Capitalism? Nah, Moneterism.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
So, even the EU is being protectionist.
And the United States isn't> Well from that PDF above, I copy this [quote] Despite the substantial tariff reduction and elimination agreed in the Uruguay Round, the U.S. retains a number of significant duties and tariff peaks in various sectors including food products, textiles, footwear, leather goods, ceramics, glass, and railway cars. [/quote] I'll not get into a spitting contest as to who is the biggest protectionist country on Earth. None of us are whiter than white in this respect. But, if there is to be a reduction in tariffs etc., then everybody wins. But if not, then everybody can be a loser, you and me included, and more so those in the developing world.
-
How much are you willing to pay for that industrial base? When you are paying a hundred times more for what you need to live than someone in China pays, are you still going to think it was such a good idea? At a minimum, protectionist tariffs would require getting rid of labor unions, otherwise they would be empowered to strangle the economy.
Synaptrik wrote:
No need to conquer the world. Just reinstate the tariffs we had in place for 200 years.
Go ahead and try it. You'll find out why its a bad idea. Why do you think the Romans didn't just raise tariffs rather than conquering other countries?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
We are definitely paying now for not having that industrial base. This country is dying. Go back 30 years. Life wasn't more expensive relative to now. Yet we had those tariffs. A single income could feed a family and send their kids to college. As it currently stands a double income is required and the kids might not make it to college even with that. So tell me more of the benefits of free trade. Its not free. We're paying heavily for it. Instead of the corporations paying for an equity of labor, we're paying for it by losing our equity of quality of life.
This statement is false
-
We are definitely paying now for not having that industrial base. This country is dying. Go back 30 years. Life wasn't more expensive relative to now. Yet we had those tariffs. A single income could feed a family and send their kids to college. As it currently stands a double income is required and the kids might not make it to college even with that. So tell me more of the benefits of free trade. Its not free. We're paying heavily for it. Instead of the corporations paying for an equity of labor, we're paying for it by losing our equity of quality of life.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
We are definitely paying now for not having that industrial base. This country is dying.
Yes we are. But tariffs would just make it die in a different way.
Synaptrik wrote:
Go back 30 years. Life wasn't more expensive relative to now. Yet we had those tariffs. A single income could feed a family and send their kids to college. As it currently stands a double income is required and the kids might not make it to college even with that.
The '70s saw the oil embargo, massive inflation, and other econmic turmoil. It was the beginning of the current era of economic decline. Between WWII and the '70s we were the industrial base of the world, but that was simply not a sustainable situation. Do you think we should have suppressed the re-industrialization of the rest of the world after WWII? If other countries have easier access to energy than we have, and if they have industrial capacity, they are going to be able to produce products more cheaply than can we. Our wealth is unavoidably linked to the control of energy resources, and that means as much free trade and free market capitalism as possible.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The United States, just like European Union countries practice a variant of free trade, but this doesn't mean that USA and/or EU are innocent of some protectionist measures
Ironically you picked two bodies who both have balance of payments problems and would probably benefit by being more rather than less protectionist. Let us rather, talk about one of the US's major trading partners - where non-citizens are not even allowed to own property (49% is ok) but which weekly demands that we think up even more ways of shipping our manufacturing business to them (besides NAFTA and CAFTA and SHAFTYAH)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Ironically you picked two bodies who both have balance of payments problems and would probably benefit by being more rather than less protectionist
Balance of payments is another aspect worthy of consideration. Have you ever heard of the "Stolper-Samuelson theorem"? From here International Trade Theory and Policy[^] [quote] The Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates how changes in output prices affect the prices of the factors when positive production and zero economic profit are maintained in each industry . It is useful in analyzing the effects on factor income, either when countries move from autarky to free trade or when tariffs or other government regulations are imposed within the context of a H-O model (Heckscher-Ohlin model). [/unquote]
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
capitalism is not the act of "aggregating capital".
That's true. But at the same time, I think he's trying to point out that we have, for quite awhile been trying to get along without any capital, just credit. By leveraging every ounce of real capital into ten ounces of credit, the banks have gone down the road of no return. By borrowing money for a house they couldn't afford, consumers have gone down that same road, and by writing insurance policies that paid off like they were casino jackpots, they created a a failure is its own reward mentality.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Secondly: tariffs will do more harm than good. Protectionism will just lead to retaliatory tariffs.
And how can that hurt a country with a horrible deficit of payments problem? Other countries will tax the pittance they buy from us because we are taxing the flood of good that are coming into our country? Forgive me, Zep, but we should care, why?
73Zeppelin wrote:
You sold yourselves out. You're dependent on foreign energy sources, foreign production and foreign demand for US debt.
You're absolutely right, but what better way of encouraging the development of our own energy resources, and our own production than making foreign goods more expensive? Why shouldn't we say that since countries like China and India (among others) pay subsistence wages to millions of people who might as well be slaves, we will add taxes to the cost of those goods rather than continuing to subsidize slavery, and economic exploitation similar to that of the middle ages?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
Ironically you picked two bodies who both have balance of payments problems and would probably benefit by being more rather than less protectionist
Balance of payments is another aspect worthy of consideration. Have you ever heard of the "Stolper-Samuelson theorem"? From here International Trade Theory and Policy[^] [quote] The Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates how changes in output prices affect the prices of the factors when positive production and zero economic profit are maintained in each industry . It is useful in analyzing the effects on factor income, either when countries move from autarky to free trade or when tariffs or other government regulations are imposed within the context of a H-O model (Heckscher-Ohlin model). [/unquote]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates how changes in output prices affect the prices of the factors when positive production and zero economic profit are maintained in each industry . It is useful in analyzing the effects on factor income, either when countries move from autarky to free trade or when tariffs or other government regulations are imposed within the context of a H-O model (Heckscher-Ohlin model).
Yet another half baked economic theory. If economists knew half of what they think they do, we wouldn't be in this mess.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Oakman wrote:
Ironically you picked two bodies who both have balance of payments problems and would probably benefit by being more rather than less protectionist
Balance of payments is another aspect worthy of consideration. Have you ever heard of the "Stolper-Samuelson theorem"? From here International Trade Theory and Policy[^] [quote] The Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates how changes in output prices affect the prices of the factors when positive production and zero economic profit are maintained in each industry . It is useful in analyzing the effects on factor income, either when countries move from autarky to free trade or when tariffs or other government regulations are imposed within the context of a H-O model (Heckscher-Ohlin model). [/unquote]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates how changes in output prices affect the prices of the factors when positive production and zero economic profit are maintained in each industry . It is useful in analyzing the effects on factor income, either when countries move from autarky to free trade or when tariffs or other government regulations are imposed within the context of a H-O model
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.' Richard, that kind of gobbledegook may provide steady employment for a number of academics, but once an economic model requires "zero economic profit," I'm relatively sure it is another attempt of a soft science to pretend it's a hard one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
How much are you willing to pay for that industrial base? When you are paying a hundred times more for what you need to live than someone in China pays, are you still going to think it was such a good idea? At a minimum, protectionist tariffs would require getting rid of labor unions, otherwise they would be empowered to strangle the economy.
Synaptrik wrote:
No need to conquer the world. Just reinstate the tariffs we had in place for 200 years.
Go ahead and try it. You'll find out why its a bad idea. Why do you think the Romans didn't just raise tariffs rather than conquering other countries?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why do you think the Romans didn't just raise tariffs rather than conquering other countries?
The Romans did had tariffs, which -- according to Historian Peter Edwell - were a major factor in determing the price of goods inside the Empire, and they traded extensively with Persia, which they didn't conquer. They even had internal tariffs which they called portoria levied when you cross from one province to another.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
We are definitely paying now for not having that industrial base. This country is dying.
Yes we are. But tariffs would just make it die in a different way.
Synaptrik wrote:
Go back 30 years. Life wasn't more expensive relative to now. Yet we had those tariffs. A single income could feed a family and send their kids to college. As it currently stands a double income is required and the kids might not make it to college even with that.
The '70s saw the oil embargo, massive inflation, and other econmic turmoil. It was the beginning of the current era of economic decline. Between WWII and the '70s we were the industrial base of the world, but that was simply not a sustainable situation. Do you think we should have suppressed the re-industrialization of the rest of the world after WWII? If other countries have easier access to energy than we have, and if they have industrial capacity, they are going to be able to produce products more cheaply than can we. Our wealth is unavoidably linked to the control of energy resources, and that means as much free trade and free market capitalism as possible.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Our wealth is unavoidably linked to the control of energy resources, and that means as much free trade and free market capitalism as possible
Stan, for the market to be free, it must be mutual. The Saudis do not have a free market; the Venezuelans do not have a free market; the Mexicans don't have a free market - of all out major foreign oil supplier, only Canada practices anything like a free market. The Chinese laugh at us for our trading policies. You can rest assured that they do not now, nor will in our lifetimes practice anything that might be considered a free market. When we dropped all our tariffs, it might have been quicker if we simply destroyed all our tanks and planes and disbanded our armies in one fell swoop, rather than piecemeal as we have been doing since the 70's. Either way would be an abandonment of the defense of our country and our way of life.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If you are not going to go kick ass, you have to be as economically accomodating to the lesser nations as possible.
Why? Being economically accomodating ultimately means being eaten alive, doesn't it?
Stan Shannon wrote:
We should have conqured them all when we had the opportunity, the motivation and the means of doing so.
Why don't we give Europe and Africa to Russia, India and the far east to China, and we'll take the Americas?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Are you saying Europe, Africa -> Russia India, Far East -> China or Europe -> Russia Africa -> India Far East -> China ? At first glance it looked like the latter, but when I read it again, it looks like the former.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Carpe Diem.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates how changes in output prices affect the prices of the factors when positive production and zero economic profit are maintained in each industry . It is useful in analyzing the effects on factor income, either when countries move from autarky to free trade or when tariffs or other government regulations are imposed within the context of a H-O model
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.' Richard, that kind of gobbledegook may provide steady employment for a number of academics, but once an economic model requires "zero economic profit," I'm relatively sure it is another attempt of a soft science to pretend it's a hard one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
I'm relatively sure it is another attempt of a soft science to pretend it's a hard one.
Funny how a lot of the people who pooh-pooh scientific climate models buy whole heartedly into economic theories based on ultra simplified models loaded with tons of assumptions. They hardly approach the rigor and evidence requirements for a true scientific theory.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Are you saying Europe, Africa -> Russia India, Far East -> China or Europe -> Russia Africa -> India Far East -> China ? At first glance it looked like the latter, but when I read it again, it looks like the former.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Carpe Diem.
-
Oakman wrote:
I'm relatively sure it is another attempt of a soft science to pretend it's a hard one.
Funny how a lot of the people who pooh-pooh scientific climate models buy whole heartedly into economic theories based on ultra simplified models loaded with tons of assumptions. They hardly approach the rigor and evidence requirements for a true scientific theory.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Tim Craig wrote:
They hardly approach the rigor and evidence requirements for a true scientific theory.
I don't want to dismiss the whole field nor all of its practitioners, I've thought for a long time that Economics is the great great grandfather of Hari Seldon's psychohistory. But, it is my understanding that while there were a number of people - some of them practicing economists - there was no model that suggested even six months in advance either the depth, nor the rate of decline of the economy. Human beings are very complex and, even in large groups, not all that predictable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
capitalism is not the act of "aggregating capital".
That's true. But at the same time, I think he's trying to point out that we have, for quite awhile been trying to get along without any capital, just credit. By leveraging every ounce of real capital into ten ounces of credit, the banks have gone down the road of no return. By borrowing money for a house they couldn't afford, consumers have gone down that same road, and by writing insurance policies that paid off like they were casino jackpots, they created a a failure is its own reward mentality.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Secondly: tariffs will do more harm than good. Protectionism will just lead to retaliatory tariffs.
And how can that hurt a country with a horrible deficit of payments problem? Other countries will tax the pittance they buy from us because we are taxing the flood of good that are coming into our country? Forgive me, Zep, but we should care, why?
73Zeppelin wrote:
You sold yourselves out. You're dependent on foreign energy sources, foreign production and foreign demand for US debt.
You're absolutely right, but what better way of encouraging the development of our own energy resources, and our own production than making foreign goods more expensive? Why shouldn't we say that since countries like China and India (among others) pay subsistence wages to millions of people who might as well be slaves, we will add taxes to the cost of those goods rather than continuing to subsidize slavery, and economic exploitation similar to that of the middle ages?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
And how can that hurt a country with a horrible deficit of payments problem? Other countries will tax the pittance they buy from us because we are taxing the flood of good that are coming into our country? Forgive me, Zep, but we should care, why?
You should care because you would probably be happier with a positive balance of trade. A positive balance of trade, among other factors, leads to a positive current account. Trade deficites result in slow GDP growth and unemployment. It also affects your net international investment position[^]. It's also unsustainable in the long-run, just like trying to live and grow on credit was. As a net importer, even punishing protectionist tariffs won't go far in reducing the US trade deficit. Anyways, I always liked Buffett's[^] proposal on this topic.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Protectionism will just lead to retaliatory tariffs.
Other countries already have tariffs that we don't. Which other successful industrialized nations practice "free" trade with no protectionist tariffs? Seriously, name one.
This statement is false
There's a difference between protectionist tariffs and punative protectionist tariffs. I think Buffett's import certificates[^] are a much better idea.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
capitalism is not the act of "aggregating capital".
That's true. But at the same time, I think he's trying to point out that we have, for quite awhile been trying to get along without any capital, just credit. By leveraging every ounce of real capital into ten ounces of credit, the banks have gone down the road of no return. By borrowing money for a house they couldn't afford, consumers have gone down that same road, and by writing insurance policies that paid off like they were casino jackpots, they created a a failure is its own reward mentality.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Secondly: tariffs will do more harm than good. Protectionism will just lead to retaliatory tariffs.
And how can that hurt a country with a horrible deficit of payments problem? Other countries will tax the pittance they buy from us because we are taxing the flood of good that are coming into our country? Forgive me, Zep, but we should care, why?
73Zeppelin wrote:
You sold yourselves out. You're dependent on foreign energy sources, foreign production and foreign demand for US debt.
You're absolutely right, but what better way of encouraging the development of our own energy resources, and our own production than making foreign goods more expensive? Why shouldn't we say that since countries like China and India (among others) pay subsistence wages to millions of people who might as well be slaves, we will add taxes to the cost of those goods rather than continuing to subsidize slavery, and economic exploitation similar to that of the middle ages?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Forgot to ask - did you receive my email?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates how changes in output prices affect the prices of the factors when positive production and zero economic profit are maintained in each industry . It is useful in analyzing the effects on factor income, either when countries move from autarky to free trade or when tariffs or other government regulations are imposed within the context of a H-O model
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.' Richard, that kind of gobbledegook may provide steady employment for a number of academics, but once an economic model requires "zero economic profit," I'm relatively sure it is another attempt of a soft science to pretend it's a hard one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
That theorem, and others that are relevant, was my way to show that the principle of protectionism is problematic on many fronts. And as in common with many theorem, they are meant to appear to be gobbledygook no more and no less in the same way that a computer program looks like an unintelligible mess to an uninformed person. So I make no apologies for introducing this academic aspect here. Zero Economic Profit doesn't mean what you might think it means. Essentially it means the "firm will make only normal profit".
Last modified: 1hr 35mins after originally posted --
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why do you think the Romans didn't just raise tariffs rather than conquering other countries?
The Romans did had tariffs, which -- according to Historian Peter Edwell - were a major factor in determing the price of goods inside the Empire, and they traded extensively with Persia, which they didn't conquer. They even had internal tariffs which they called portoria levied when you cross from one province to another.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
were a major factor in determing the price of goods inside the Empire, and they traded extensively with Persia, which they didn't conquer.
It wasn't from lack of trying. Persia was simply a bit beyond Rome's reach. The reason they conqured was to be able to control trade, resources and wealth. That is the primary reason behind the existence of all empires. Anything resembling a tariff was a temporary expendient until the next war of conquest could be organized.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Our wealth is unavoidably linked to the control of energy resources, and that means as much free trade and free market capitalism as possible
Stan, for the market to be free, it must be mutual. The Saudis do not have a free market; the Venezuelans do not have a free market; the Mexicans don't have a free market - of all out major foreign oil supplier, only Canada practices anything like a free market. The Chinese laugh at us for our trading policies. You can rest assured that they do not now, nor will in our lifetimes practice anything that might be considered a free market. When we dropped all our tariffs, it might have been quicker if we simply destroyed all our tanks and planes and disbanded our armies in one fell swoop, rather than piecemeal as we have been doing since the 70's. Either way would be an abandonment of the defense of our country and our way of life.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
I agree with all of that completely. But we really have no other choice. Tariffs would not cure that. They would just create a different set of problems. They would still be laughing at us.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
capitalism is not the act of "aggregating capital".
That's true. But at the same time, I think he's trying to point out that we have, for quite awhile been trying to get along without any capital, just credit. By leveraging every ounce of real capital into ten ounces of credit, the banks have gone down the road of no return. By borrowing money for a house they couldn't afford, consumers have gone down that same road, and by writing insurance policies that paid off like they were casino jackpots, they created a a failure is its own reward mentality.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Secondly: tariffs will do more harm than good. Protectionism will just lead to retaliatory tariffs.
And how can that hurt a country with a horrible deficit of payments problem? Other countries will tax the pittance they buy from us because we are taxing the flood of good that are coming into our country? Forgive me, Zep, but we should care, why?
73Zeppelin wrote:
You sold yourselves out. You're dependent on foreign energy sources, foreign production and foreign demand for US debt.
You're absolutely right, but what better way of encouraging the development of our own energy resources, and our own production than making foreign goods more expensive? Why shouldn't we say that since countries like China and India (among others) pay subsistence wages to millions of people who might as well be slaves, we will add taxes to the cost of those goods rather than continuing to subsidize slavery, and economic exploitation similar to that of the middle ages?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
You're absolutely right, but what better way of encouraging the development of our own energy resources, and our own production than making foreign goods more expensive? Why shouldn't we say that since countries like China and India (among others) pay subsistence wages to millions of people who might as well be slaves, we will add taxes to the cost of those goods rather than continuing to subsidize slavery, and economic exploitation similar to that of the middle ages?
I forgot to address this part. Why would you want to pay more for goods "Made in America" that are arguably equivalent to those cheaper goods made elsewhere? That's just artificially inflating prices. Are you telling me that you'd prefer to pay 50,000 dollars for a GM made Honda Civic equivalent than 25,000 dollars for a Japanese manufactured one? That makes no sense and that's what protectionism results in. And given a surplus of the GM Civics, what are you going to do with them? Export them?!? To who? Also which employers are going to be willing to up wages to cover the higher costs of living? Employers operate business for profit, not charity. I just don't see any rationale in arguments favouring protectionist tariffs. I'm pretty sure I'm not missing anything - even Paul Krugman is warning against protectionist knee-jerk reactions. I think the protectionist supporters are arguing down the same lines as those that got burned on CDOs - they just want someone to blame and punish for the mess that was domestically created. America traded domestic production for massive consumption of cheaper foreign goods. That's why the US has the large trade deficit that it does. Free trade didn't do that, American consumers did. You're probably lucky that you have free trade agreements, otherwise the trade deficit would probably be that much larger. I lived in a country that engages in protectionism - Switzerland - and it stinks; everything is overly expensive for no good reason. What resulted from the Swiss policy was high wages - now frozen at a cap - and high, unjustified, living costs. Is that really what you want? Do you think that is going to get you out of the current mess?
