Posted on 01/02/2006 4:19:44 AM PST by ventana
LOL! Communism works, it just hasn't been properly implemented.
I did not say that the lettuce head would COST five cents. I said that "if the lettuce cutters were paid $10 more per hour, the lettuce head in store would cost five cents more"
But you seem to claim that this raise in pay would raise cost of land, equipment, water, fertilizer, storing and shipment. Maybe I am dense, but I do not get it. For me $10 divided by 200 gives 5 cents. Please explain!
Finally, the light bulb goes off. Here is your tagline.
(If the lettuce cutters were paid $10 more per hour, the lettuce head in store would cost FIVE CENTS)
Now I guess you understand what I meant in post #638.
Maybe I am dense, but I do not get it.
Hey, we agree. You just left off the word "more" in your tagline. For once I wasn't mocking your socialist tendencies, just your English.
When I pasted, the end got truncated at the end and I did not see it (it was outside of text box). Now I removed "in store" to make space.
Wow, you took your brain pills today.
Who'd of thought it! But if the WTO says they must be eliminated
Forget the WTO, I say they must be eliminated!! Well, they don't have to be eliminated. They just need to make a profit without the government tripling the price. Do you think they can do that? Pretty please?
Another behavior of the scum of society is to play the rascal. When criticized they reveal their tendency to bully and shamelessly pronounce something along the lines of, “You are right, that is precisely what we are doing."
--The Epoch Times
That pretty much describes the sugar farmers and their enablers in the Congress, thanks.
Just a quick reply to correct something. .
See "Hypothetical Hocus-Pocus" in post #72
I first heard of hedonics from a transcript of Gordon R. Richards, NAM, testifying before the Subcommittee on the Census Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives On The quality of GDP data, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/about/test-grr.pdf
"The redefinition of computer output was a crucial factor in driving the manufacturing revival of the late 1990s. . . Without the quality imputations to the real value of computers, this increase in the manufacturing share [of GDP] would not have been measured."
If you have time and find something please let me know anytime. Thanks.
(I have not forgotten your question (challenge?). To wit, "How many jobs are we sending them [China]? And how many jobs are destroyed by our increase in productivity?" I've been meaning to get estimates of those numbers myself, especially the former.)
I'm not slow on the uptake. I got the point. You don't seem to be getting mine. That or you're choosing not to.
The point, blatently put, is that when you don't like worker pay rate arrived at by market forces - including unions, then that's bad and was should all do something about it. On the other hand, the treason-lobby would largely scream at heaven if one suggested that executive pay, were it curtailed, might
fair better in the pockets of the people working to get that money in the first place.
The treason lobby doesn't want intervention unless it means gutting whatever leverage a worker holds in the market in order to placate greed.
Cases of unions overstepping bounds are not the rule, they are the exception. Just like every woman, from a male point of view, isn't a gold-digging tramp because the last one was. And it is the job of unions to do well by those they represent. That is part of the market at work. If that isn't functioning, you fix it. I don't see you screatching about Executive earnings as compared to employee earnings.
In fact, many in the treason lobby in past threads have tended to argue that market forces determine such things...
Sound familiar. If the unions didn't bargain for a better deal, they'd never see it trusting in the good ethics and appreciation of execs. You may have rested your case; but, resting without making your case is both unwise and counter productive.
Which person in a marriage is more responsible for the marriage working?
Can't wait for you to run for office. The CPUSA would approve of your rhetoric.
See "Hypothetical Hocus-Pocus" in post #72
Well, that's a relief. Referencing a Paul Ross data dump is a lot more defensible than referencing a Havoc screech.
If you have time and find something please let me know anytime. Thanks.
Sure will.
Myths of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff
Excerpts from Roger Simmaker, in which he makes some telling points here:
To be able to accurately explain the affects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, it is necessary first to rid ourselves of popular myths so that we can start with a clean slate and derive conclusions from fact rather than fantasy. I will list some common myths here, and then disprove them using facts according to history. The myths that prevail, even today, some 72 years after the tariff bill was signed by President Herbert Hoover, are as follows:
1. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff established the highest tariff rates in U.S. history, and the sharp rise in tariff rates caused countless nations to retaliate with tariffs of their own.
