Posted on 10/12/2015 9:34:55 AM PDT by pinochet
If you think the taxpayer isn't on the hook for record number of people out of the labor market then I want some of what you are smoking.
Your a Libertarian not a Patriot. You are man without a country and money is your God. Clearly.
Why should I address your questions when you keep ignoring mine?
I'm interested in a conversation, but you seem intent on preaching. Answer my questions and I'll address all of yours. I promise.
If you think the taxpayer isn't on the hook for record number of people out of the labor market then I want some of what you are smoking.
Politicians putting people on the hook for other people that politicians make unemployed has nothing at all to do with trade. Those politicians love for you to blame people on the other side of imaginary lines for the problems they create.
Your a Libertarian not a Patriot. You are man without a country and money is your God. Clearly.
Interesting how you view someone who holds liberty as our foremost ideal as somehow unpatriotic.
What is money to you?
"Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce."
The real enemy of this country and its people are those who would print 'money' to obtain claims on goods that their production does not warrant. The only way to save this country is to wrest from them this ability to counterfeit our measure of value, before they induce the complete consumption of all our real capital.
But if you remain ignorant of their machinations and their repercussions, if you fall for their scapegoats and ignore the actual source of your angst, they'll continue to fleece you the rest of your life.
All the founding fathers were protectionists, all.
Since you're unwilling to have a conversation I leave you with this, in a letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson (1785):
"Yet an opinion seems to be entertained by the late commercial writers and particularly a Mr Smith on the wealth of nation that the doctrine of the balance of trade is a chimera in pursuit of which Great Britain hath exposed herself to great injury."
Don't make the mistake of conflating the adoption of tariffs to help pay federal war debts with the embrace of protectionism as general principle. Hamilton's opinions on the matter were not universal.
What would have happened in Great Britain in the late 18th century if all the furniture making factories were shut down and the work force made unemployed, and these facilities and equipment shipped the the colonies where labor was dirt cheap? Then the furniture made in the colonies was re imported back into Great Britain, duty free, to be sold at the same price but the margin was bigger and the furniture makers pocket the difference?
Why should I address your questions when you ignore mine? I suspect you’ll ignore this question too...
I am willing to address all of your questions, but not when refuse to address any of mine.
It’s that simple.
If you want to preach from your pulpit of ignorance you’ll need a new audience. I’m interested in discussion, and discussion requires dialogue.
You asked once if I held stock. The implication is that (un)free trade is improving the corporate bottom line by employing slaves to manufacture our junk instead of Americans. Well as a member of the armed forced I was willing to give my life in defense of the Constitution and Americans. I would surly sacrifice a small portion of my portfolio to employ my fellow Americans. But I really don't think the dividend hit would really be that great maybe 3-4% at most....
And that would be the one caveat the ‘progressives’ here did not properly anticipate.
They thought they’d get all the goodies, but instead find themselves on the end of a pike from Russia or the US Citizenry.
Your propositions strongly suggest otherwise.
My questions to you are rhetorical and are made to show how stupid unFree trade really is to the detriment of all-Americans.
But they're actually not.
The amount of labor we desire is unlimited, and by engaging more people in the process of production and trade even greater levels of wealth (for us to consume or save) can be created.
You asked once if I held stock. The implication is that (un)free trade is improving the corporate bottom line by employing slaves to manufacture our junk instead of Americans.
That was your assertion: "These differences are exploited for the benefit of international corporations and their stock holders... The price differential is pocketed and not passed along." Have you changed your mind?
I would surly sacrifice a small portion of my portfolio to employ my fellow Americans.
What stops you from liquidating a portion of your portfolio now and hiring a fellow American? Is it simply a preference for additional savings over additional consumption?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Economic preferences are personal and entirely subjective. I start with the proposition that you know what you want better than anyone else can or does.
What you find unpleasant is that people would rather spend less on a product that happens to made somewhere else so that they have more money left over to increase their own savings, or perhaps increase consumption in another category, thereby improving their own standard of living.
If autarky were truly desirable, why does the U.S. seek to impose restrictions on trade to punish nations? That's not a rhetorical question. You need to think about the answer to that and how it jives with your understanding of the trade policies the U.S. should pursue.
In your view shouldn't Iran and Cuba be grateful that the U.S. denies them trade and thereby 'protects' their indigenous industries from foreign competition?
The blessings of comparative advantage are why free trade increases productivity, and thereby real wealth, and raises standards of living. It is a mistake to look upon China as a nation of penniless serfs. They're now the world's largest new car market, and that will be the case the rest of your life. They've only had a few decades of opening trade permitting capitalist investment. To the extent they pursue the mercantilist policies you favor, it is to benefit their corrupt leadership that seeks to keep their hand in the till.
I implore you to look deeper for the actual causes of the unemployment you bemoan. Regulations that increase the price of labor beyond market demands are the primary cause of unemployment outside of the 'frictional' unemployment that is the result of competition constantly replacing producers that no longer meet market needs. The secondary cause is a welfare state that makes unemployment more attractive than available employment. Neither of those are consequent to trade itself.
You assume there is no competition between the furniture makers, why is that?
The reality is that there is no furniture making monopoly (without government denying competition by law), and in order to increase profits some of the furniture makers would reduce their margins in a bid to increase market share, and thereby increase their overall profits - pocketing even more money.
This process of competition drives down prices, and consumers of furniture (far, far outnumbering the workers employed making furniture) enjoy the fruits of a larger market. The money consumers have left over after purchasing less expensive furniture permits them to buy other goods, the makers of which must hire additional labor to meet rising demand. This is part of the natural process of how living standards are raised.
And even to the extent that the furniture factory owners increase their profits, this is not a negative for the economy. Their accumulation of capital allows for investment in new capital goods to improve the productivity of their workers, or even investment in entirely new lines of production which could not previously be afforded. This is how economies grow and new products are brought to market.
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.