|
Post by Amadan on Dec 8, 2016 20:13:10 GMT -5
Extra credit: When virtually every single economist recognizes the value of international trade, how has protectionism gained such traction in the US? Don, Don, Don. There are arguments against protectionism, but this article is a terrible one fully of shoddy math. Let's start with your last statement. Even protectionists don't think international trade is a bad thing. That's like saying that environmentalists think electricity is a bad thing. But moving on to the thrust of the article - that the $636-per-air-conditioner cost to the US makes it a net loss in wealth compared to keeping an American job in Mexico. It does what a lot of facile economics analysis does - ignores the fact that the value of money is less in each individual transaction than in the frequency with which that money circulates in the community that stands to benefit. If jobs are kept in America, yes, everyone has to pay a little more per air conditioner. On the other hand, each worker who remains employed in America is now spending his income in America. And not costing taxpayers for government services as a result of being unemployed. ("Well, unemployed people shouldn't be costing the taxpayers any money, they should be finding another job" you say. Sure, but I'm talking about the way the economy actually works, not the way it would work in Libertarian-land.) The benefit of spending more to keep jobs in the US obviously doesn't scale infinitely, so no, I am not saying we should all pay infinity-dollars per air conditioner as long as it keeps jobs from moving overseas. That is simply not practical. On the other hand, we've lost entire industries and many of those jobs have not been replaced. We know corporations will continue racing for the bottom to find the cheapest labor anywhere, and the concentrated benefits of those savings do not go to the average American who pays $0.07 per plastic cup less at Walmart. Blithely saying "The free market will guide jobs to wherever they can be done the most cheaply" ignores the effect that has on the places that lose those jobs. You can also argue that on a global scale, this is great, because we should rebalance the wealth of the US and the wealth of China by letting poor workers in China make more money and relatively rich workers in the US make less. But that sounds awfully close to redistributionism... hmm, there's another name for that, I can't seem to recall what it is? And being much more of a nationalist than a globalist, I tend to believe that countries should look out for the interests of their own citizens above those of other countries' citizens.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 8, 2016 20:13:57 GMT -5
Ew, the board software automatically adds a link to Walmart?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 20:20:33 GMT -5
Where did it do that?
If you mean the advertising...yeah, we have to pay to get rid of that. And we need more members (ones willing to subscribe) to make that worth it.
ETA:
oh, I see what you mean now. Huh. Those didn't initially show up as links when I first read the post.
Huh. will it work for Amazon? Walgreens?
ETA:
Huh.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 8, 2016 21:25:14 GMT -5
The idea of nationalism appeals to me (looking out for our own people first--not exclusively, but first, same as my kids come first, then others). But I don't understand why the solution here is to use taxpayer money to give American business owners tax breaks... so they'll employ American workers... who'll then have wages which are taxed... and which tax will be given over to business ownes as tax breaks ... so they'll keep employing American workers... while at any time, these business owners can decide anyway that Mexico is still cheaper, thanks for the tax breaks, but you're all fired now. We'd be as well or better off writing every American worker a check, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 9, 2016 3:38:27 GMT -5
"each worker who remains employed in America is now spending his income in America" ... on goods produced all over the world, from the cheap shit made in asia to the quality of German craftmanship. Division of labor and comparative advantage work everywhere; whether you're trading tomatoes for a haircut with your neighbor, your time for money with someone who doesn't have your skill set, or paper script with China for products you'd never be able to afford if created by Swiss craftsmen. (and more importantly, that those on the bottom of the economic ladder wouldn't be able to afford at all.) Nationalism is shorthand for "everyone being poorer with the same amount of work." If managed trade deals give one nation a disadvantage over the other, I'd recommend questioning the "managed" part rather than the "trade" part. Nationalism and economic protectionism plays right into Putin's agenda. As The Economist points out, Russian propaganda is state-of-the-art again
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 9, 2016 8:53:16 GMT -5
Ew, the board software automatically adds a link to Walmart? Where did it do that? If you mean the advertising...yeah, we have to pay to get rid of that. And we need more members (ones willing to subscribe) to make that worth it. ETA: oh, I see what you mean now. Huh. Those didn't initially show up as links when I first read the post. Huh. will it work for Amazon? Walgreens? ETA: Huh. I turned that on last week to see what kind of impact it would have. I guess it took a while to actually start up. It's not required--I can turn it off--but I was looking for ways to possibly generate a few dollars to run a google campaign. If it really bugs people, I can turn it off.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Dec 9, 2016 9:19:00 GMT -5
I say keep it. And if clicking on the banner ads is a bonus I'll do that daily.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 9, 2016 9:23:18 GMT -5
The banner ad revenue goes to Proboards (its' what keeps this free). But clicking the Viglinks would benefit the site, true enough. I'm not sure how much it will benefit the site, however. Once there are some numbers, I'll let you know, unless the links do bug people. Then--as I said--I'll turn them off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 10:37:32 GMT -5
I don't mind them.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 9, 2016 11:04:38 GMT -5
I don't mind them hugely, but they are a bit annoying. "each worker who remains employed in America is now spending his income in America" ... on goods produced all over the world, from the cheap shit made in asia to the quality of German craftmanship. Division of labor and comparative advantage work everywhere; whether you're trading tomatoes for a haircut with your neighbor, your time for money with someone who doesn't have your skill set, or paper script with China for products you'd never be able to afford if created by Swiss craftsmen. (and more importantly, that those on the bottom of the economic ladder wouldn't be able to afford at all.) Nationalism is shorthand for "everyone being poorer with the same amount of work." If managed trade deals give one nation a disadvantage over the other, I'd recommend questioning the "managed" part rather than the "trade" part. Nationalism and economic protectionism plays right into Putin's agenda. As The Economist points out, Russian propaganda is state-of-the-art againThe "comparative advantage" of China and Mexico is not merely that workers there will do the same job for less money. It is that the governments there don't provide the same level of service that ours does. And I don't just mean things that libertarians think we shouldn't provide anyway, but things like basic protections from being killed or imprisoned because you are an irritant, or maybe giving a little bit of a fuck about poisoning groundwater or drug cartels subverting the government, things like that. I believe we should keep American jobs in the US to the degree possible. Tax breaks may not be the best means to do that, but shrugging because even if an American worker loses his job, it means lot of other American workers will be able to buy appliances cheaper and therefore it's a wash is nonsensical. What happens to those unemployed American workers? Your theory is that the number of workers employed in the US will stay the same because they can buy cheaper goods and... what, that facilitates more jobs? Or just means a higher standard of living for less money? I don't think the economic numbers of the past few decades support that. There is a balance to be found here, and I am not advocating a fully protectionist regime either, but the choice is not and never has been between anarcho-libertarianism and an inevitable slide towards Marxism with nothing in between.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 9, 2016 12:34:03 GMT -5
I'd rather have a job and pay more for an air conditioner than be out of a job. And I'd rather pay more for an air conditioner and have more of my friends and fellow citizens working, even if my job isn't at risk.
|
|