View Poll Results: Unemployment....why???

Voters
136. You may not vote on this poll
  • Conservative policies

    22 16.18%
  • Liberal policies

    83 61.03%
  • both

    22 16.18%
  • our greed

    21 15.44%
  • other, please explain.

    26 19.12%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 163

Thread: Why the unemployment? A poll

  1. #131
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    But we know this is bull**** (the bold), as even the US adopted such a policy. Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You might be able to "say" such nonsense, but there is nothing you can say to substantiate your tale.
    No, this isn't bull****, as you so eloquently put it. The argument you are putting forth carries no weight. For instance, I could say that we are growing so much because of farm subsidies. It keeps farmers wealthy so that they can buy things from other people with the more money they get because the price of produce is higher. Of course, this ignores the fact that all people have to spend less on other things because they are forced to buy produce at these high prices. Get it? The broken window fallacy: once again it's like you have no idea about this simple economic concept. The same is true of protectionism. Now consumers are forced to buy higher prices consumer goods meaning they have less to spend on goods that they would have bought domestically anyway. Those companies that were doing well before the tarriff now get hurt because there will be less money for them because people now have to spend more on goods from these protected industries. Are we better off? Well obviously consumers are not, domestic companies that see no protection from the tarriff do not. The only people that benefit are the protected industries. But why should this be done? I'd say it shouldn't because people can get things cheaper from abroad, so most people see no benefit, and more people work in those protected industries instead of in those industries that were doing well before the tarriff. It's inefficient because you're going against what the market dictated, going against where consumers demanded it. By that simple fact it seems that it is not worth it.

    And all of this is without mentioning that Brazil tried to do this to develop their computer industry but it never worked. Also, the US government did it because it was one of their 2 sources of revenue (tarriffs and excise taxes). Yes, they engaged in protectionism as well, but we also have to know that it was a substantial source of revenue for the government.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  2. #132
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    joke Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    No, this isn't bull****, as you so eloquently put it. The argument you are putting forth carries no weight. For instance, I could say that we are growing so much because of farm subsidies. It keeps farmers wealthy so that they can buy things from other people with the more money they get because the price of produce is higher. Of course, this ignores the fact that all people have to spend less on other things because they are forced to buy produce at these high prices. Get it?
    Please stay on subject, as we were discussing export tariffs. When a nation places a tariff on a specific good, it equalizes the cost so to allow infant domestic industry the ability to compete. The main goal of agriculture subsidies is to protect our capacity to internally feed our population, not simply provide income to farmers.

    The broken window fallacy: once again it's like you have no idea about this simple economic concept.
    I have yet to see you use the said concept properly.

    The same is true of protectionism. Now consumers are forced to buy higher prices consumer goods meaning they have less to spend on goods that they would have bought domestically anyway. Those companies that were doing well before the tarriff now get hurt because there will be less money for them because people now have to spend more on goods from these protected industries. Are we better off? Well obviously consumers are not, domestic companies that see no protection from the tarriff do not. The only people that benefit are the protected industries.
    I think you are missing my point, im not discussing the said subject to adore protectionism, only to paint the picture in the appropriate color. All developed nations used protectionism, in one form or another, to help grow infant industry. The US did the same during a period that gets the laissez faire label. I understand that it is inconvenient, however this is only an issue for ideologues.

    But why should this be done? I'd say it shouldn't because people can get things cheaper from abroad, so most people see no benefit, and more people work in those protected industries instead of in those industries that were doing well before the tarriff. It's inefficient because you're going against what the market dictated, going against where consumers demanded it. By that simple fact it seems that it is not worth it.
    Again, im not here to argue right vs wrong, only to depict what has transpired in reality. Export driven growth models do in fact benefit (during the start up phase) long term growth outlooks, as tacit knowledge can be harnessed to improve efficiency.

