Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 107

Thread: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

  1. #71
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I asked you for links to economists who were saying that they had changed their minds and decided that protectionism was a beneficial economic policy.
    Here you go.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    edit: Also, could you point out the "epithet" I used in my first post?
    You use "protectionism" as an epithet. To quote the article I link to above, "Don’t say that any theory which has good things to say about protectionism must be wrong: that’s theology, not economics."

  2. #72
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by RyrineaHaruno View Post
    You realize that he's arguing for protectionism, right?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #73
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Did you even read the article? In the course of arguing against the stimulus plan's protectionist provisions, Krugman acknowledges that in a very particular situation, a very particular type of protectionist policies could theoretically be a boon to economic growth. However, he ends the article by concluding that on the whole, it's still a very bad idea:

    Everything Iíve just said applies only when the world is stuck in a liquidity trap; thatís where we are now, but it wonít be the normal situation. And if we go all protectionist, that will shatter the hard-won achievements of 70 years of trade negotiations ó and it might take decades to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.
    I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that economists are changing their minds about the values of free trade. If you want to play the quote game, I'll leave you with this:

    "If there were an Economistís Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'." - Paul Krugman.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #74
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    You realize that he's arguing for protectionism, right?
    The point is, if I understood Ryrinea correctly, is similar to the point I was trying to make with the original links I posted. You're living in a fantasyland, NYC, if you think all countries are going to trade freely and sing kumbaya. China and other economies are implementing protectionist policies regardless of whether we think it is a good idea. There are good ways to implement protective policies, and there are bad ways, as Ryrinea's the third link illustrates. But you asked who thinks protectionism is a good idea, and the answer is every country except the USA, apparently.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Krugman acknowledges that in a very particular situation, a very particular type of protectionist policies could theoretically be a boon to economic growth.
    Funny, I seem to recall hearing that somewhere... Oh yeah, it's what I've been saying this entire time.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that economists are changing their minds about the values of free trade. If you want to play the quote game
    And I gave you the evidence. China is doing it, India is doing it, Europe is doing it, everybody is except the USA. Time to get with it here, buddy. Frankly, I don't want to play the quote game, because we can match each other quote for quote all day and get nowhere. Just use a little horse sense. It's better to keep money in our economy than give it to China. QED
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-22-10 at 09:41 PM.

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    07-01-10 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    157

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    "Basic" supply and demand isn't the issue. It's much more complicated than that.
    Of course, because you say so, right? You get to dictate which concepts are at issue and which economists are legitimate. Boy, I wish I had the ability to assert things without having to actually justify them with evidence and logic.

    Your short-sightedness is truly alarming, if for no other reason that you're dressing up ignorance and masquerading it around as good sense.
    Your insults are growing tiresome. Try debating for a change.

    You can either pay more for that car up front, but the premium you pay will go into your own economy and come back to help you in a multitude of ways, or you can pay less up front and wave good-bye to that money, as China and India have the good sense to enforce those economic protectionist policies you have so much contempt for. Those other countries don't care about your free market dogmas and they have the long-term good sense to keep the dollars we shell out to them.
    Money goes to China, yes, but more money stays in the US in the form of increased savings, a point you continually ignore. The money consumers save on products aggregates and offsets the loss of jobs.

    It's just like Tucker has been saying more eloquently than I am able, the only way for the USA to remain competitive in the long term is to sacrifice a little short term pseudo-savings to keep money circulating in the economy. In the end it's actually costing us less to pay more for that car up front.
    But, unlike you, Tucker isn't advocating authoritarian, protectionist policies as the solution. Instead, he's advocating for personal choice and individual liberty. A very unsubtle difference, I'm afraid.

    Yeah right Somehow I'm betting you're the type of guy who calls Obama a Marxist too. Neither of us are. You should probably read a little more about Marxism before you go making these kind of accusations. But hey, it's like I always say, why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
    The point went right over your head. Allow me to explain the obvious: If you can label me a conservative based upon some nebulous "walks like a duck" criteria, then I can do the same thing to you. If you don't like being erroneously labeled a Marxist then don't erroneously label me a conservative. It's called a "double-standard".

    Spare me the libertarian balderdash, please.
    So, you have no rebuttal. Hardly surprising given your repeated lack of substance.

    Maybe the reason you "hear it all the time" is because it's true.
    Then explain it to me.

    What specific deregulatory policies are to blame for the collapse of the housing and financial sectors, and how did they cause the collapse?

    Even Alan Greenspan has abrogated his flawed ideology that deregulation helps the US economy.
    Alan Greenspan's monetary policy is partially to blame for the collapse, so I'm not surprised he's trying to cover his own tracks.

