to chase away the unemployed. It was 1932; thousands of jobless veterans were demonstrating outside the White House. Soldiers with fixed bayonets and live ammunition moved in on them, and herded them away from the White House. In America! Unemployment is corrosive. If what I'm suggesting sounds protectionist, so be it.
Protectionism Benefits of Domestic Jobs * Born from a sense of fairness and some resentment, protectionism cries are loud and demanding. Domestic workers want their jobs back. Supporters of protectionism note that the policy will raise government revenue through increased tariff charges, and American companies would hesitate to move abroad because higher import taxes would be charged to sell their goods in the United States. On the question of national security technology, protectionism argues that defense technology cannot be awarded on the basis of free trade. Quotas on imports, under protectionism, would serve a domestic marketplace. Import barriers deplete supplies from the foreign market while allowing the domestic market to raise its price on the import product. Supply and demand rules trade barriers. Sorrel, Humboldt's chart demonstrates the curve and demand for an import product and its influence on the domestic market, giving the latter an advantage and boosting the argument for protectionism. Read more: Protectionism Benefits of Domestic Jobs | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_5942935_protectionism-benefits-domestic-jobs.html#ixzz1WDqqVZMD
Super! Lets have one study that supports your position. Please provide author(s), title, journal and year. Enough with the incoherence. It bores
"I call on the United States to void its membership in the World Trade Organization (I coined the name in 196. The WTO, in Geneva, makes the repressive rules we play by. Instead, the U.S. should make bilateral agreements with each of the 200 nations that want to trade with us. The rule must be: No trade imbalance exceeding 60-40 or less, either way. Sixty represents the maximum percentage of trade a country can sell to us -- and that country must buy 40 percent of the trade to do so -- at the least." http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/mar/07/ed-lenk07_20100305-210607-ar-12559/
It seems clear that I have failed our OP He has referred to the noticeably bad act of Smoot-Tawley, a law whose effects took place one trillion years ago in 1930 I began my participation in this thread by criticizing the continued implementation of the APPROPRIATE 1990S PLAN TO FORCE AND TO SUBSIDIZE american corporations who employ super cheap third world labor. In the 1990s it made sense, because we had boom times in america We had low unemployment That is when the act of "subsidizing the export of jobs" MADE SENSE IT STOPPED making sense somewhere around 2006, and it started to be clear that this was a trend we need to stop around 2000, I think. I do not think think that the Smoot Hawley Herpderp Act of 1930 applies directly TO NAFTA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NAFTA and I am talking about perhaps DECREASING SUBSIDIES TO FIRMS THAT SHIP JOBS OVERSEAS Do you think that shipping jobs overseas, in this year 2011, should be subsidized by the federal government, with tax cuts and payments, DO YOU!?! NO
We Need Protectionism, Now. January 28th, 2011 § Leave a Comment I wanted to get a ball rolling that Im going to stick with for a few days and will eventually get into some pretty deep analysis, but for right now, I just want to talk a little about why protectionism must not be a bad word in America, as it has come to be seen. There are myriad reasons that people dont like the idea of protectionism; the greatest of which is that academics tend to be free traders, and those of us with university training in economics learned from those academics. They told us that free trade increases everyones standard of living, brings world peace, creates jobs, encourages innovation, lets nations focus on those things it does best. They also told us there is no free lunch; they just never bothered to tell us the cost of free trade. Ronald Reagan understood the dichotomy between free trade and fair trade. You cant ask a nation of laws to compete with nations that are lawless. You cant ask Western workers to compete with slave wages. You cant ask businesses in the West to deal with regulations ranging from workers rights to environmental protection against nations that couldnt care less about the plight of the average man or the quality of his drinking water. Between England and America you can have fair trade, between the West and China, you cannot. http://compromisedconservative.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/we-need-protectionism-now/
Not true! I've already remarked that the non-economic twaddle that you've provided has been useful in demonstrating a type of protectionist. I just hoped that you would be able to blag better (i.e. pretend that you could support your argument on employment with empirical evidence). I'd at least have expected some reference to how Keynesianism could be combined with mercantilism by now
Are you roleplaying a character?!?! pre·ten·tious    [pri-ten-shuhs] adjective 1. full of pretense or pretension. 2. characterized by assumption of dignity or importance. 3. making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)    [doosh] noun, verb, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)d, douch·ing. noun 1. a jet or current of water, sometimes with a dissolved medicating or cleansing agent, applied to a body part, organ, or cavity for medicinal or hygienic purposes. 2. the application of such a jet.
To correct the problem, we should create tax and trade policies that favor investment in the U.S. We should cut taxes on American companies that build factories in the U.S. and impose higher taxes on companies that engage in offshoring. We should lower taxes on all domestic products and raise taxes on all imports. http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/18/protectionism-is-the-solution-to-americas-jobs-shortage/
xkcd reference!!?!? Can you please provide the evidence that you demand of me? Please provide evidence that the Service economy of America has directly increased, IN DIRECT PROPORTION to the decrease in manufacturing employees. Wait, you are asking ME for data? Please understand that I have given you lots of data, and you me none.
Deindustrialisation is expected in a mature economy. You're providing fluff because you cannot support your argument. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Economics just isn't your bag.
I truly have no idea why you wrote this. I promise you that the reason for my misunderstanding is not my low iq. Don't be mad my friend
Really? Given you made an unsupported argument and (despite several requests for evidence in support) responded with prance, seems all a little obvious! I'm too happy for such malarkey. You've been a jolly good egg in demonstrating how protectionists shy away from economic analysis
Do you want me to start thinking to myself that I have stumbled across a forum of dumbasses who literally try to remove liberals? Do you think your antagonism will make me want to leave? If you want violence, just warn me first, please, I don't want to die. I asked you a simple question: Do the NAFTA policies of the 1990s Apply to TODAY IN AMERICA We have low employment today in America What is your response TO THAT TO THAT
Not a lot. You've merely been consistent in your incoherence. Its not a cunning idea to refer to deindustrialisation and protectionism. From comparative advantage to the innovation analysis promoted by new trade theory, we have an understanding of how protectionism destroys economic activity