    And all of this is without mentioning that Brazil tried to do this to develop their computer industry but it never worked. Also, the US government did it because it was one of their 2 sources of revenue (tarriffs and excise taxes). Yes, they engaged in protectionism as well, but we also have to know that it was a substantial source of revenue for the government.
    Brazil tried to copy paste the Japanese/Korean model without taking into consideration market saturation and domestic demand. Being as computers were responsible for a considerable amount of productivity growth in the early 80's, it does seem that they missed out on a tremendous opportunity. Yet when we analyze natural resource advantages, protectionism surely benefited the ethanol fuel industry.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #133
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The US may be the largest market, but that doesnt mean it is the most profitable. If the US adds taxes to deliberately reduce the profits of companies that employ chepa labor, then those companies will make their profit elsewhere. This includes American companies as well.
    Hog wash.. The US is the most profitable market simply because you guys spend like there is no tomorrow and could care less about conservation and saving. Plus your own markets are in some areas far from "free" and hence companies can generate massive profits that often are tax free because of your own tax laws.

    No... YOU dont understand the whole 'problem'. The labor market no longer allows anyone to dictate wages; the US (and everyone else) is now part of that market. Anything that artificially raises the price of labor, be it taxation or union obstinace, does nothing but guarantee that the jpbs will go somewhere else.
    No you dont understand it. You are talking theoretical trash.. yes in theory it is like you say, but that theory has actually never ever been tested in even a remotely modern society let alone in ancient times. There has always been taxes of some kind, always been regulations of some kind, there has always been a very strong part vs a weak part when we talk labour markets.. lords, kings, land owners, vs serfs and slaves. and so on.

    Now in reality you cant do anything about it.. it is called a modern society. Unless you want to dismantle this, then you will have to adapt things to make it better for everyone and that is where import tariffs against offender nations come in. So do you want to dismantle the society that has been built up over 250 years+ just to get wages down to the level of the Chinese? If you think that the US market is not as profitable as others, just think what would happen if people did not have any money at all to spend because someone wanted to do a "pol pot" type scenario and set the country back into the stone age.

    What will have to happen is that those who do not have a job that cannot be sent elsewhere will have to accept a lower standard of living until such a time that market forces balance out wages across the entire market.
    Dude.. we are talking about a MASSIVE lower standard of living to even get remotely close to balance out wages. The wage differences are so huge that it is not even funny.. we talking several 100% difference and then of course there comes in the less regulation (read non) in China and India, where US companies can pollute like no tomorrow.

    This situation can not and will never be solved by market forces because the market is not playing fair both in the US and in China. Hence the US has to protect it self from such aggression as does Europe.
    Last edited by PeteEU; 07-20-10 at 02:35 PM.
    PeteEU

  4. #134
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Hog wash.. The US is the most profitable market simply because you guys spend like there is no tomorrow...
    At present. Your suggestion changes all that.

    No you dont understand it. You are talking theoretical trash...
    Oh. Well then, so are you.

    Next.

  5. #135
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,925

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    What's your solution, ace?
    Here's mine: We need to reject the consumerist and entitlement mindset that got us in hock to the tune of $54 trillion and get back to some of the basic ideas that made America a great country, starting with this principle:

    The ultimate notion of right is that which tends to the universal good; and when one's acting in a certain manner has this tendency he has a right thus to act.

