"Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

Bigfoot 88 said:

Do you prefer a policy of "Free Trade", which means no tariffs on imports, or "Protectionism", which means tariffs are placed on imports.

Click to expand...

I prefer protectionism for the sole purpose of promoting local production, and reliance on American made goods.

Kandahar said:

I'm happy with America's generally pro-trade attitude toward the rest of the world. If you'd prefer to live in a closed economy, I hear North Korea is a worker's paradise. :lol:

Click to expand...

Oh so 1776-1940 America = North Korea now.

Hare said:

I wouldn't know of such things.

Click to expand...

Other than of having an economic agenda, that's painfully obvious.

Hare said:

Businesses tend to follow the money trail. In the current economic climate there is simply little to no motivation to confine ones business inside of a country with stagnant growth and higher wage demands.

Click to expand...

Yes, many of them are merely machines, making decisions for us spare parts.

We human beings are completely without a say in the matter whatsoever.

You're happy with that?

Hare said:

Not to mention the likely result of your ideal Darwinian free scenario would lead to higher prices for consumers of each and every wage grouping.

Click to expand...

Even the lowest price is too high for the unemployed.

Get everyone employed again, and then wage-earners will tell the market how high it can set the prices.

Until then we have too many have-nots.

And again, what's with the polemic dualism extremism tendency of yours -- "Darwinian free"? You must be a winger .. that "centrist" label can't be right.

I said "less", not "free".

Regardless, your conclusion still remains presumptive and questionable.

Hare said:

No, it was terribly misplaced.

Click to expand...

Actually it was spot on, as it was based on the meaningful facts that analogously presented the truth of the matter.

Your turn.

Hare said:

It seems as if you have omitted the 90's from that particular excerpt? Any reason for that?

Click to expand...

No.

No purposeful omission, just a focus on sub-primers who really didn't exist much before the 1990's.

But the 1990's did bring us NAFTA. Even liberals like Pres. Clinton screwed the pooch on that one .. but, then again, Multi-Cultural Internationalists are all for the in- and out- sourcing of American jobs, and Clinton, at heart, is indeed that.

The vast majority of American unemployment since the Reagan corporate socialist movement can be attributed to in- and out- sourcing American jobs to wage-slaves.

Hare said:

"Stolen" as if all jobs are pre destined to be US bound?

Click to expand...

Again with the extremist polarizing hyperbole.

If it's to be sold in America and can be made in America and was made in America, yeah, it should continue to be made by Americans.

That's simply normal, balanced thinking.

When those jobs are stolen by wage slaves and their owners, it is simply that: theft of an entitlement of American citizenship.

Only wingnuts deny the reality of it.

Hare said:

As if labor markets should opt for stagnation in lieu of modernization and expansion?

Click to expand...

Your phrase here is meaningless extreme jargon, a euphemism for condoning wage-slave labor at the expense of American jobs.

You argue so in favor of such egregious behavior, I can't help but wonder if you're profiting by it, by the suffering of your fellow Americans.

It is simply the creation of a false dichotomy to say that we can't employ all Americans without harming the economy, though, true, that might result in some loss of obscene profits of the rabid dog-eating dogs.

Hare said:

The sub prime collapse was precipitated upon many unique circumstances outside of the realm of that particular phenomena.

Click to expand...

Or, as your nebulous meaningless statement here void of specific details truly reveals ..

Hare said:

Chalking up the entire collapse, or even the bulk of it to outsourcing is downright foolish.

Click to expand...

.. It was indeed all about the sub-prime securities fiasco directly precipitated by the en masse loss of sub-primers jobs in the ramping up of extreme Darwinian competition embodied in in- and out- sourcing of their jobs that caused these sub-primers to default on their mortgages, mortgages that were deceiptfully packaged in "securities" and sold about here and in Europe, the first wave of revealed worthlessness occurring in August-September 2008, exemplifying The Great Recession.

What's foolish is to ignore the reality of that just because one has a profit-making agenda vested interest in continuing to have their fellow Americans' jobs stolen from them via in- and out-sourcing to wage-slaves.

I keep waiting for the punchline, but I'm beginning to think that people are genuinely serious about desiring closed borders. I had not realized that education had deteriorated to the point of a complete lack of understanding regarding basic economics (or I suppose rabid nationalism could have replaced the desire for prosperity). As I said previously, if closed borders are a boon for a nation then closed "borders" logically ought to be good for states, cities, and families. Good luck with self-sufficiency.

