I Tried to Open a Lemonade Stand

You continue to siddle by some salient points and miss the big picture.

Corporate leaders now define themselves as citizens of the world, not of the US. They chase maximum short term profits, using the cheapest labor in conditions that lack even minimal standards regarding safety, working conditions, or passing on the costs of production through gross environmental destruction. As to risk, no problem just be 'too big to fail'.

Concentrating solely on regulation is a red herring. Corporations have no problem with regulation. They even offer their expertise and campaign contributions to both sides of the aisle to ensure that said regulations in the US squash any upcoming competition.

We currently live in a globalized market which has been rigged to the advantage of capital and management. Globalists happily traipse the globe in search of the world's cheapest labor and most lax regulation, combined with tariff free access back to the US market, to wit outsourcing to China.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

I notice you have neglected any comment upon China's special status as a "nonmarket economy" with special preference under the WTO administered 'Free Trade' agreements or why tariffs are okay for China but not the US. Adam Smith would agree the FReepers who would tariff goods manufactured in China.

Up until recently declining real income of the American worker under global labor arbitrage has been hidden by access to cheap credit. The hidden costs of what is termed 'Globalisation' include the growing number of Americans who are long term unemployed, who are dependent upon some part of the government's largess for survival, and whose income is plunging.

Sorry but this is bad grammar. It should be: Big difference from when my little friends and I tried to open a lemonade stand in the Bronx, NY

What a dipsh**! You don't have anything to add to the discussion except to pick on someone's grammar? No wonder we are drowning in regulations in this country, jerks like you think the important things in life are correcting others in order to make yourself look good, or so you think. It actually makes you look like a dumba**.

Thanks for the input. Back in the days with IBM, now retired, I was a Systems guy with some responsibility as a Tech writer. So when I had to be grammatically proficient, I put on that ‘face’. Didn’t think that was required on FR. DM

Corporate leaders now define themselves as citizens of the world, not of the US. They chase maximum short term profits, using the cheapest labor in conditions that lack even minimal standards regarding safety, working conditions, or passing on the costs of production through gross environmental destruction.

Even by your arguments, that high tariffs would bring back jobs from China, this would leave the Chinese workers unemployed, and starving to death. Whether or not higher tariffs here would prevent gross environmental damage in China is questionable.

As to risk, no problem just be 'too big to fail'.

Corporations have no problem with regulation. They even offer their expertise and campaign contributions to both sides of the aisle to ensure that said regulations in the US squash any upcoming competition.

So you argue about how regulation and tax policy are harmful, or that the risk has been shifted to the U.S. taxpayer. Those are the type of regulations and incentives that push industry overseas, and I agree that it should be ended. As Milton Friedman said, one reason that he opposed big government was because they could be co-opted by big corporations to stifle competition. That is exactly what has happened.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

This is the specific point that Adam Smith argues against. Our wealth, or GDP is completely dependent on what we ourselves produce.

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.

The hidden costs of what is termed 'Globalisation' include the growing number of Americans who are long term unemployed, who are dependent upon some part of the government's largess for survival, and whose income is plunging.

We have high minimum wage rates, generous long term unemployment benefits, a porous border and easy welfare programs. We take profits from the industrious and give to the indolent. When the incentive is to prevent them from employing their capital (i.e. their labor), then of course the country will suffer.

It's not a zero sum game. Just because there is a rising standard of living in China, or they produce more stuff doesn't mean that we have to produce less. They are worse off because they have a much lower productivity rate there than we have here.

... Even by your arguments, that high tariffs would bring back jobs from China, this would leave the Chinese workers unemployed, and starving to death. Whether or not higher tariffs here would prevent gross environmental damage in China is questionable. ...

Score one for the inroads of cultural marxism and redistribution of wealth! I was unaware that it was incumbent upon american workers to happily hand over their jobs and income so that Chinese workers don't starve.

... It's not a zero sum game. Just because there is a rising standard of living in China, or they produce more stuff doesn't mean that we have to produce less. ...

While it need not be a zero sum game, it's set up as one.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

You continue to siddle by Chinese trade practices which include under special WTO rules as regards tariffs and sundry other gimmicks to restrict imports.

"Corporations have no problem with regulation."

True.

"To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world."

Double true.

You continue to siddle by Chinese trade practices which include under special WTO rules as regards tariffs and sundry other gimmicks to restrict imports.

Milton Friedman:

http://doc.cat-v.org/economics/milton_friedman/the_case_for_free_trade

A fourth argument, one that was made by Alexander Hamilton and continues to be repeated down to the present, is that free trade would be fine if all other countries practiced free trade but that, so long as they do not, the United States cannot afford to. This argument has no validity whatsoever, either in principle or in practice. Other countries that impose restrictions on international trade do hurt us. But they also hurt themselves. Aside from the three cases just considered, if we impose restrictions in turn, we simply add to the harm to ourselves and also harm them as well. Competition in masochism and sadism is hardly a prescription for sensible international economic policy! Far from leading to a reduction in restrictions by other countries, this kind of retaliatory action simply leads to further restrictions.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

To repeat, there wages are based on their productivity, our wages are based on our productivity.

China's GDP is around $7.3 Trillion or about $7,000 per person

The U.S. GDP is around $15 Trillion or about $50,000 per person

I was unaware that it was incumbent upon american workers to happily hand over their jobs and income so that Chinese workers don't starve.

I believe you were lamenting the lot of the chinese worker. I was just pointing out that tariffs would not help them.

Corporate leaders now define themselves as citizens of the world, not of the US. They chase maximum short term profits, using the cheapest labor in conditions that lack even minimal standards regarding safety, working conditions, or passing on the costs of production through gross environmental destruction.

Tariffs are harmful to us. Here is more Milton Friedman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM

I've never heard these arguments successfully rebutted. I'll take the micro-economic argument over the macro-economic argument any day.

You may have heard, but did not listen.

Freidman was a utopian cheerleader for ‘Globalism’ and ‘Free Trade’ whose essay on ‘The Case for Tree Trade’ is long on half-truths and obfuscation whilst short on facts.

Unfortunately Yuri was correct. /sigh

I would enjoy reading any well reasoned arguments against Smith’s theories or Dr. Friedman’s interpretations of them. If you could point me in the right direction.