2. The Smoot Hawley-Tariff contributed to the instability of the stock market.
3. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was responsible for causing the Great Depression.
Campaigning against Herbert Hoover for the presidency in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt saw the tariff as a way to get a leg up on his Republican opponent's incumbent bid. Even Republicans eventually began to mischaracterize their party's former president in later years, as well as the tariff bill he signed into law in 1930. Someone should have told [them]... that over two-thirds of the goods imported into the United States entered duty-free, and that some nations actually increased exports to the United States after the Great Depression. There was actually a higher percentage of imports on the duty free list in 1930 than there were after Ronald Reagan left office. Al Gore fell for the same politically correct lie as Reagan in 1993 in his debate with Ross Perot, claiming the tariff "was one of the principle causes...of the Great Depression."
Even the Democrat Party Platform of 1928 proclaimed that tariffs were necessary to sustain "legitimate business and a high standard of wages for American labor." The platform also encouraged the equalization of the cost between production at home and abroad to "safeguard...the wage of the American laborer." Today, most Republicans and Democrats alike regard equalizing tariffs as extreme. The Reform Party is the only major party today that considers it fair and common sense to treat our own producers equally with foreign competitors in the realm of U.S. trade policy.
The confidence Hoover expressed in high tariffs in his re-election bid was echoed throughout the campaign. If the word of the day was that high tariffs had caused the Great Depression, Hoover's stance would have been obvious political suicide. Even FDR was unable to totally shake the call for high tariffs. On the campaign trail in October 1932, he proclaimed, "I favor continued protection for American agriculture as well as American industry." The creation of the myth that the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the Great Depression would have to wait.
Regardless of how one calculates tariff rates, as either a percentage of imports where tariffs are applied or as a percentage of all imports, duty-free or not, the Smoot-Hawley tariff did not have the highest rates in U.S. history. That claim belongs to the Tariff of Abominations of 1828, which caused neither a depression nor a recession. With the belief that high tariffs cause depressions and hamper economic growth, one has to wonder why there wasn't a Great Depression of 1830? The reason is that there are several factors that cause recessions and depressions. Some of these causes will be discussed in this chapter, and revealing these factors will show that they were the cause of the Great Depression, not the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
In their attempts to vilify Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley for supposedly proposing such extremely high tariff rates, many politicians, economists, and textbook writers seem to miss the fact that the 59.1 percent tariff rate only applied to one-third of all imports in 1932. The 59.1 percent rate is derived by using the most liberal method for calculating tariff percentages, and is actually higher than it should be. The reason the tariff was determined to be at such a falsely high level is because over 50 percent of U.S. imports were tariffed at a fixed rate. For example, if a particular good had a tariff rate of 25 cents per pound, and the product sold for a dollar, the tariff percentage was represented at 25 percent. However, with the prices falling for goods as the economy collapsed, the tariff rate would double if the value of the good was reduced by one-half. So what was a 25 percent tariff rate before the depression instantly became a 50 percent tariff, although the consumer was actually getting the same product for cheaper at the newly calculated higher tariff rate. In other words, a product that cost a dollar at a 25 percent tariff would cost $1.25, but if the price fell to 50, the tariff was still 25 cents and the product now only cost 75 cents, but the tariff rate was now calculated to be 50 percent. The Smoot-Hawley tariff actually extended the list of imports that entered the country with no tariffs at all compared to the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922. What the Smoot-Hawley tariff did do was raise tariffs on particular import sensitive goods, such as Canadian agriculture, that were already on the tariff list and increase the amount of goods to which no tariffs were applied.