TNAR said:

I keep waiting for the punchline, but I'm beginning to think that people are genuinely serious about desiring closed borders. I had not realized that education had deteriorated to the point of a complete lack of understanding regarding basic economics (or I suppose rabid nationalism could have replaced the desire for prosperity). As I said previously, if closed borders are a boon for a nation then closed "borders" logically ought to be good for states, cities, and families. Good luck with self-sufficiency.

Click to expand...

Here's the punchline.




Here's to Civil War 2, may many Free Traitors die.

I paid upward of $200 for USA made work shoes, yet I would watch kids get four or more pairs of $50 shoes while mine kept on takin' the lickin & kept on kickin'. eace
American Made Boots | American Made Shoes: MidwestBoots.com

ttwtt78640 said:

LOL. The U.S. taxpayers supply 100% of the Chinese military budget, just by paying them interest on their share of our national debt. Take a look in your closet, and note the country of origin on your clothing, 78% of U.S. shoes come from China. It seems that China is getting richer and that is raising their prices as a result, so the days of super cheap Chinese products are somming to an end. See link: U.S. Faces Costlier Chinese Imports - WSJ.com

Click to expand...

I keep seeing many posts from people who rave about the high quality of many American goods in comparison to cheaper foreign versions. For many items I and many others will definitely agree with you. However, you seem to have missed the very excellent point which you have personally brought up. Every consumer makes their own assumptions and conclusions about value.

If you even remotely value freedom, allow goods to stand on their own merits. Some people will never see the light and will always purchase the cheap $15 shoes even though they will end up spending more money in the long run. That is their choice. Others only want some cheap shoes to wear on a single occasion. Others want a well-made pair of shoes that will last them for years and years. This works for all goods and all consumers.

By promoting policies of protectionism, you only end up limiting choices, increasing prices, and lowering the standard-of-living. Freedom works if you give it a chance.

Personally I'm conserned about U.S. citizens are being productive & earning a living wage, first & formost.
This is the same thing that I said I wish for foreign nationals. That they earn enough to buy what they make, with out lead paint, radiation, leaking cancer causing agents into the sky or their own bodies etc. That presses have guards so that nobody is sucked in, that they are allowed enough free time to say that they're living.
From a letter in the Valley Advocate..
........
"Have people absolutely no idea that th history of "free market" which the tea Party is so fond of touting, is one of huge corporations & feudal plantations dominating the marketplace & finding new & crateive ways to exploit workers? If left to themselves, the invisible hand squeezes labor out of workers for as little as possible & even nothing. The history of the world is one of workers earning minuscule wages & then having to pay them back for food & housing. The only reason slavery ended was because the "work providing" landowners & businessmen found subsistence wages were more cost effective than slavery.
It depresses me to see the Tea Party folk out there with their "snake in the grass" flags ralling against all the things their grandparents fought so valiantly for, all the things they were willing to risk or even give up their lives for. When I was young, teachers made $4,500 a year. Noneunion schools didn't fire incompadent teachers, they fired experienced older teachers & replace them with younger & cheeper ones, leaving the older ones having to start anew & having to spend down their nestegg to pay bills while unemployed.
...... Charlotte Burns, Palmer. eace

Kandahar said:

The ethnocentrism, paternalism, arrogance, and subtle racism in this thread are truly sad. Some people are inclined to view foreigners from developing countries as silly little people who just don't understand what they "should" be earning, so they need some white Americans - in our infinite wisdom of THEIR needs - to stand up for them by making unreasonable demands and putting them out of work.

If your attitude is "**** them all," as one person in this thread stated, that's one thing. Trade barriers don't benefit us either, but at least that person was being honest about his attitude. Much more annoying are the people who pretend to CARE about living conditions in developing countries, then proceed to advocate policies that hurt them and frame them as victories for the little guy.

Click to expand...

TNAR said:

I keep seeing many posts from people who rave about the high quality of many American goods in comparison to cheaper foreign versions. For many items I and many others will definitely agree with you. However, you seem to have missed the very excellent point which you have personally brought up. Every consumer makes their own assumptions and conclusions about value.

If you even remotely value freedom, allow goods to stand on their own merits. Some people will never see the light and will always purchase the cheap $15 shoes even though they will end up spending more money in the long run. That is their choice. Others only want some cheap shoes to wear on a single occasion. Others want a well-made pair of shoes that will last them for years and years. This works for all goods and all consumers.

By promoting policies of protectionism, you only end up limiting choices, increasing prices, and lowering the standard-of-living. Freedom works if you give it a chance.

Click to expand...