    What you're saying about economic protectionism being a failed policy was sound dogma about five years ago, my friend, but everybody with eyes to see have given up on your foolishness.
    Actually, it's settled economics that protectionism is a failure. The only people trying to claim otherwise are random people on the internet (re: you).

    True believers in Adam Smith and Ayn Rand (read: koolaid drinkers ) will probably never give up, even when reality smacks them in the face, but people with sense give up on failed ideologies after they, you know, fail on such a massive scale.
    Light on substance and heavy on the insults. Let me know when you actually provide some evidence to support all the wacky assertions you've made.

    P.S. - I see you ignored several points I made. An obvious indication that you cannot rebut them.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by alms View Post
    P.S. - I see you ignored several points I made. An obvious indication that you cannot rebut them.
    Look, alms, it's not that I can't rebut your arguments, I've done it several times over the course of the thread. But when you keep responding with the same arguments I've just rebutted, you can see how it might get tiresome. I'm not going round and round with you on the same subject again. Have a nice day.

  8. #78
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    The point is, if I understood Ryrinea correctly, is similar to the point I was trying to make with the original links I posted. You're living in a fantasyland, NYC, if you think all countries are going to trade freely and sing kumbaya.
    Where have I said anything resembling this?

    China and other economies are implementing protectionist policies regardless of whether we think it is a good idea.
    Which is why it's a good idea to work with other countries bilaterally and multilaterally to break down trade barriers in as many ways as possible. Which we do.

    There are good ways to implement protective policies, and there are bad ways, as Ryrinea's the third link illustrates. But you asked who thinks protectionism is a good idea, and the answer is every country except the USA, apparently.
    Do you really not see the difference between:

    1) Country X implementing some protectionist policies in some situations, and
    2) Protectionism in general being of economic benefit to our country as a whole?

    The fact that China has some protectionist policies is not proof that all of economics is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Funny, I seem to recall hearing that somewhere... Oh yeah, it's what I've been saying this entire time.
    Again, I don't think you're really understanding what Krugman said. He said that you could make the argument that those particular protectionist policies helped in a particular situation, but then concluded that in the end, that argument was flawed.

    Also, I'm still waiting for this list of converted economists.

    And I gave you the evidence. China is doing it, India is doing it, Europe is doing it, everybody is except the USA. Time to get with it here, buddy. Frankly, I don't want to play the quote game, because we can match each other quote for quote all day and get nowhere. Just use a little horse sense. It's better to keep money in our economy than give it to China. QED
    ****, I was gonna point out the flaws in your logic but then you added a QED, so I guess you win.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    Then start a white owned shop that sells hispanic goods and stop whining.
    Being hispanic has nothing to do with it has to do with hiring illegal aliens rather than citizens. You can tell as soon as you walk into these places that their employees are illegals, you have the owner or manager who speaks English and then every single employee there doesn't speak English, it's not hard to figure out what's going on.

    Most mexicans are legal. Also, knowing spanish helps one get hired there.
    lol, ya a shop with one English speaking Mexican (the owner) and 15 non-English speaking Mexicans, ya I'm sure they're legal.

    Ive heard thats likely false, also I dont know of any businesses that are not taxed.
    How the **** do illegals who are not on the books pay income taxes?

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire

    Quote Originally Posted by alms View Post
    The added cost of American labor would be passed onto consumers. I doubt you or anyone else is willing to pay a big premium for American-made merchandise.

    $1,000 PS3 or $50 T-shirts anyone?
    Well, do you want a product that is good and lasts for life, or do you want something that's designed to last at least as long as the warranty?

    I don't have a big problem with immigrants that work and mind their own business, but I don't have a problem with profitable companies delivering a product or service at a good price either.
    Well, you have to examine the quality of the work area for these individuals. You should look up the conditions of the iPad's... after a series of 16 suicides from the people that worked somewhere around 16 hrs a day for 6-7 days a week, they now have a 'suicide clause' in the employment contract, where if they cause grief they are treated as though the might commit suicide.

    Oh, and, also recently, the workers in China have started fighting to unionize (essentially, from my understanding)....

    Quote Originally Posted by alms View Post
    Populism and protectionism are surefire ways to kill an economy. They've never once worked for anyone, ever, yet you still advocate them and refer to free-market economics as "irrelevant dogma". I don't know how anyone could take you seriously.
    I only disagree in the sense that we no longer live in a 'free-market'... we live in a 'crony capitalist' state, which is teetering on the fascist (not as in hitlers germany, that was sold as socialism, I'm talking about the mix of government and corporate entities.)