In consistency with today, free traders historically look at tariffs (indirect taxes) on imports as causing consumers to pay more while ignoring direct taxes on American consumers. There are few that will mention or acknowledge that President Hoover raised the top income tax rate from 25 percent to 65 percent in 1932. FDR continued this atrocious policy by further raising the rate to 79 percent! This insurmountable climb in the income tax rate reaped far more damage on the American consumer than any modest tariff increase on a select amount of import sensitive items. Keep in mind that tariffs are a discretionary, indirect tax. The consumer can choose to buy the import or the domestic good, and therefore refuse to pay the tariff, but no consumer escapes direct income taxes. Everyone must pay. It's no wonder it took World War II to drag us out of the bottom of the economic barrel.
Was America the only nation to raise tariff rates before the depression? No. Many nations raised tariffs after World War I. France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Belgium and Holland all raised their tariffs on imports to levels comparable to those before World War I. Even Britain, a free trade nation, declared that "new industries since 1915 would need careful nurturing and protection if foreign competition were not again to reduce Britain to a technological colony." The message was clear. Nations were rebuilding their industries after World War I and needed protection to re-develop them.
But what affect did the tariff have on the stock market? History shows that the crash was much more likely due to the inability of Congress to pass a tariff bill at all than because of the possibility that Congress might pass a high tariff bill. A business community and its nation perceived a lack of leadership, gridlock, and political maneuvering, rather than tending to the needs of the country. Records show that when Representative Hawley's bill passed the House Chamber five months before the stock market crashed, the Dow climbed over 5 points to 298.87. After Senator Smoot proposed an even more protectionist Senate version, the market peaked at 381 points. However, a republican Senator from Idaho, William Borah, formed a coalition of constituents to defeat the bill. On October 3, the Dow lost 15 points. The front page of the New York Times stated: "Hoover Defeated on Flexible Tariff; Coalition in Senate, 47 to 42, Takes From President Duty-Fixing Power." Although Hoover sustained veto power, the perception was that he had no majority in Congress to pass the tariff bill. Democratic Senator George Norris tacked on an agricultural subsidies program, and Senator William Borah and his coalition of agrarian Republicans took charge of writing the tariff. The stock market did not crash out of fear of higher tariffs. If anything, it crashed due to the perception that Congress lacked the discipline and leadership to pass any tariff bill at all!
Prior to the crash, the National Association of Manufacturers complained to President Hoover of the inability of business to make decisions of industrial expansion, since the tariff bill had been haggled over for five months. The Bankers Trust director and former vice-president, Fred Kent, blamed the Democratic coalition, led by Senator George Norris, for their part in the stock market crash. "Industry cannot proceed, employ men, buy and process raw materials unless it can feel confident of markets," said Kent. "There was a fear that if this [insurgent] bloc succeeded in rewriting the tariff bill in its own way, it might come to believe that it had the power to reduce tariffs." William Borah responded that if the fight of his coalition "shakes the Stock Exchange to the earth, let it go."
The volume of trade in respect to imports did drop off in 1930 after the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but what nation would not see a reduction in imports if the buying power of their citizens had just been cut in half or worse? One would think that out of the total volume of U.S. imports, during the deep depression years, import growth of non-dutiable goods would outpace those upon which duties were levied. However, this was not the case. From 1929 to 1931, the volume of both dutiable and non-dutiable imports declined almost equally at 52 percent. In fact, there were one hundred products that had higher tariffs applied to them that actually saw an increase in import volume. It is very interesting that despite the reduced buying power of Americans coupled with the fact higher import duties were being collected on some of these items, it did not eliminate the attempt by foreign producers to gain a greater share of the U.S. market. It is obvious that not only with the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but also with the preceding Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922, and basically since the first tariff in 1789, there was no decisive negative relationship between higher tariffs and import volumes.
Concerning the charge that nations enacted retaliatory tariffs against the United States for passing the Smoot-Hawley bill, historical documents do not support this view. Great Britain did not release any formal protests since it regarded the United States as a sovereign nation that did not look favorably upon other nations meddling in their affairs. Great Britain was also concerned that a formal protest might encourage still higher tariffs, which might work to the disadvantage of their exporters. Great Britain was one of America's leading trading partners, and avoided any formal protest. Sir Esme Howard, the British Ambassador to Washington at the time, informed London that "official representations...against the proposed tariff increases...[would be] a mistake."
Foreign diplomats generally avoided specific threats of retaliation against the United States since any such language would be considered an infringement upon national sovereignty, and it was not the place of foreign governments to protest the Constitutionally enacted laws of the United States. Furthermore, the word "protest" during the time of the Great Depression did not automatically express dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policy. The word "protest" usually represented the argument that treaty rights of a foreign nation had been violated.
Canada briefly discussed retaliation in 1929 with U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg. Canada warned Kellogg that upwardly shifted tariff rates might result in a high probability for retaliation. Canadian Minister Vincent Massey was encouraged to release an official statement representing Canada's position, but none was ever written. Canada did not want to antagonize high tariff legislators in Congress. Instead, Massey decided to go a more discreet route via the American press. After meeting with the editor of the New York World, Massey was "impressed" by the position of the editor "that Canada will never be taken seriously by the United States...until she is prepared to strike back." I would suppose that a similar opinion is shared by the Chinese about the United States today. The United States repeatedly languishes over its huge trade deficit with China, but our market remains open to their goods while their market is virtually closed to ours. China will never take the United States seriously until we have the courage to take a stand and apply higher tariffs on Chinese goods like the Chinese have applied to our goods!
Many nations of that time embraced the idea that retaliation would be counterproductive. They feared antagonizing Congress or a grass roots brushfire of nationalistic patriotism among U.S. citizens that might lead to discrimination of their imported goods. Historical records show that the Smoot-Hawley tariff did little to encourage foreign countries to retaliate with high tariffs of their own. In May 1931, the State Department report found that "by far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way." Data from the U.S. Commerce Department show that the reason for the severe drop in exports in almost every American export industry was because of economic problems related to the depression, not foreign retaliation for higher U.S. tariffs. Some U.S. exports, however, did see significant gains in foreign market share. Exports of apples, pears and grapefruits increased. Exports of prunes went up 31 percent, and exports of dried apricots soared higher by 72 percent. Exports of raw materials such as cotton and rayon held steady. Exports of American films increased 49 percent, and exports of false teeth rose 24 percent.
The assertion that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was responsible for the Great Depression is a myth based on ignorance of historical facts in favor of pursuing free-trade economic textbook theory. The Smoot-Hawley tariff pre-dated the stock market crash, and therefore could not have caused it. There is no convincing evidence that it made the Great Depression more severe, or was responsible for significant retaliation by foreign countries. There are no reputable claims of evidence that point to the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 as a contributor to the second world war which occurred several years later. I have never heard or read about any German blaming America's Smoot-Hawley tariff for urging Hitler's aggression. In this case, only America blames America.
Senator John Heinz III, who died tragically in a plane crash in 1991, had developed a national reputation for his expertise in international commerce. During his years of serving in Congress, Senator Heinz III was appointed to the Chairmanship of the Subcommittee on International Finance and Monetary Policies. He had this to say about the Smoot-Hawley myth in 1985:
"It gravely concerns me that every time someone in this administration or the Congress gives a speech about a more aggressive trade policy, or the need to confront our trading partners with their subsidies, barriers to imports and other unfair practices, others in Congress immediately react with speeches on the return of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, and the dark days of blatant protectionism and depression...It seems that for many of us that Smoot-Hawley has become a code word for protectionism and, in turn, a code word for the depression. Yet, when one recalls that Smoot-Hawley was not enacted until more than 8 months after the October, 1929 collapse, it is hard to conceive how it could have led to the Great Depression...the changes supposedly wrought by this single bill in 1930 appear fantastic."
