So what we have is not free trade. So why all this argument about the benefits of free trade. It is a theory - nothing else. Certainly not what we are experiencing today.
In the candle and buggy whip analogy - the jobs did not just go away. The candle makers could work for light bulb companies and the buggy whip people could work for auto workers and other could find jobs int he economy because it was still there. The light bulb and auto manufactures didn't open their factories in Mexico - they did it right here in the gold old US of A, thereby creating jobs.
Food, shelter and clothing is very expensive in America - it has not become cheaper, well cheaper, but not more econimical. It will not be as easy to just sell apples to pay the bills as they did in the depression or the miscellaneous jobs my grandfather did to feed three families through the depression. We can't all plant a little garden to help feed us or barter with our neighbors who have a cow. You see the government didn't take 50% of what he made.
Yes a TV in l955 was expensive. That's not a really good example as they were just coming out and in five years they were reasonable. Now I was really thinking of more recent years when we people had more disposable income. Some things are cheaper - not the necessities.
As for the half empty glass. I am pretty good at seeing things from both angles. My glass is pretty full - because I don't need much and am quite healthy for my age - but I know young families who are struggling and will not get ahead in today's situation. It is good to see the glass half full, but since it is still half full, we have to realize something happened to that other half. WE need to face reality and to stop pretending that what we are experiencing is free trade and it will all work out and everyone in the world will suddenly have middle class lifestyles. That's a fairy tale.
Part of the reasons my responses are getting longer is because you seem to not pick things up the first or second time through. The title of the thread is: FREE TRADE IS A BAD IDEA, hence the discussion of the benefits of free trade. You act as if, since we don't have absolute freedom anywhere in the world it is impossible to discuss the merits of freedom vs. state control. You have repeatedly attributed to free trade aspects of state interference in an attempt to disparage it. I've merely tried to keep up with your fallacies.
In the candle and buggy whip analogy - the jobs did not just go away.
Yes they did. Those jobs vanished. Those displaced workers found something else to do that their neighbors wanted done.
The light bulb and auto manufactures didn't open their factories in Mexico - they did it right here in the gold old US of A, thereby creating jobs.
What hasn't sunk in for you yet is that for each person who finds their jobs no longer needed hundreds, even thousands of consumers save money. This combination of increased real wealth for the consumer, in addition to any real profit gains realized by the business owners, are the foundation of new jobs. The saved money doesn't vanish, it is the capital that funds new and increased production of goods - new jobs.
Food, shelter and clothing is very expensive in America - it has not become cheaper, well cheaper, but not more econimical.
It appears you also know a lot that just isn't true.
"In the United States, a similar acknowledgement was organized by the American Farm Bureau Federation, which marked "food check-out day" on Feb. 8. Americans spend 10.6 percent of their income on food, with farmers earning about 20 cents of every dollar spent on food. The farm bureau stressed that the percentage of income people spend on food has gone down during the last 30 years, and 'the decrease ... is especially notable since trends indicate Americans are buying more expensive convenience food items for preparation at home, as well as more food away from home..'" In 1960 17.5% of income went to pay for food compared to 10% in 2001
Now onto the part about clothes costing more, in 1950 Americans devoted 12% of their income to clothes, but 1997 that had fallen in half to 6%.
Shelter is a little trickier, in that Americans have tended to spend the same portion of their income, but for larger and larger houses with more and more amenities. What kind of value do you place on the increased advent of wiring and plumbing, as well as square footage? Apparently Americans value it more than the money they could save by buying a house that satisfied their grandparents and pocketing the difference (if government code restrictions would allow it...)
The increase in disposable income that accompanied reductions in food and clothing costs allow for the fulfillment of new demands, requiring new jobs.
It will not be as easy to just sell apples to pay the bills as they did in the depression or the miscellaneous jobs my grandfather did to feed three families through the depression. We can't all plant a little garden to help feed us or barter with our neighbors who have a cow. You see the government didn't take 50% of what he made.
Only because the price of apples and menial labor has plummetted. This is a benefit to everyone who wants an apple, or has a yard in need of raking.
You could plant a garden, but since the cost of food is so low your time is better spent earning money to buy food. FDR's NEP approach to the economy managed to put 25% of Americans out of work, not including those who weren't 'employed' planting trees in the woods and other various government make work projects. Afterall, he had to do something with the money he seized. Before he was finally put in his grave he managed to get the tax rate on incomes under $2,000 to 23% and those over $200,000 all the way up to 94%.
Instead of allowing the speculative misallocation of capital from the credit boom of the '20's to wash itself out and allowing the marketplace to align with demands FDR followed Hoovers footsteps of massive taxes on imported goods, excoriation of companies cutting staff to maintain profits (which is the only way a company can stay in business to provide any jobs), and confiscation of wealth from the marketplace to put it under government direction. Let's hope, as we pass into another recession borne of excessive federal reserve credit expansion, that our tax cutting president isn't replaced by a tax/tariff raising president bent of implementing 'plans' for the economy...
Yes a TV in l955 was expensive. That's not a really good example as they were just coming out and in five years they were reasonable.
Why do you just make stuff up? It really looks bad. 10 years later less than 3% of American households had color TVs. Compare that to the accelerating adoption rates of VCRs, CD players, and now DVD players.
To really appreciate the growth of wealth in the world you need to realize how much more could be produced when workers the world over have access the level of capital equipment that Americans enjoy. Today nearly 80% of Chinese are employed in agriculture. I don't know about you, but I don't need anymore rice. As their investments in farm equipment grow their people will be able to make even more things we want, and as they make things we want they can finally begin to afford trading more with us. Until they escape their agrarian tilt we'll always have a deficit with their country in terms of finished goods. Stifling their climb out not only hurts them, it hurts consumers here, retarding the increase in standards of living for everyone.
WE need to face reality and to stop pretending that what we are experiencing is free trade and it will all work out and everyone in the world will suddenly have middle class lifestyles. That's a fairy tale.
Indeed, trade is not nearly free enough. Only by reducing the government interference, and moving in the direction of free trade, can we save the golden goose of human civilization: profits.