That would be nice, but with our current economic and industrial situation, I'll take a temporary writ of protectionism until America figures this **** out.

Lokiate said:

... I'll take a temporary writ of protectionism until America figures this **** out.

Click to expand...

Until America figures it out? Who is America if not the consumers within? How can an arbitrary political construct "figure" anything out? Can you not see that America, from an economic perspective, is nothing more than the aggregation of millions of individuals? If a mafia of 546 dictate to the remaining 300 million serfs how the "problems" will be solved then how do you expect anyone to be free? How do you expect 546 individuals to determine the best way for 300,000,000 individuals to live their own lives? Your logic baffles me.

I have never been off the North American continent & it has been my main concern is to stop the bleeding of U.S. jobs overseas. It is not as if these countries a picking themselves up by their bootstraps, it is American business that is taking these U.S. jobs over seas.
I watched in the '50's & "60's as New England Knitting Mills, paper mills etc relocated to the south, later to relocate south of the border, from their around the world, none of this was done to improve living conditions in the places that they moved it was about their worker geting too uppity & demanding (not begging) things like a living wage, holidays whatever.
So don't try to BS the folks here that you are an advocate for foreign workers, your being (used or bought) by businesspeople who would take jobs from Americans & look to exploit workers.
When their own country developes a surplus of goods, having satisfied there own needs then they are ready to export. If they are unable to buy what they make, then they are just tools.
There was an old saying while building the Mississippi Leeves, which stuck with me, from Allen Lomax tapes in the Liburay og Congress.
"Kill a mule, Buy another mue, kill a N-word, get another N-word." This seems to be the industry standard in China, minus N-word. eace

Hare said:

Precisely how would restricting economic relations with said country improve the living conditions of the aforementioned impoverished and underprivileged workforce? Improving the living conditions and economic stability of said country can be accomplished quite effectively through economic diplomacy. South East Asia is living proof of this particular phenomena.

Click to expand...

jpevans said:

That they earn enough to buy what they make, with out lead paint, radiation, leaking cancer causing agents into the sky or their own bodies etc. ... "Have people absolutely no idea that th history of "free market" which the tea Party is so fond of touting, ... If left to themselves, the invisible hand squeezes labor out of workers for as little as possible & even nothing.

Click to expand...

For the record, your font is annoying.

Your personal claim about alleged dangers ignores the fact that every so-called "advanced" nation went through this stage prior to being where they are today. The U.S. oil industry used to dump leftover byproducts from gasoline refinement directly into rivers until someone discovered a use for them. Do you expect every lagging nation to jump directly from the pitiable condition they currently exist to a full-fledged first world nation? Or perhaps you don't want other nations to succeed?

The letter you quoted exhibits the same ignorance of fact which she claims to abhor. Every evil she mentioned is the result of protectionist government regulation, not the free market. Free markets require high quality goods at reasonable prices or consumers will simply not purchase them. On the same token, free markets require safe work environments at reasonable salaries for workers or they will simply quit and move to a different employer who does provide these conditions. In the free market, businesses do not get subsidies and bailouts when they do not provide acceptable goods to consumers. This means that a business must hire competent and satisfied workers in order to produce a high quality good for a consumer who will voluntarily purchase these goods. There simply is no other method for producing equality and freedom to this extent. The fears in this letter are simply that, fear-mongering.

jpevans said:

...your being (used or bought) by businesspeople who would take jobs from Americans & look to exploit workers.

Click to expand...

Let's ignore everything else for a moment and assume you are 100% correct. Let us presume that U.S. businesses are moving overseas for the sole reasons to stick it to American workers and take advantage of stupid foreigners who have to beg for work.

So the greedy Acme Corp sells widgets for $10 and moves their production facility over to Poornation. Let's say the labor costs drop from $15 per hour to $0.15 per hour. Obviously Acme is greedy so they won't lower their prices so the widgets are still $10 apiece. The problem comes when we consider the fact that there are now a bunch of unemployed former Acme workers who have no money to purchase these widgets.

If we apply this scenario across the various industries ("...it has been my main concern is to stop the bleeding of U.S. jobs overseas.") then we are forced with the realization that the consumer base will be greatly reduced, thus reducing the numbers of widgets that all of these displaced companies can now successfully sell.

As a result, your philosophy (which is shared by many) winds up paradoxical. A company relocates overseas because they are greedy, but will end up being unable to sell as many products which is in direct conflict with their greed.

So you tell me, why would companies move overseas if this would simply result in a reduction in their consumer base?

