Posted on 12/25/2009 5:16:26 PM PST by LifeComesFirst
On the topic of international trade, the views of economists tend to differ from those of the general public. There are three principle differences. First, many noneconomists believe that it is more advantageous to trade with other members of one’s nation or ethnic group than with outsiders. Economists see all forms of trade as equally advantageous. Second, many noneconomists believe that exports are better than imports for the economy. Economists believe that all trade is good for the economy. Third, many noneconomists believe that a country’s balance of trade is governed by the “competitiveness” of its wage rates, tariffs, and other factors. Economists believe that the balance of trade is governed by many factors, including the above, but also including differences in national saving and investment.
(Excerpt) Read more at econlib.org ...
Of course, one article is just the beginning. See my homepage for a list of recommended economics reading.
People look at international trade and wonder if we’re arming enemies. Economists wonder if its cost effective.
That doesn’t mean we’re opposed to dealing with other nations, only that we see it in wider terms than cost effectiveness.
Ricardo was a liar, cheat, and thief who was so unprincipled that his own mother disowned him. He made his fortune manipulating markets, and then purchased himself a seat in parliament, where he pushed more policies to manipulate trade to the favor of his few corrupt friends, and to the detriment of the overall economy and the majority of the population.
Our American economy is in its current pathetic state precisely because of the David Ricardo revival that has been wafting through the schools of economics for the past three decades. Ricardo economics is a putrid religious cult, no less evil and deadly than Islam.
From the article:
“Purchasing Power Parity
“If goods were perfectly tradable across borders, with no trade barriers or transactions costs, then there would be no reason for prices to differ. This gives rise to the idea of purchasing power parity, a theory of exchange-rate adjustment based on the law of one price.
“...The failure of purchasing power parity to hold, except perhaps in the long run, indicates that transportation costs, language-translation costs, and other factors limit the integration of global markets.”
Interesting that buried in these paragraphs is the plan for NWO — one price. But also buried is a very important component of pricing: transportation. This is the only mention of transportation in the whole article. Is it reasonable to expect that a can of beer at the corner mom-and-pop is going to cost the same in Harlem, Patagonia, the North Pole, Gobi desert? I would think that transportation is going to play a factor in differentiating prices.
Since the current wisdom is we’re running out of fossile fuel, transportation will become increasingly important factor in pricing. It would seem prudent then to plan for manufacturing of most products be near to selling points and local materials utilized. It does not seem prudent that all household goods, clothing, etc. be produced half a world away.
The whole strategy of Ricardo's volumes is to keep the discussion focused on fringe details such as comparative advantage, and away from the underlying basis. That basis is that the producers of wealth have to be reduced to "bare subsistance" lifestyles, while the corrupt politicians and market manipulators get filthy rich.
This perverted form of capitalism didn't even work back in the 1800's, when the vast majority of labor needs was for unskilled manual labor. It definitely does not work in the information age when 70% of economic activity is driven by consumer spending. The economic situation in the USA today is living proof of its failure.
Your vision of the planners’ plans is similar to my own. Make a great movie.
Sturm Drang & all that & at the end free market victory.
There’s really no point in debating a subject with somebody who won’t even bother to study it. I could waste time refuting all of the misconceptions about economics and economists here, but that would take forever and just allow us to *begin* the real debate.
So I give up. I’ve made my suggestions that you all educate yourselves, and you won’t.
“The whole strategy of Ricardo’s volumes is to keep the discussion focused on fringe details such as comparative advantage, and away from the underlying basis. That basis is that the producers of wealth have to be reduced to “bare subsistance” lifestyles, while the corrupt politicians and market manipulators get filthy rich.”
You are the sort of person who reads every third sentence of an economics text and thinks they understand, aren’t you? Where’d you learn this about Ricardo, from the Communist Party? For a look at what the classical economists actually said, I suggest you read Thomas Sowell’s “Classical Economics Reconsidered,” or “On Classical Economics.”
As for “substinence wages,” what Ricardo and the other economists of the 18th and 19th centuries meant (and this includes Marx) was that wages of the unskilled laborers would always be at some culturally-defined “substinence level,” which would provide him with the necessities of life and an ever-growing list of luxuries that culture considered standard or close-to-necessary.
The classical economists (and not even Marx) did not predict that wages would stay at a level that would just barely keep workers fed, as is commonly depicted.
I think you’ll find that Ricardo, Smith, and other classical economists despised market manipulators and corrupt politicians.
“This perverted form of capitalism didn’t even work back in the 1800’s, when the vast majority of labor needs was for unskilled manual labor.”
In what way is this a “perverted” form of “capitalism”? Capitalism is a term coined by Marx. And in what way did the markets at the time not work? Standard of living grew by leaps and bounds throughout the 1800s, 1900s, and today.
“It definitely does not work in the information age when 70% of economic activity is driven by consumer spending. The economic situation in the USA today is living proof of its failure.”
Define what “it” is in this sentence.
As long as you feel superior I’m happy. LOL
Suffice it to say global trade has been running along fairly inimpeded for the past two decades, and the economies of the various affected nations are either already collapsed or close to it.
I don't have to know what your background experience and education is to recognize the same Free Traitor talking points that show up every time some jackleg reads a few Cato web pages and a couple of essays on economics.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.