Posted on 09/18/2005 9:19:51 AM PDT by Willie Green
I think he was being sarcastic, but thanks for sticking up for newbies.
"The end result is that everyone and everything is automatically allocated to where it can meet its best use. In other words, a free market."
The good old invisible hand, which all conservatives should respect and appreciate.
That's not the issue. The claim I was responding to was that there would be more money, due to the cheaper leather goods, available in our economy. This does not take into account the losses I mentioned. It would seem to me to either be a wash or a negative, at least for a while.
Nice explanation, in very simple and understandable terms, but somehow I doubt you have made any impression in a mind that is already made up.
Very good, so in you OWN "optimistic" scenario the prodcution will shift from providing the working people with American life standard to making diamond necklaces for the rich women. This is the pattern of Latin America and most of the Third World.
"I read Milton Freedman - I find him a moron and an intellectual fraud."
I see. Well that sure lets me know where you are coming from. Thanks.
I agree. Business should have more autonomy to operate as they see fit.
I find Milton Friedman quite similar to many Marxists. He is not above bending the data to fit his preconceived views and is very skillful in weaving around the weaknesses in his reasonings. He is a fraud.
Interesting idea. Do you have any data that shows the median income has been dropping?
Where did I say the gov't had anything to do with it?
"What a load. Do you think everyone of those 500 was capable of getting a college degree. Consider yourself blessed. I know that where I work less than 50% could get a degree. In anything. Some are functionally illiterate and many have a hard time even speaking English. They are factory workers, a lot of good people, but they are not business owner material. I feel bad saying that but it's the truth."
And, you're saying that because people have made these prior choices in life that education isn't important (obviously, if they are illiterate) and that their survival in life isn't their responsibility...... then you're saying it becomes MY responsibility as a compassionate, understanding person to support these people who live off the government dole and game the system for everything it's worth? No thanks.
I grew up in inner-city Detroit. I know the attitude, the mentality and the pervasive psychology of the govt leaches. I have NO sympathy for those who REFUSE to help themselves.
"Right. Poverty is good in that it is a spur to encourage hard work and making good choices, just like wealth is a positive incentive to do the same."
True - Abject poverty was my wake-up call to quit screwing around & that life wasn't a continuous party. I took a good, hard look around & decided I didn't want to live like that.
$11.87 is a starting wage for a new hire in a new position & probably has upward potential &, it's far better than minimum wage.
Logic!! The protectionists hate that.
To my knowledge, diamond-cutting is a skilled and well-paying profession -- at least as much if not much, much more so than working in a leather factory job that your average illiterate Mexican can replace. Diamond pendants and necklaces are hardly the domain of the super-rich anymore, either. This is all besides the point, anyway.
My point, which I used these examples to make, is that any money saved through manufacturing efficiency will ultimately be reinvested into the economy to create more wealth than would otherwise have existed, in the long run.
Yours is the fallacy Hazlitt wrote about: a shortsightedness in only seeing the immediate economic effect on a select group of people, instead of seeing the complete picture and the net result.
P.S. The predominant trend among the Third World is the well-connected powerful few using the government's monopoly on force to protect and enhance their position. Sounds like protectionism and regulation. Doesn't much sound like free markets and trade.
Do you see the statistics on the productivity gains of 17% from 2000 to 2004? The stats that our unemployment rate is now back under 5%? they used to call that 'full employment'. The fact that 'outsourcing' is so complained about, yet it is occuring while our economy does VERY WELL ought to tell you something: It ought to tell you that perhaps it is not as harmful as some would have you believe.
Do you ever pay more than you need for a product? If you *did*, would it do the world any good? If someone is makine $20/hr making products that cost $20, why not instead spend $5 on it, let that $20/hr do something else and pay him $15/hr with the money you saved .... net result: You have a higher standard of living!!
"Over 300 people lose their jobs so that buying power is lost and the "cost" of unemployment and retraining programs is added to the unemployment cost creating a large negative to the economy." First, the total buying power is increased overall - the problem is that it is shifted. you talk of "lose their jobs" as if the people can only do one specific thing in life... Well, the steel tariffs were tried to avoid this problem for a bunch of steelworkers ... result? Every job 'saved' cost our economy $500,000. Moreover, the other companies - autos, appliances, etc. got hurt by this ... leading to more cars made in Canada and japan imported here, and lost jobs elsewhere.
Steel tariffs were a lose-lose deal.
Retraining is a temporary cost. Protectionism is a permanent handicap on the economy.
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.