It is interesting that practically every political writer today blames the Great Depression on the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but not all of them. When Robert Kuttner, editor for BusinessWeek magazine, wrote about the recent Enron scandal, he likened it to the "pyramid schemes" of the electric utilities industry of the 1920's, which, like Enron, ended up burning investors who believed in their company. The investors got "soaked" when it was too late to realize that the company was operating beyond the grasp of government regulation, which led to their collapse, and helped bring on the Great Depression. Milton Friedman has consistently maintained that the Great Depression occurred when the money supply contracted in the early 1930's. A March 2001 issue of the Wall Street Journal claimed that the Great Depression was the result of overspeculation of stock market prices by the Fed and too little attention was given to the domestic economy. In July of 2001, another Wall Street Journal column claimed that the excess capacity of world production was responsible....
Unfortunately, with Smoot's loss, the protectionist era, America's policy since the first tariff in 1789, had ended. Speaking before the American Bankers Association in 1931, the ABA President remarked, "We, the men in this hall, who control the economic destiny of this nation, knew in 1927 that this terrible depression was coming and we did nothing about it."
Such a statement suggests that there were conditions far and above minor tweaking in U.S. trade policy that led to the Great Depression. That is why President Franklin D. Roosevelt took steps to completely restructure both America's currency and banking system by creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to support the national economy solely upon "the full faith and credit of the United States Government." The practice of converting U.S. currency into gold was prohibited, and gold could only be used by businesses when it was absolutely necessary for the manufacture of goods. Although the Trade Agreements Act of 1934 did allow President Roosevelt to lower tariffs, the reduction represented less than 6/100th of 1 percent of our GNP. It would therefore take an extreme stretch of the imagination to believe that this minor reduction in tariffs, in the light of all the major banking and currency reforms initiated by FDR, played a significant role in America's economic recovery.
Further analysis of the economy during the depression years reveals that nearly two-thirds of the drop in imports between 1929 and 1933 occurred prior to the Smoot-Hawley tariff.
Corporations exist to produce profits for its shareholders. They do not exist to provide a comfortable salary to their employees. They pay their employees the least amount they can pay to get the productivity and quality they require in their products. If your jobs are being sent to third world countries, it is because the workers there are now in the market evaluation of the corporation and their productivity/quality cost has surpassed your own. You are not competing with 37 cents per hour, you are competing against the aggregate cost of paying the labor, increased shipping costs, tarriffs, etc.
If you want the jobs, increase your productivity or reduce your pay. The corporations are doing what they are supposed to do.
They don't need to be extremely stiff to be, shall we say, 'persuasive' to business investment decisions...and domestic versus foreign manufacture of domestic needs. Look to history. The policy worked precisely as intended by Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, helping to free us from foreign dependency. And creating a legacy embraced by all American partisans up through the 30's such as Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.
Check out the 1896 Republican Platform.
And in the Chi-Comm's trade war against the U.S., it has been working extremely well. More or less daring us to do something about their giving us lip service, while flouting all the "free trade" rules we play by.
Never heard of fighting fire with fire?
And then there is this rant, which doesn't seem to apply to ANYTHING I've said, but you put it in your post to me:
Oh yes, how could I have forgotten, surly, there are massive amounts of anti-corportation prose in the Federalist Papers. Oh, that's right...there isn't. Nor is there anything remotely anit-capitalist in the BoR and the Constitution. Shucks, no, there isn't. Page after page of it in POOR RICHARD'S ALMANAC? Nope, not there either.
I don't have any generic anti-capitalist or anti-corporate axe to grind, although certain special interests might warrant it.
And since you are also a fan of Ben Franklin, perhaps you should consider the import of these maxims, lest they describe you and your policies:
"Drive your business! Let not that drive thee."
or
"For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of the shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost."
"Always taking out of the meal-tub, and never putting in, soon comes to the bottom."
'Tis hard for an empty bag to stand upright!"
"Creditors have better memories than debtors."
"When the well's dry, they know the worth of water."
.
"The borrower is slave to the lender and the debtor to the creditor."
and finally:
"They that won't be counselled can't be helped."
-- Thoughts by Benjamin Franklin from Poor Richard's Almanac.
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.