• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

I pay more for many things in order to buy locally.

Part of personal responsibility is making personal sacrifices for the greater good of your community.
 
I nevr said that.
No, but alms did, I was replying to both of you.

So, facism is the answer? Mmmm'kay!

And I never said that. I might be talking about economic isolationism, and if you think that amounts to fascism you have a woefully inadequate understanding of both history and political science.
 
No, but alms did, I was replying to both of you.



And I never said that. I might be talking about economic isolationism, and if you think that amounts to fascism you have a woefully inadequate understanding of both history and political science.

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.
 
Facism is exactly what you're talking about. Corporations that are privately owned and government run.
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 sure as hell aren't talking about Capitalism.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

I wouldn't have burned his trailer. I'd paint over the words 'Democratic Party' and replace it with Republican Party, because this sounds like fun!
 
These are very single-minded ways of looking at the issue.

You discarded the entire body of Adam Smith's work as "irrelevant dogma" and you're calling me single-minded? That's funny.

To say that outsourcing benefits consumers by providing lower prices ignores the fact that it sends jobs away from this economy.

I didn't ignore that; in fact, I explicitly acknowledged it. Please, don't misrepresent my positions.

What good are lower prices without jobs?

Who said anything about lower prices without jobs? I'm saying we can have both.

We buy the goods with our money that then goes overseas and becomes their money, slowly draining our economy. It's overall hurting our economy to lose manufacturing jobs, just look at Detroit, to claim it's a net positive is disingenuous.

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?

OR we could enforce more stringent restriction on companies who decide to take advantage of cheap overseas labor by refusing to allow the import of overseas manufactured goods.

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?

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and instead of relaxing laws that protect workers we should force the multinationals to provide their jobs in the economy they expect to sell their goods and services to. I know it's hard for some koolaid drinking conservatives to believe but the so-called free makert is not the best decision-maker, and government can actually be a force for good if it works to protect our economy.

So, I'm a single-minded, Koolaid-drinking conservative? What makes you think I'm a conservative?

Insults aside, the idea that you can force multinationals to provide jobs strictly in the market they plan to sell to is silly. Undercutting profit motive will only push more jobs overseas; protectionism is a failed economic ideology that results in anemic growth and stagnation.
 
You discarded the entire body of Adam Smith's work as "irrelevant dogma" and you're calling me single-minded? That's funny.

According to wikipedia, "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged."

I'm not saying that Smith is entirely wrong about mere descriptions of how economies behave, but it seems that you and other conservatives use his concept of the invisible hand as a dogmatic principle that the free market will always sort everything out for the best, as if government regulation is just "getting in the way" of some free market utopia.

You can't just use Smith's incomplete and archaic theories to justify economic ignorance. You ask me how much a car will cost if there is no outsourcing? But TANSTAAFL applies whether there is outsourcing or not. Outsourcing overseas is not the panacea you seem to think it is. Either we will pay a higher price for the car and have that money continue to circulate in our economy, or we pay a lower price and bleed that money into a rival economy. If it continues to circulate in our economy, we will have paid more for the car but the money will eventually come back to us like a rebate in the form of a more robust domestic economy with greater productivity and more opportunities locally. If we send the money to China then it's gone. Either way the same price is paid, the question is who profits from that purchase of a car? I say: let the American people profit. You say: Let multinational robber barons and foreign economies profit.

So, I'm a single-minded, Koolaid-drinking conservative? What makes you think I'm a conservative?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Insults aside, the idea that you can force multinationals to provide jobs strictly in the market they plan to sell to is silly. Undercutting profit motive will only push more jobs overseas; protectionism is a failed economic ideology that results in anemic growth and stagnation.

What you're doing here, in psychological terms, is called "projection." The only failed economic ideology I see is the de-regulatory Republican policies that got us into the mess we're in now. Deregulation and outsourcing is what leads to anemic growth.
 
Last edited:
I pay more for many things in order to buy locally.