    From An Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, by Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746)
    In practice, what this means is Americans need to support their communities and basic institutions, beginning with their families. We emphasize rights without responsibilities and selfish individualism to the detriment of us all. We need to understand that, regardless of our material status, race, sex, or age, we're all joined at the hip; if some of us go down, we all go down. Does this mean we need government to tell companies that they have to hire Americans at a certain wage or tax the rich into oblivion to support the indolent? No, but we shouldn't embrace the philosophy of Gordon Gekko, either. If average Americans can't support themselves on the peanuts their employers toss them, then they'll just have to adjust their spending habits accordingly while endeavoring to aid their families, neighbors, and local businesses. They can, for example: recycle goods or breathe new life into used merchandise found at the local thrift store, proceeds from which go to support a homeless or battered women's shelter; instead of going to Fantastic Sams, they can visit the neighborhood barber; instead of patronizing some chain restaurant, they can eat at a local family-owned restaurant where the food is probably cheaper, healthier, and tastes better anyway; instead of buying a bottled mocha frappuchino from Starbucks, they can visit a local coffee bar or roaster; instead of buying imported food tainted with who knows what from some supermarket chain acquired by Wall Street hotshots in an LBO, they can patronize a locally-owned organic foods market or buy directly from the local fisherman at the dock or the farmer at the farmers market. Unfortunately, the Wal-Marts, Best Buys, and Costcos might just have to peddle their merchandise somewhere else, or charge less for it like they have been of late. (Between you and me, I think they're doing this more out of necessity than any desire to help Americans "live better.")

    If stockholders in major American corporations see their holdings decline in value as Americans face their "new normal" brought on by stagnant wages and overspending, then that's the way the capitalist cookie crumbles. And they shouldn't look to Asia or Europe to bail them out, either. "Decoupling" hasn't worked well in practice. Everybody, it seems, either still wants to sell their crap to Americans or they're broke, too.
    Last edited by Ahlevah; 07-20-10 at 03:05 PM.
    Нава́льный 2018

  6. #136
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Wow Goldenboy, you know we were arguing about whether or not they were worthwhile, not about whether or not countries used them. Of course they have used them, I've just merely been arguing that they were not worthwhile and I explained why using the broken window fallacy.

    You know, just because you don't like that I use the broken window fallacy to argue against you does not mean that I use it incorrectly. Protectionism is a great example of the broken window fallacy, so if you want to discuss protectionism that's fine, but don't change midway and say we were discussing whether or not countries have used them in their development.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  7. #137
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Wow Goldenboy, you know we were arguing about whether or not they were worthwhile, not about whether or not countries used them. Of course they have used them, I've just merely been arguing that they were not worthwhile and I explained why using the broken window fallacy.

    You know, just because you don't like that I use the broken window fallacy to argue against you does not mean that I use it incorrectly. Protectionism is a great example of the broken window fallacy, so if you want to discuss protectionism that's fine, but don't change midway and say we were discussing whether or not countries have used them in their development.
    So you are saying that

    Japan would have developed a large automobile industry, domestically owned without tariffs and various other government support programs, so would have South Korea. That both would have strong footholds in high tec industries, that South Korea would be a massive steel producer despite having very little in the way of domestic resources to supply the steel industry
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  8. #138
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    So you are saying that

    Japan would have developed a large automobile industry, domestically owned without tariffs and various other government support programs, so would have South Korea. That both would have strong footholds in high tec industries, that South Korea would be a massive steel producer despite having very little in the way of domestic resources to supply the steel industry
    HAHAH yea, would never have happened... their tariff and legal system built companies like Sony and Samsung.
    PeteEU

  9. #139
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    So you are saying that

    Japan would have developed a large automobile industry, domestically owned without tariffs and various other government support programs, so would have South Korea. That both would have strong footholds in high tec industries, that South Korea would be a massive steel producer despite having very little in the way of domestic resources to supply the steel industry
    No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you're better off with free trade because you may not a country that is well-suited to the amount of production in a certain industry that you are trying to get with protectionism. Why would you produce 100% of the cars you need in your country when another country is 2x as efficient at it? I made an exception for war industries, but for consumer goods it's not necessary.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  10. #140
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Why the unemployment? A poll

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you're better off with free trade because you may not a country that is well-suited to the amount of production in a certain industry that you are trying to get with protectionism. Why would you produce 100% of the cars you need in your country when another country is 2x as efficient at it? I made an exception for war industries, but for consumer goods it's not necessary.
    If you are trying to develop a country that has no industrial base into a country with an industrial base protectionism has been vital for the majority of countries.

    Japan would be no where as wealthy as it is now with out protectism it had during the 60-90's, same goes for South Korea.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •