A fool-proof plan for economic recovery: [modified]

[Oakman]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Wonder what you might be forced to drive if the USA (and the world) went protectionism.

Any country that does not: manipulate its currency, have high tariff barriers with the US, enslave its workers, disregard the impact of its industry on the environment, or manufacture goods that are dangerous or deadly to use, should not be protected against. I'm not quite sure who-all that might be, but I suspect that most of western Europe could fit into that category - if they eliminated their own tariffs.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

This SB has been amazing this last few days.

I suspect that a number of us - myself maybe most of all - realised that we'd become the kind of posters we wished would go away.

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]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

AFAIK, no moderators in sight

Which doesn't mean there aren't any. In another website for which I am webmaster, there are two moderators - neigher of whom is known to the rest of the members. I'm still betting on Rob. ;)

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]

Oakman wrote:

Sure we will. Just as creating all those terribly expensive manufacturing plants during WWII fueled prosperity by creating new, high-paying, jobs.

The only reason that worked is because all the other industrial societies were dropping bombs on one another's factories. That same situation is never going to work forever. You simply create a condition where the guy screwing a bolt on a wheel expects to be as well paid as the guy who designed the car.

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.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I think competition at every level of society improves quality and lowers prices.

I agree. But the field upon which the competition takes place need to be more or less level. When our industry "competes" with China's but cannot use slaves, spew sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere in ppt instead of ppm, or poison its customers with impunity there is no question about who wins the competition, is there?

Stan Shannon wrote:

But even then you would have regions within those islands that would be more or less likely to cooperate with the other regions and the same basic problems would still exist, so you would need further isolation, just as illion suggested.

I've already spent some time this morning pointing out that geographical isolation permits the use of trade barriers. For Indiana to refuse to trade with the state next door would be like Portugal refusing to trade with Spain. However, the average Joe who might cross a state line to buy cigarettes more cheaply, is unlikely to book a transpacific flight to Borneo to buy cheaper shoes. The trick with tariffs is to keep them low enough that it doesn't make great financial sense to smuggle them in, but high enough to give homegrown industry a fighting chance,

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]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

With the right instruments in place, there is a chance of that happening.

I am entirely pessimistic about the probability of that. I am completely convinced that the next century will see a fully established global economy controlled by a single political entity, or it will see the complete collapse of human civilization altogether. One of those two scenarios is inevitable. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. The only issue worth deliberating is what the character of that political entity will be.

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.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

The only reason that worked is because all the other industrial societies were dropping bombs on one another's factories.

After the war, that's true, but during it? I wonder if we were exporting all that much - asusming that delivering supplies to our armies is not the same as exporting.

Stan Shannon wrote:

You simply create a condition where the guy screwing a bolt on a wheel expects to be as well paid as the guy who designed the car.

It would appear that some folks (not talking about you) presently think the guy screwing the bolt on the wheel should be out of work - as well as the guy who designed the car.

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]

Chris Austin wrote:

1. We siginificantly lower our way of life/cost of living. or 2) Consumers, have to demand higher quality goods and be willing to pay for them.

or We insist on a fair market. 1) We eliminate all environmental controls, the minimum wage, OSHA, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, the FDA and all regulation of the Food and Drug industry, and any semblance of a free market within our borders. or 2) We establish trade barriers that provide the competition for the comsumer's dollar with a level playing field.

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.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

There is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

The collapse of human civilization doesn't need to happen unless we accept that war is inevitable, which begs the question, does it need to be worldwide or can it be localized/regional? Are we giving an open invitation to the 4 Horsemen to do their worst.