    Quote Originally Posted by RyrineaHaruno View Post
    If I am not mistaken the fire department is a forum of socialism, since it is government owned aka owned by the area which you live. This person is in his full right to talk about his beliefs about the democrats thought I do agree with Reddress that the people who torched the sign are not in their right to burn it, since it would be arson which is against the law, and they should be punished fully according to the laws of that state regarding arson's.
    Is it a form of socialsim? Yes, but cities have votes and agree that they will pay the necessary taxes to accomodate the service. I'm pretty sure that we can agree that the fire department is hardly the type of socialist product that's 'bad'... the only problem with socialist / fascist countries is that more often then not, they wind up having 'ethnic cleanses' of sorts or just allow whole sections of their populations to die. Not as a 'conspiracy' but as a general historical fact.

    Yes, the people who torched the sign could have chewed out the guy... but I suppose it's easier to burn something down then to actually voice your opinions... Or simply CHANGED the sign...

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Facism is exactly what you're talking about. Corporations that are privately owned and government run. You sure as hell aren't talking about Capitalism.
    Ya, that's the definition of fascism... people keep calling it socialism, that's not what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    That's not what I'm talking about at all. What I am talking about is a government that regulates privately owned corporations with the protection of its own citizens in mind.
    You mean a 'benevolant fascism'... oh ok. Let's say Obama is the 'benevolant fascist' the one and only in the world. He's got an 8 year term max.... what about the next guy?

    And neither are you. At least, neither of us is talking about "pure" capitalism, and it is a gross misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics to assume that any such system of anarchocapitalism can exist outside a vacuum. What you're talking about are artificial market restrictions that favor multinational corporations and an elite few robber-barons. What I'm talking about is an artificial market that favors the people of the United States.
    I do agree, we do NOT live in a 'free-market capitalism'... what we see is 'crony capitalism' you make money because you know people that have money. You can only ever make as much money as the people you know. Sad but true.

    However, you are litterally saying that we need fascism to save america... I'm not buying it... and if we allow that to happen... it won't be good, fascisms have NEVER turned out well for the people. Sure they start out fine and dandy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    He should have just painted the first question: "Are you a producer or a parasite?" Everyone needs to look inside themselves to see how to answer this question. Are you in middle management, used car salesman, work in the financial district, or own a Pawn shop? Guess what? You don't produce anything tangible. You simply position yourself to make money from people by shuffling papers. You may provide a service. That's why you get paid, yet you don't produce anything. When I heard a few years back that America was going to become a nation of service providers I had a bad gut reaction. You can't shift the economic standing of a nation that far away from production and expect to get away with it.
    Agreed... EXACTLY what the people who were speaking at anti-NAFTA, GATT, etc meetings were warning us about. But they were all a bunch of stupid hippies, what would they know. Right??


    Quote Originally Posted by alms View Post
    Who said anything about lower prices without jobs? I'm saying we can have both.
    You have to work to have a healthy economy, where the first 1000 books you might print will cost you 5000$, but if you print 10000 books it will cost you 8000$ (as an arbitrary illustration).

    What we have to do before that can happen is to break up the monopolies, duopolies and oligolopolies in the economy, and rewrite the legistlation with teeth to prevent them from simply forming newer and more intricate crony systems, end the federal reserve, bring the US currency back to something in line with a hard currency, work to produce that hard currency, etc...

    In other words, we need a hollistic fix for the economy... not a 'green jobs' that costs more jobs then it creates, and are short term jobs (as greece offers the cautionary tale).

    Do you know how much more expensive a car would be if there was no outsourcing? Why do you think you can just ignore the massive premium that would come attached to purely American-made products?
    DO YOU know just how much of a premium is put on chinese made goods??? You're Ipod / Ipad actually gets produced for about 20-30$ a piece + shipping overseas, storage expenses + markups. (If I remember they are several hundred dollars each).

    So, I think I'd feel safe paying for a 75000$ car that'll snap those cheap arse foreign models like a twig if there's an accident... that'll run for 15 years if it's taken care of, and has balls so big they drage on the ground and make sparks.

    regardless though, that's besides the point, there needs to be COMPETITION with these other producers... and at the very least start reducing our trade deficit.

    As long as you're willing to pay much more for virtually everything you buy this shouldn't be a problem. And what gives you the right to restrict my economic choices?
    Ultimately if the trend was for protectionist BUYING habits, then american made products would eventually become cheaper as the REAL economy would be properly stimulated by internal production.


    The way things are going now, if you were to use a baseball analogy , you would say that we are in 'inning 2' of a 9 inning collapse. Soon will be inning 3.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •