Posted on 05/07/2013 11:02:26 AM PDT by DannyTN
In case you didn't hear him.
I never said I was against all tariffs, and never said I was against EVER using trade as a weapon. It punishes our people to do so, but sometimes it’s necessary. BTW, the life of the average Japanese and certainly of the average person in China is not really a ringing endorsement of what their governments are doing.
That doesnt’ change the fact that you are using vacuums and fantasies about 100% this way or that way to discredit what I was saying, and your argument doing so was specious and backfired. Besides, you look at countries as a single entity, and sorry dude, that’s not how commerce is done.
That is insultingly stupid analogy. Go back to your Chinese handlers and get a better come back.
Right, and Obama Care, absurd minimum wages, out of control government spending, out of control bureaucratic meddling, out of control Fed policy, had NOTHING to do with that right?
You guys have just told Reagan Sowell and Friedman to go fk themselves. I will no longer tolerate your hyper conflation and sheer left wing central planning liberal economic bullshit. Go start a fkn comapny or STFU
Chinese hanlders? You’re a moron.
Lonald Leagan
Mirton Fleedman
Thomas Sowerrr.
ah so , and so sowwy my anrogy lent ovel your hed.
I'm willing to take that gamble. Lets raise the import tariffs back up to historic norms and see if it doesn't "discourage production" in China. And let's see if there aren't folks here in America who have the capital and expertise and willingness to meet the American market demands.
“As the leader of the West and as a country that has become great and rich because of economic freedom, America must be an unrelenting advocate of free trade.”
Ronald Reagan (but I gess he had chinese masters too?)
No. It isn't even close to that.
Nuclear power is a thermal engine. It generates heat to go through a turbine and has to go through a condenser to cool the working water in order to make the cycle complete. It is bound by the Carnot cycle.
The average efficiency of the US nuclear power plants is 32.6%. They take on average 10,464 BTUs of heat to produce 1 kilowatt-hour of electrical energy. A kilowatt-hour has 3,412 BTUs.
The average Natural Gas power plant is 41.8% efficient taking 8,152 BTUs to produce a kilowatt-hour of electrical energy.
Average Operating Heat Rate for Selected Energy Sources
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html
If he doesn't mean the gains for JPM and Goldman et al, then that is damned hilarious.
Milton Friedman, on orders from HIS Chinese handlers:
“One voice that is hardly ever raised is the consumer’s. That voice is drowned out in the cacophony of the “interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers” and their employees. The result is a serious distortion of the issue. For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number—for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs—jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.
Another fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.
The misleading terminology we use reflects these erroneous ideas. “Protection” really means exploiting the consumer. A “favorable balance of trade” really means exporting more than we import, sending abroad goods of greater total value than the goods we get from abroad. In your private household, you would surely prefer to pay less for more rather than the other way around, yet that would be termed an “unfavorable balance of payments” in foreign trade.
The argument in favor of tariffs that has the greatest emotional appeal to the public at large is the alleged need to protect the high standard of living of American workers from the “unfair” competition of workers in Japan or Korea or Hong Kong who are willing to work for a much lower wage. What is wrong with this argument? Don’t we want to protect the high standard of living of our people?
The fallacy in this argument is the loose use of the terms “high” wage and “low” wage. What do high and low wages mean? American workers are paid in dollars; Japanese workers are paid in yen. How do we compare wages in dollars with wages in yen? How many yen equal a dollar? What determines the exchange rate?
Ronald Reagan promoted free trade, but he also made the Japanese produce cars on American soil using American labor. Remember the “voluntary quotas”. He also protected motorcycles. Reagan certainly wasn’t an idealogue that was committed to free trade “no matter what”.
Probably not, but I'm also not going to waste a bunch of time looking.
What's cheap? If you pay only $100 a month for electricity that's $24,000 over 20 years. If you have 200 houses in your neighborhood you're looking at $4.8 million.
If you only put these in 100,000 locations at $2 million a pop you are looking at a $200 Billion dollar industry. The only real obstacle I see is government and the people who can afford to buy the government off.
On the other hand having your oil supply (and other critical resources) close at hand is vital in the case of a war. I don’t see us ever being energy independent but I’d like to see our energy needs supplied from the new world.
It's the same as those violently opposed to deregulation because of what happened in the CA energy market and on wall street but they just can't get it through their head that there was never any deregulation of either market. Politicians in cahoots with industry insiders simply came up with a way to make a lot more money and called their new regulations "deregulation". Just like they call our a lot of our completely unbalanced trade agreements "free trade" when it is anything but. Then people argue against "free trade" when they have never seen it. Certainly we haven't had a free market in America since the 1930's.
I can't say I particularly agree with the concept of tariffs, but I would suggest that practically any revenue raising measure would be less pernicously anti-liberty than an income tax.
No, he was an ideologue indeed - but you are being an idiot to pick and choose micro decisions that were made at certain points. Besides, I said that there are always exceptions in a given situation, where trade would be used as a weapon...but it’s always used to reinstate freer trade in the end. You’re arguing like a lib, saying that anyone who uses military force is anti-peace.
Sometimes you have to use violence to restore peace, and sometimes you have to use trade as a weapon, to restore freer trade.
I want abundant cheap energy. And i don't care if the process is "efficient". If nuclear had only a .0001 efficiency but still produced lots of power and doesn't use up our fossil fuels and doesn't cost more than the fossil fuels then who really cares whether it's efficient or not?
Your post #54 could be fleshed out and submitted as an editorial piece in its own right. Everyone has their pet theory, but the troublesome and undeniable facts remain as you cited.
"It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic. "
Thomas Sowell, completing the destruction of your argument.
I hardly think that. I'm arguing that Free trade the way it's implemented now has devasted our industries and caused our massive unemployment.
But once we are back at full employment and have restored key industries, then I'm all for taking advantage of the cheap communist labor.
I just don't think it makes sense when we have high unemployment. Our first duty is to our own people.
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.