Walter Williams: Economics for the citizen [all of the Ten-Part Series]

jewishworldreview.com | Walter Williams

[Bigun]

If his lectures are anything like the special-interest driven pseudo-economics that he pimps in his media columns, then Walter's students would have a legal basis to sue for tuition reimbursement.

How typical of a Willie Green post!

Dr. Walter Williams, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, doesn't know sh*t about economics but Willie Green does!

[KarlInOhio]

WillieGreen is just mad that for every Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman out there one hundred Keynesian economists lose their jobs.

[cowtowney]

Thanks

[Ignatz]

Bump

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dr. Walter Williams, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, doesn't know sh*t about economics but Willie Green does!

That's right. For instance over here, Willie says that we need to pay higher prices for sugar now (double or more), to protect ourselves from a possible price rise in the future. You can't get that kind of economic brilliance from a guy with a PhD.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Imagine that the Japanese government imposed trade restrictions on U.S. grain imports. Japanese farmers could charge monopoly prices and enjoy higher income, and Japanese consumers would pay higher prices. Would you deem it an intelligent response for the U.S. government to retaliate against Japan's trade restrictions by imposing trade restrictions on Japanese camera lenses, thus allowing American lens producers to charge monopoly prices and American consumers to suffer higher prices? Put another way, is it a smart response for the U.S. government to harm American consumers because Japan harmed its consumers?

So simple, yet beyond so many.

[Protagoras]

That Walter Williams sure is a handsome fella.... Thanks for the post - this is a great read.

Williams, is that you?

[Protagoras]

LOL, a classic Willy Wonka post.

Utterly goofy, but great for a laugh. You should do stand up!

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should do stand up!

As long as he wears his Choo-Choo Charley hat.

[Protagoras]

I don't have the inclination to tell our resident "Ned" (the guy on the Fedex commercial who's always wrong) what he should do, so I'll let Penn do it.

[inquest]

And like I said, you can blame the mad rush for FTA's for the reason why it's beyond so many. A lot of people take their cues from the politicians, and when politicians on both sides of the aisle are outwardly so united on a single point (namely, that unilateral lowering of tariffs is inherently bad economically), and no one dares to correct them, what do you expect the result to be among the citizenry at large?

[RJL]

Thanks for posting.

My 13 year old has some reading to do.

[biblewonk]

WW ping.

[Toddsterpatriot]

A lot of people take their cues from the politicians, and when politicians on both sides of the aisle are outwardly so united on a single point (namely, that unilateral lowering of tariffs is inherently bad economically), and no one dares to correct them, what do you expect the result to be among the citizenry at large?

I can't even get some on FR to agree that 12 cents a pound is a better price than 24 cents a pound. And you want politicians to educate these people.

Some are just hopeless. They need to be worked around.

[newgeezer]

JWR is on the must-excerpt list. ;)

[Rakkasan1]

[inquest]

I'll break it down for you. There are those who believe that lowering tariffs unilaterally is a bad idea, the thinking being that the good that comes from lower prices would not outweigh the bad that comes from lost jobs. Using that as a premise, there is no possible way whatsoever that you could argue that a bilateral agreement like CAFTA would make up for it, because the increase in U.S. exports would be minimal (as these countries have next to no purchasing power). So whatever jobs that come from an increase in exports would be very far outweighed by the jobs that are lost from the increase in imports.

Hence, you get no political leverage whatsoever - none, zip, nada - from making it bilateral as opposed to unilateral. The same anxieties get provoked in both instances. The only possible hope is convincing people that the reduction in prices that comes from lower tariffs would outweigh the damage that results from loss of jobs. Once you do that, then they'd be receptive to unilateral lowering of tariffs. So either way, there's no political advantage to bilateral vs unilateral.

[Bigun]

You can't get that kind of economic brilliance from a guy with a PhD.

Yeah! I know! Willie is just FULL of such economic brilliance as "corporations do not pass on taxes they pay to their customers".

[listenhillary]

Thanks - a most enjoyable read.

[1rudeboy]

bttt