Part of personal responsibility is making personal sacrifices for the greater good of your community.

Well, paying more to prop up inefficient enterprises only delays the inevitable.
The business should find out how to be more efficient or find justification for higher prices so consumers will buy. Most consumers don't treat businesses as charities, willing to pay more; ask Wal Mart.

They save the average family about $2,000 per year. If they stopped doing what made Wally World, Wally World... someone else would come in and kick their asses.

If the price can be justified... OK... but if it's a "personal sacrifice", an act of charity, I see the business as one that will eventually fail.

I might pay a supplier marginally higher rates if he has the items I need, decent terms, fast service, friendly and easy to deal with individuals or all four. Otherwise it's going to be shopped for the lowest price.

.
 
Last edited:
Well, paying more to prop up inefficient enterprises only delays the inevitable.
The business should find out how to be more efficient or find justification for higher prices so consumers will buy. Consumers don't treat businesses as charities, willing to pay more; ask Wal Mart.
They save the average family about $2,000 per year. If they stopped doing what made Wally World, Wally World... someone else would come in and kick their asses.

If the price can be justified... OK... but if it's a "personal sacrifice", an act of charity, the business will eventually fail.

I might pay a supplier marginally higher rates if he has the items I need, decent terms, fast service, friendly and easy to deal with individuals or all four. Otherwise it's going to be shopped for the lowest price.

I don't see business as charity.

.

First, cheaper doesn't mean "more efficient". It usually means lower quality and, well, cheaper.

Next, I can't control the idocy of other people who decide to shoot themselves in the foot by looking at the short-term gains they recieve by shopping at megastores and such. When it's their job that gets outsourced due to their inability to have any long-term planning.

Many of th epeople I know who shop at walmart are totally replaceable in thier jobs. They are at high risk for outsourcing. They don't have any legitmate skills and their ultimate fate will probably be working at wal-mart themselves, and thus making a lower wage, and requiring them to look even more closely at their meager savings from wal-mart with appreciation.

Although if they had the cop-on to have avoided it in the first place, they could have kept their jobs and higher incomes by not patronizing these places simply because they were short-sighted and it provided meager gains.

On top of that, they'll constantly bitch about the lower quality of their goods and the horse**** service they receive, while I continue to enjoy being treated like a king at the establishments I frequent.

If I went to walmart instead, I'd spend as much time being frustrated by teh pure crap that I'm buying as I currently do being treated well by the small-businesses I help maintain.

The problem isn't that people want better service. IF that was the case, coporations would fail immediately due to their shoddy customer service. Even the good ones aren't **** compared to a small local business.

What people want is cheaper. The only thing that matters to them is that they "saved" 20 cents on their roll of toilet paper. It'll be great to wipe the blood from their assholes when they get ****ed in the future.

I don't expect or want the government to step in, however. I would prefer to see peopel stop ****ing themselves through their shortsighted focus on immediate gratification. I think this is one of the biggest problems in American society today. That need for immediate gratification and a comlete and total inability to withold gratification. We have become a shortsighted nation that demands immediate results, no matter how bad it ****s the future up.

Why is their a credit crisis? Immediate gratification.

Why do we have an incompetant and corruptgovernemnt? Immediate gratification.

Why are corporations sending jobs to other countries? Immediate gratification.

When I talk about personal sacrifice, I mean those short-term sacrifices that are of absolutel importance for long-term gains.

Just because I can buy a bunch of **** I don't really need cheaply at walmart doesn't mean I should buy a bunch of **** I don't need cheaply at walmart.

If we really analyzed how much people save by buying things at walmart, how much of those savings would be on crap they didn't need in teh first place?

I'm guessing quite a bit of it would be.

Now we've got people who live in shacks who have 50 inch HDTV's. They might have "saved" $500 on that TV, but they had to spend $1000 in order to do so. If they never bought it in the first place, they'd have saved $1000 of real money instead of saving $500 of imaginary money they never had to begin with.

It took a couple of years for me to break my wife of the habit of coming home with crap we didn't need and telling me how much she "saved" on it because it was on sale. That's the walmart mentality in a nutshell.

Simply because it is sold there cheaper than at other places doesn't mean it isn't more expesive to buy it there.

I don't begrude the corporations for making their money on other people's foolishness, though. It's their duty to exploit foolishness for the good of their shareholders and the bottom line.

What I'm talking about is how I won't be party to it. I'd rather make short-term "sacrifices" for long term gains. It isn't charity. It's having a long-term outlook on life.

That's part of the reason why I'm working to enter a field that can't be outsourced.
 
First, cheaper doesn't mean "more efficient". It usually means lower quality and, well, cheaper.
Agree. Sometimes you don't need the best quality though.

Next, I can't control the idocy of other people who decide to shoot themselves in the foot by looking at the short-term gains they recieve by shopping at megastores and such. When it's their job that gets outsourced due to their inability to have any long-term planning.
Megastore have advantages over the Mom & Pop. In purchasing for example, the Mega's have not only buying power but individuals trained for specific products.

Often discount places sell a similar product, slightly altered by the OEM.

Many of th epeople I know who shop at walmart are totally replaceable in thier jobs. They are at high risk for outsourcing. They don't have any legitmate skills and their ultimate fate will probably be working at wal-mart themselves, and thus making a lower wage, and requiring them to look even more closely at their meager savings from wal-mart with appreciation.
May I suggest a book, Made in America by Sam Walton. Sam Walton -Made in America


On top of that, they'll constantly bitch about the lower quality of their goods and the horse**** service they receive, while I continue to enjoy being treated like a king at the establishments I frequent.
Well, that is part of the equation, but I've had no problem with products bought there, often what I'd buy elsewhere for less. With families with kids I can understand it especially. they have kids to cloth and feed and the kids are growing. Clothes in, clothes out.

The problem isn't that people want better service. IF that was the case, coporations would fail immediately due to their shoddy customer service. Even the good ones aren't **** compared to a small local business.
Perhaps I've been spending too much time in Europe. Their customer service is non-existent, so when I head back home I'm always appreciative and notice a world of difference.

What people want is cheaper. The only thing that matters to them is that they "saved" 20 cents on their roll of toilet paper. It'll be great to wipe the blood from their assholes when they get ****ed in the future.
Tucker... man... I've never seen you like this.

I don't expect or want the government to step in, however. I would prefer to see peopel stop ****ing themselves through their shortsighted focus on immediate gratification. I think this is one of the biggest problems in American society today. That need for immediate gratification and a comlete and total inability to withold gratification. We have become a shortsighted nation that demands immediate results, no matter how bad it ****s the future up.
I agree. I wouldn't put it on the businesses though.

Why is their a credit crisis? Immediate gratification.
And government feeding it by forcing banks to make loans to people that shouldn't have been given loans.

Why do we have an incompetant and corruptgovernemnt? Immediate gratification.
Spineless Republicans having not the sack to fight the media aligned largely against them. That's why Reagan was great. That's why the NJ Gov. seems great. Jan Brewer. Palin. Bachmann.

McCain had an easy target with Obama, but failed to hit him hard where he should have been hit hard.
He let the cult grow.

Why are corporations sending jobs to other countries? Immediate gratification.
No. To compete. It is difficult to compete with cheap labor when your government has piled on burdens.
When unions have piled on burdens.
The immediate gratification came from socking it to businesses by both government and unions. They failed to look beyond their own greedy noses.
Now they cut it off.

Just because I can buy a bunch of **** I don't really need cheaply at walmart doesn't mean I should buy a bunch of **** I don't need cheaply at walmart.
True.

If we really analyzed how much people save by buying things at walmart, how much of those savings would be on crap they didn't need in teh first place?
Can't answer that one for ya, but Wal Mart emerged from Bentonville, AR servicing towns of 5,000 or less. They did it by providing for their customers what they wanted, by pressing the distributors, by staying lean and cutting fat.

It took a couple of years for me to break my wife of the habit of coming home with crap we didn't need and telling me how much she "saved" on it because it was on sale. That's the walmart mentality in a nutshell.
I see it still pisses you off :)
You know, you could make millions revealing the secret of how you accomplished it!
It's as my girlfriend's pop said when his wife went into the store... ein tag ohne einkaufen ist ein verlorener tag... a day without shopping is a wasted day.

Too bad you can't understand German; this is legendary in German speaking countries. Loriot.
Long story short:
The guy is a purchaser for a company and buys copy paper for 40-years because the price was 50% cheaper in that quantity.
Is put to pasture...
At home he goes shopping for the family (never did it before), and on his first trip buys 150 jars of mustard...
Part 1 Last Work day

Part 2 Shopping


What I'm talking about is how I won't be party to it. I'd rather make short-term "sacrifices" for long term gains. It isn't charity. It's having a long-term outlook on life.

That's part of the reason why I'm working to enter a field that can't be outsourced.
I hear ya. Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Agree. Sometimes you don't need the best quality though.

True.
Megastore have advantages over the Mom & Pop. In purchasing for example, the Mega's have not only buying power but individuals trained for specific products.

I've always found local shops to have a better understanding of their products. Perhaps this is because I tend to go to local specialty stores. I might have a wider array of Options in Chciago as well.

May I suggest a book, Made in America by Sam Walton. Sam Walton -Made in America

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have to read that.

Well, that is part of the equation, but I've had no problem with products bought there, often what I'd buy elsewhere for less. With families with kids I can understand it especially. they have kids to cloth and feed and the kids are growing. Clothes in, clothes out.

Yeah, for families with kids you have a point. No kids yet, so my argumetn is flawed in that regard.

Perhaps I've been spending too much time in Europe. Their customer service is non-existent, so when I head back home I'm always appreciative and notice a world of difference.

Yeah, I gotta agree that we're a bit spoiled service-wise. In the rural areas of Ireland, I've always gotten phenomenal service. The only place I ever had terrible service in Ireland was in Dublin. But like most people used to the West coast of Ireland, I don't like Dublin. But it was pretty terrible.

Generally, in rural areas both abroad and in the US, I've gotten better, more friendly service than I do in city megastores. I'm sure that being in a large city has definitely influenced my distaste for the megastores.

Tucker... man... I've never seen you like this.

I've got a vulgarity streak a mile wide. Sorry.

I agree. I wouldn't put it on the businesses though.

I agree that it shouldn't be put on the business. Business may exploit this mentality, but that's not wrong of them to do so. The only duty businesses have is to turn a profit.

It's pure personal responsibility. Which is what I was getting at with my initial post. Unlike most people who bitch about corporations, I place blame on individuals not the coproations themselves. They are doing what they are designed to do.

I don't patronize them because it is not in my best interest to patronize them, even though I'm very likely to save a few bucks if I did so.

And government feeding it by forcing banks to make loans to people that shouldn't have been given loans.

True, but the banks jumped on board without much of a fight.

Spineless Republicans having not the sack to fight the media aligned largely against them. That's why Reagan was great. That's why the NJ Gov. seems great. Jan Brewer. Palin. Bachmann.

I think a few of those names exploit the immediate gratification mentality in America, to be honest. Reagan'ss "Are you better off than you were four years ago" line is a prime example of this exploitation. some of Carter's actions were beneficial to the US economy (which is part of the reason why Reagan stuck with Volker as the Fed Chairman after taking office). Volker raised interest rates because he realized that immdediate gratification is not the best long-term approach.

McCain had an easy target with Obama, but failed to hit him hard where he should have been hit hard.
He let the cult grow.

Both McCain and Obama were exploiters of the Immediate gratification mentality. But not because they didn't go after each other where it hurt. It was all the pandering that they did/do.

No. To compete. It is difficult to compete with cheap labor when your government has piled on burdens.
When unions have piled on burdens.
The immediate gratification came from socking it to businesses by both government and unions. They failed to look beyond their own greedy noses.
Now they cut it off.

I didn't mean that the corpoations are guilty of having an immediate gratification mentality. I was talking about the consumers who are in no small part forcing them to outsource becuase they can't think past their $200 off on a big screen TV.

Can't answer that one for ya, but Wal Mart emerged from Bentonville, AR servicing towns of 5,000 or less. They did it by providing for their customers what they wanted, by pressing the distributors, by staying lean and cutting fat.

And my main problem is what the consumers want. Well to be more accurate, it's the conflicting nature of what they want. They want good jobs that pay well for unskilled labor, and they also want insanely cheap goods. But in most cases, these two things are mutually exclusive.

I see it still pisses you off :)
You know, you could make millions revealing the secret of how you accomplished it!
It's as my girlfriend's pop said when his wife went into the store... ein tag ohne einkaufen ist ein verlorener tag... a day without shopping is a wasted day.

:rofl: I didn't explain that well. It took 10 years and countless arguments to ge tto the point that she doesn't buy crap we don't need and tell me that she saved money because it was on sale.

Now, she buys crap we don't need and admits she didn't save any money in the process. :lol:
 
According to wikipedia, "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged."

I know what "dogma" means. That's how I was able to point out your misuse of the word as it applies to Smith's body of work.

I'm not saying that Smith is entirely wrong about mere descriptions of how economies behave, but it seems that you and other conservatives use his concept of the invisible hand as a dogmatic principle that the free market will always sort everything out for the best, as if government regulation is just "getting in the way" of some free market utopia.

It only "seems" that way because you're making numerous assumptions about me that have no basis in reality. I'm not a conservative and I don't consider Smith's invisible hand to be the only relevant or worthy economic concept. I do, however, consider it a very important principle that applies roughly uniformly throughout economic systems, a fact that has been confirmed by hundreds of years of observation. The mechanism is hardly perfect, but most systems achieve some sort of equilibrium through it. That's basic supply and demand.

You can't just use Smith's incomplete and archaic theories to justify economic ignorance.

Excuse me, but I am hardly ignorant of economics. The only one who seems to struggle with it is you, with your constant dismissal of the father of modern economics. No respectable economist would agree with your characterization of Smith's works as "archaic, irrelevant, or dogmatic". A great many of the principles he espoused still apply to today and are taught in every undergraduate economics class in the country.

You ask me how much a car will cost if there is no outsourcing?

The answer is "much more".

But TANSTAAFL applies whether there is outsourcing or not.

A hanging assertion with no explanation or clarification. This is becoming a pattern for you.

Outsourcing overseas is not the panacea you seem to think it is.

That's because I don't think it's a "panacea"; that's just you making more silly assumptions.

I must insist that you stop misrepresenting my position. It's entirely dishonest and quite lame.

Either we will pay a higher price for the car and have that money continue to circulate in our economy, or we pay a lower price and bleed that money into a rival economy. If it continues to circulate in our economy, we will have paid more for the car but the money will eventually come back to us like a rebate in the form of a more robust domestic economy with greater productivity and more opportunities locally. If we send the money to China then it's gone. Either way the same price is paid, the question is who profits from that purchase of a car? I say: let the American people profit. You say: Let multinational robber barons and foreign economies profit.

American labor is overpriced and Americans have a bloated standard of living - a fact you'll have to accept if you want this country to remain competitive in the emerging global market. The invisible lines that constitute our border are not some mythical protection against global economic pressures. Undercutting the profit motive of companies that do business in the US is the best way to destroy jobs and stifle growth.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Well, then it's safe for me to assume that you're a Marxist.

What you're doing here, in psychological terms, is called "projection."

Protectionism is a discredited economic ideology. The vast majority of economists do not support its implementation because it doesn't actually do what it's intended to do.

Protectionism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

The only failed economic ideology I see is the de-regulatory Republican policies that got us into the mess we're in now.

I hear this all the time but I've yet to hear a specific explanation of how "deregulation" lead to the financial crisis. Would you please explain what specific deregulatory policies lead to the collapse of the housing and financial sectors?
 
That's basic supply and demand.

"Basic" supply and demand isn't the issue. It's much more complicated than that. Your short-sightedness is truly alarming, if for no other reason that you're dressing up ignorance and masquerading it around as good sense. 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. 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.


Well, then it's safe for me to assume that you're a Marxist.

Yeah right :roll: 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?

Spare me the libertarian balderdash, please.

I hear this all the time but I've yet to hear a specific explanation of how "deregulation" lead to the financial crisis. Would you please explain what specific deregulatory policies lead to the collapse of the housing and financial sectors?

Maybe the reason you "hear it all the time" is because it's true. Even Alan Greenspan has abrogated his flawed ideology that deregulation helps the US economy. 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. 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.
 
Ignorant and misinformed?

LOL... if that's what you want to call him... fine.
The guy is OK with me.
Why would Jack Nicholson be hanging out in some Missouri ****hole?
The LAPD is searching for the individuals related to arson after the Lakers win.
They have a vid and are asking help from the community to identify them. See the connect? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink?

.
 
LOL... if that's what you want to call him... fine.
The guy is OK with me.

A far-rightie dragging the GOP backward and down...

The LAPD is searching for the individuals related to arson after the Lakers win.
They have a vid and are asking help from the community to identify them. See the connect? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink?

.

Don't follow pro Basketball, but I'm glad the L.A. team won... I guess.

People who can afford $1000 seats don't have time to start fires. They work.

The people who started the fires after the game were people who look for any excuse to start a fire. They are as ignorant as your friend in Missouri. IMO.
 
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.

Yet the vast majority of economists say the exact opposite.

Simply saying something is true doesn't make it so.

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.

Do you have a link to all these economists who are seeing the light and advocating for protectionism as a beneficial economic policy?
 
Do you have a link to all these economists who are seeing the light and advocating for protectionism as a beneficial economic policy?

Funny you should ask. That's just from doing a news search on "protectionism."

I'm not advocating a return to Smoot Hawley, but we need to keep our money here in the USA. You can hurl epithets around as much as you like, but the handwriting is on the wall, it's time for this economy to stop hemorrhaging jobs.
 
Last edited:
Funny you should ask. That's just from doing a news search on "protectionism."

How is any of that a response to my question?

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.

You linked to:

1) An article saying that many countries are failing to meet their pledges of avoiding protectionist policies in all their forms.

2) An article saying that China is concerned about other nations practicing protectionism.

3) An article accusing China of protectionism.

4) An article about an Algerian Telecommunications Minister who said protectionism is okay in some forms.

Not one of those has anything to do with what I asked you about.

edit: Also, could you point out the "epithet" I used in my first post?
 
Last edited:
Funny you should ask. That's just from doing a news search on "protectionism."

I'm not advocating a return to Smoot Hawley, but we need to keep our money here in the USA. You can hurl epithets around as much as you like, but the handwriting is on the wall, it's time for this economy to stop hemorrhaging jobs.

Bows sir you are the bomb.

1.) Protectionism is the cause in the European crises

2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/opinion/19sat1.html?_r=1&ref=protectionism_trade

3.) However I do think protectionism is the reason for this global resection
 
Last edited:
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.

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."
 

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 I’ve just said applies only when the world is stuck in a liquidity trap; that’s where we are now, but it won’t be the normal situation. And if we go all protectionist, that will shatter the hard-won achievements of 70 years of trade negotiations — 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 Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'." - Paul Krugman.
 
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.
 
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.

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:
Back
Top Bottom