There is a difference between an American company who moves maufacturing to a foreign country, to export a product back to the U.S. of A. & a company who builds a factory in the country where they intend to sell the product.
I don't mind building an I-phone factory in China to serve Chinese customers. :doh eace

Lakryte said:

There is always so much cry over outsourcing that people forget about the flip side of the coin: insourcing. Plenty of other companies in foreign countries are outsourcing jobs to the United States. These companies include Toyota (in fact, many car companies), Nesle, and many others.

Insourcing Facts

Nearly 5% of private sector employment is by a foreign company.

Click to expand...

Ontologuy said:

Other than of having an economic agenda, that's painfully obvious.



Yes, many of them are merely machines, making decisions for us spare parts.

We human beings are completely without a say in the matter whatsoever.

You're happy with that?



Even the lowest price is too high for the unemployed.

Get everyone employed again, and then wage-earners will tell the market how high it can set the prices.

Until then we have too many have-nots.

And again, what's with the polemic dualism extremism tendency of yours -- "Darwinian free"? You must be a winger .. that "centrist" label can't be right.

I said "less", not "free".

Regardless, your conclusion still remains presumptive and questionable.



Actually it was spot on, as it was based on the meaningful facts that analogously presented the truth of the matter.

Your turn.



No.

No purposeful omission, just a focus on sub-primers who really didn't exist much before the 1990's.

But the 1990's did bring us NAFTA. Even liberals like Pres. Clinton screwed the pooch on that one .. but, then again, Multi-Cultural Internationalists are all for the in- and out- sourcing of American jobs, and Clinton, at heart, is indeed that.

The vast majority of American unemployment since the Reagan corporate socialist movement can be attributed to in- and out- sourcing American jobs to wage-slaves.



Again with the extremist polarizing hyperbole.

If it's to be sold in America and can be made in America and was made in America, yeah, it should continue to be made by Americans.

That's simply normal, balanced thinking.

When those jobs are stolen by wage slaves and their owners, it is simply that: theft of an entitlement of American citizenship.

Only wingnuts deny the reality of it.




Your phrase here is meaningless extreme jargon, a euphemism for condoning wage-slave labor at the expense of American jobs.

You argue so in favor of such egregious behavior, I can't help but wonder if you're profiting by it, by the suffering of your fellow Americans.

It is simply the creation of a false dichotomy to say that we can't employ all Americans without harming the economy, though, true, that might result in some loss of obscene profits of the rabid dog-eating dogs.



Or, as your nebulous meaningless statement here void of specific details truly reveals ..



.. It was indeed all about the sub-prime securities fiasco directly precipitated by the en masse loss of sub-primers jobs in the ramping up of extreme Darwinian competition embodied in in- and out- sourcing of their jobs that caused these sub-primers to default on their mortgages, mortgages that were deceiptfully packaged in "securities" and sold about here and in Europe, the first wave of revealed worthlessness occurring in August-September 2008, exemplifying The Great Recession.

What's foolish is to ignore the reality of that just because one has a profit-making agenda vested interest in continuing to have their fellow Americans' jobs stolen from them via in- and out-sourcing to wage-slaves.

Click to expand...

Economic agenda? Well, I suppose you could construe my support of free trade strictly due to the wildly successful track record of said policies as an "agenda."

Not much us "spare parts" can do about it. These occurrences are hardly sinister, they're simply a natural product of our current environment.

Get everyone employed again? Fantastic idea I must say, write your local congressman/woman at once with this savory bit of policy genius! Hate to break it to you bud, but American citizens simply aren't entitled to meaningful employment or employment in general for that matter.

As you pointed out the 1990's was a terrific period for free trade in general, and Clinton was instrumental in tearing down blockades that had been in place for many years. The 90's also happened to be the zenith of American economic success, due in no small part to a technological outburst coupled with the substantial increase in potential consumer bases outside of our own borders.

It is hardly jargon, it's simply an acknowledgement of reality.

I stand corrected. The diplomatic relationships forged with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Germany. etc. etc. are directly comparable to our intervention in Iraq for selfish reasons. :roll: Spot on. Spot on.

Anything meaningful to add?

Yes, but outsourcing hardly completes the entire equation on it's lonesome. Check out the personal savings rate for the same time period. It demonstrates quite nicely that a massive amount of individuals were financially irresponsible regardless of their employment situation. It's not hard to deduce from this graph that despite normal employment conditions, the spending rates for individuals coupled with the drastic spike in real estate prices over the same era would account for quite a sizable chunk of the aforementioned sub prime mortgages.

Hare said:

View attachment 67130430

Click to expand...

