“Well, this explains your arguments. Laws are laws whether you want them to be or not.”
If you think that all the economic theories around are laws, then that explains your slavish adherence to something you heard in college or read in a book.
Your arguments are predictable and unconvincing. They’ve been tossed around for years and people are beginning to assess the results. Economists and their followers want the US to pay the price for so-called free trade by opening its markets while many other nations keep their’s closed. The result can be nothing other than what it’s been: great benefits for those who own the factors of production and diminishing benefits for those who provide labor and lower skilled work. This is called efficiency, but one person’s efficiency is another person’s diminishing standard of living.
There are sensible ways to manage trade, but this bogus free trade that rewards some while penalizing others in the US will eventually have the result anyone should have predicted. Your “laws” might just be theories, or they’re being very badly implemented.
Yeah, and I'm a slavish adherent to other laws too. There's one called "gravity" and one called "the speed of light", and my favorite is called "the speed of sound".
Your arguments are predictable and unconvincing.
You can lead a FReeper to truth, but you cannot make him think. :-)
They’ve been tossed around for years and people are beginning to assess the results.
OK, getting very general here. "They", meaning the laws of economics, or various economic theories? They aren't the same thing.
You don't have to look very hard to "assess the results". The more liberty a people have and the more free their trade policies, the wealthier they are. That's the clear result for every nation on earth.
Economists and their followers want the US to pay the price for so-called free trade by opening its markets while many other nations keep their’s closed.
Wow. You've read the teachings of all economists? You're making some very generalized statements about "economists", as though they all teach the same ideas. Not only that, but you impute your own ideas about what "economists" want.
Maybe I'm in over my head here. You not only know what "economists and their followers" teach, but what all of them want as well. I don't have such magical powers.
The result can be nothing other than what it’s been: great benefits for those who own the factors of production and diminishing benefits for those who provide labor and lower skilled work.
Tell me about how free trade in the US has diminished the benefits of workers. That's a steaming pile of crap.
The average hourly worker in the USA has the equivalent wealth of only the very top of the food chain in most other countries. Middle-class Americans whining about what they lack is pathetic and ignorant.
The average worker in many parts of the world doesn't have a home with a door or any transportation other than his feet. Don't try the class differential whine here. Free trade has made every American far wealthier than they would be otherwise.
This is called efficiency, but one person’s efficiency is another person’s diminishing standard of living.
No, this is called a free negotiation. Nobody puts a gun to a worker's head and forces him to work for the wage he receives. What he is paid is what his labor is worth. If he wants more than that, he should learn a trade with greater value.
Labor is no different than any other product. Some labor is inherently more valuable than other labor. What makes something valuable is the demand for it and its relative scarcity.
Diamonds are valuable because they are relatively scarce, and there's a high demand for them. A particular rock in my yard may be scarce--there's only one just like it in the whole world--but there's no demand, so that rock isn't worth a lot. Water is in high demand, but is relatively plentiful, so it's not very expensive.
For labor to be valuable, it must be scarce and in demand. Skilled buggy whip makers are scarce, but there's not much demand, so they aren't going to be paid much. Fast food cooks are in high demand, but they aren't very scarce, so they aren't going to be paid much either. Skilled neurosurgeons are in demand and are very scarce. They get paid a lot.
Those are the laws of economics. Scarcity (supply) and demand. They are just as absolute as the law of gravity.
There are sensible ways to manage trade, but this bogus free trade that rewards some while penalizing others in the US will eventually have the result anyone should have predicted.
The result is increased wealth for all, just as it has always been. The differences between who gets more and who gets less are due to factors that are mostly within the control of the individual. Education, skill and risk all play a part, but the choices are individual ones.
Your “laws” might just be theories, or they’re being very badly implemented.
They're not my laws, they are just laws. They aren't "implemented" any more than gravity is "implemented". Like gravity, they just "are". And, like gravity, you can either learn to work with the laws of economics, or you can repeatedly try to defy them and fall on your face. Either way, the laws remain.
So we should be just like them and restrict the freedom of our citizens by forcing them to accept fewer choices at higher prices. Don't you think American citizens would prefer to keep more of their money in their own pockets so they can buy other goods their family might need, or to save for retirement, or for their child's education? Do you think they'd rather pay higher taxes (tariffs are taxes) and have less freedom of choice? Nope, they want higher prices and fewer choices. For their children!
Would your proof of this be the 125 million Americans who shop at Wal-Mart every week?
The result can be nothing other than what it’s been: great benefits for those who own the factors of production and diminishing benefits for those who provide labor and lower skilled work.
Ahh, the argument of the class warrior. If you could prove that real incomes have been falling for Americans since free(r) trade was embraced after WWII, you'd do it. If you could show us a high unemployment rate, or declining employment, you'd do it. If you could show us a country with a declining manufacturing output, you would. Can you also show us a declining GDP, falling household wealth and negative per-capita GDP growth?
This is called efficiency, but one person’s efficiency is another person’s diminishing standard of living.
Economics is a zero sum game? When one person gains another person loses? You're spouting nothing more than what one would hear from a liberal economics professor at any liberal university. I think you're the one slavishly adhering to what you heard in college or read in a book by Krugman.
There are sensible ways to manage trade, but this bogus free trade that rewards some while penalizing others in the US will eventually have the result anyone should have predicted.
You don't like a system with winners and losers? Perhaps you have a problem with capitalism? What is your sensible method for managing trade? Are you a bigger government conservative? Do you think that smaller government is good except when it comes to trade? Do you believe that somehow, when it comes to trade, all of a sudden government becomes reliable, responsible and capable, and can choose fairly which industries should be protected, how much protection they should receive and for how long they should receive it? Do you really think that the industry truly deserving of protection will receive it or, do you think it will go only to organizations that are politically connected? Restricting competition makes companies better? Are you saying that career government bureaucrats know what's better for individuals than the individual?
If the government knows what's best for the individual with regards to trade, why wouldn't they know what's best for us in other areas? Where does your do gooding end?