This is the primary "delayed effect", people spent their savings after they lost their jobs. See how proportional it is to the trade deficit?

I'm talking to a wall again.

BTW that jump in 2010 data is poisoned by the extremely rich getting hundreds of billions in bailout money. Redo that graph without the poisoning the data with rich savings.

In fact I'd guess most of those spikes in the graph is rich-bastard money being sent to and fro.

jpevans said:

There is a difference between an American company who moves maufacturing to a foreign country, to export a product back to the U.S. of A. & a company who builds a factory in the country where they intend to sell the product.
I don't mind building an I-phone factory in China to serve Chinese customers. :doh eace

Click to expand...

You should mind, they are an Authoritarian regime, you really don't want authoritarian regimes to be technologically advanced; especially ones that hold grudges against Caucasians for imposing unfair treaties on them at the turn of the last century. Yeah, it's bad mmmkay.

TNAR said:

Let's ignore everything else for a moment and assume you are 100% correct. Let us presume that U.S. businesses are moving overseas for the sole reasons to stick it to American workers and take advantage of stupid foreigners who have to beg for work.

So the greedy Acme Corp sells widgets for $10 and moves their production facility over to Poornation. Let's say the labor costs drop from $15 per hour to $0.15 per hour. Obviously Acme is greedy so they won't lower their prices so the widgets are still $10 apiece. The problem comes when we consider the fact that there are now a bunch of unemployed former Acme workers who have no money to purchase these widgets.

If we apply this scenario across the various industries ("...it has been my main concern is to stop the bleeding of U.S. jobs overseas.") then we are forced with the realization that the consumer base will be greatly reduced, thus reducing the numbers of widgets that all of these displaced companies can now successfully sell.

As a result, your philosophy (which is shared by many) winds up paradoxical. A company relocates overseas because they are greedy, but will end up being unable to sell as many products which is in direct conflict with their greed.

So you tell me, why would companies move overseas if this would simply result in a reduction in their consumer base?

Click to expand...

Short-Medium term gains.

Usually I'd say short term gains, but the constant borrowing extends this time frame; so I'm going to throw the word medium into there.

It's not paradoxical, it's exactly what is happening. You summarized what's going on nicely. Well done.

Also companies that don't move overseas lose competitiveness and go out of business anyways. It's the same reason unscrupulous plantation owners forced every other plantation to use slaves. If they didn't use slaves they went out of business. All it takes is one business to exploit cheap foreign labor, everyone else follows.

Matt Foley said:

Usually I'd say short term gains, but the constant borrowing extends this time frame; so I'm going to throw the word medium into there.

Click to expand...

So you believe that companies which outsource are consciously committing long-term suicide for short-term gains?

TNAR said:

So you believe that companies which outsource are consciously committing long-term suicide for short-term gains?

Click to expand...

They don't have a choice. All it takes is for one of your competitors to use slave labor, if you don't follow suit you lose your business. It's frankly not their fault, I still hate rich bastards though, cause they propagandized for this.

Matt Foley said:

This is the primary "delayed effect", people spent their savings after they lost their jobs. See how proportional it is to the trade deficit?

I'm talking to a wall again.

BTW that jump in 2010 data is poisoned by the extremely rich getting hundreds of billions in bailout money. Redo that graph without the poisoning the data with rich savings.

In fact I'd guess most of those spikes in the graph is rich-bastard money being sent to and fro.

Click to expand...

Hardly. Notice how the most drastic dip occurred in the 90's? Hint, there wasn't a net job loss in the 1990's, so I'm afraid that blaming outsourcing for that phenomenon would be a foolish choice.

Hare said:

Hardly. Notice how the most drastic dip occurred in the 90's? Hint, there wasn't a net job loss in the 1990's, so I'm afraid that blaming outsourcing for that phenomenon would be a foolish choice.

Click to expand...

Rich people poisoning that data. Generally when the top 10% own 50% of all wealth that happens. If the top X% didn't own YZ% of the wealth then that graph would be considerably more smooth.

Matt Foley said:

You should mind, they are an Authoritarian regime, you really don't want authoritarian regimes to be technologically advanced; especially ones that hold grudges against Caucasians for imposing unfair treaties on them at the turn of the last century. Yeah, it's bad mmmkay.

Click to expand...

why are you race-baiting this topic?

Thunder said:

why are you race-baiting this topic?

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with history?

Unequal treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matt Foley said:

Are you familiar with history?..

Click to expand...

yes, I am very familiar with the history of racism and the use of race-baiting to disrupt arguments.