[Chris Austin]

Oakman wrote:

2. We establish trade barriers that provide the competition for the comsumer's dollar with a level playing field.

Can we level the playing field with tariffs? For me, I see it as more of a break down of ethics. A lot of the walmart shoppers and nike buyers know that they are supporting near slave like sweatshops but they have managed to rationalize it somehow. Before instituting tariffs we would need to have a serious national discourse for there to be any real and lasting support. I can just imagine the propaganda and counter-propaganda coming from CNN and FOX.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?

modified on Saturday, March 7, 2009 12:05 PM

[Rob Graham]

An interesting point was made by one of the commentators on a Fox show this morning. He pointed out that it's not tariffs that are the problem, nor would they help US companies enough to be worth the negative impact (and likely retaliation). He argued that the real problem was that all our competitors governments subsidized the cost of employee health care, while US firms are expected to provide that subsidy, thus making the cost of doing business not a level playing field. Certainly that applies to GM, Ford and Chrysler, since employee and retiree health care costs are a major factor in their cost problems. (Clearly, China does not subsidize it's citizens health care costs at present, but it seems to be clearly moving in that direction.)

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

I'm still betting on Rob

You'd lose that bet...:)

[Rob Graham]

I think tariffs would likely do more harm than good. I would be interested in your thoughts on this post[^]. Well, if only I'd pasted the right link[^]

---

Last modified: 2hrs 10mins after originally posted --

[Rob Graham]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

The collapse of human civilization doesn't need to happen unless we accept that war is inevitable

You are assuming that the cause of the collapse will be war. I think it is much more likely that worldwide famine and epidemics will be the cause. The current economic problems raise the likelihood of a new pandemic, as hunger and starvation increase in places like China. Given the rapidity with which disease is spread in today's world, it is unlikely that the next great pandemic will be confined to the continent it begins on.

[Lost User]

Yes, you have a good point.

[Stan Shannon]

Rob Graham wrote:

You are assuming that the cause of the collapse will be war. I think it is much more likely that worldwide famine and epidemics will be the cause. The current economic problems raise the likelihood of a new pandemic, as hunger and starvation increase in places like China. Given the rapidity with which disease is spread in today's world, it is unlikely that the next great pandemic will be confined to the continent it begins on.

I agree with that. But war, famine and pestilence usually all go together. I simply do not believe that it is possible to effectively manage an international economy with anything less than an international government. And the only alternative to an international economy is no economy at all which means no real government at all. Just about any thing could trigger the implosion of massively overpopulated urban centers in the modern world. I think human civilization could be reduced to cannibalism in a matter of weeks.

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.

modified on Saturday, March 7, 2009 2:06 PM

[Oakman]

Chris Austin wrote:

Can we level the playing field with tariffs?

Probably be not, but we can get rid of the worst of the tilt. We have in the past, inspite of what the globalists say.

Chris Austin wrote:

For me, I see it as more of a break down of ethics.

I couldn't agree with you more. It wasn't that long ago that Sam Walton was on TV saying that if it was made in America, then the American brand was all he sold. Now, Walmart's products might have well each come with a 12 year old chained to it.

Chris Austin wrote:

we would need to have a serious national discourse for there to be any real and lasting support. I can just imagine the propaganda and counter-propaganda coming from CNN and FOX.

I'd be delighted with that much for the immediate future. However, the left and the right sem united in their willful ignorance and unwillingness to acknowledge that the false prosperity of being able to buy goods cheaply is predicated on our willingness to accept the fruits of slavery and injustice - not to mention the pollution we accept as OK or the number of humans and animals that have died from imported cheap foods and drugs.

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]

Oakman wrote:

But the field upon which the competition takes place need to be more or less level. When our industry "competes" with China's but cannot use slaves, spew sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere in ppt instead of ppm, or poison its customers with impunity there is no question about who wins the competition, is there?

One would like to think so. But just because we value you certain principles does not mean that those principles are the most economically viable. Frankly, I think any population that would embrace socialistic principles would be more, not less, likely to embrace slavery than would one committed to free market capitalism. But I think that almost any society working its way from a primitive pre-industrial state, to a modern free market society has to pass through a period of some form of slave labor. I don't think our own society could have made the transistion without slavery.

Oakman wrote:

I've already spent some time this morning pointing out that geographical isolation permits the use of trade barriers.

But how geographically connected is California to New York? or Oregon to Georgia? There are any number of geographical subdivisions of north america which have every reason to be economically competitive with one another.

Oakman wrote:

The trick with tariffs is to keep them low enough that it doesn't make great financial sense to smuggle them in, but high enough to give homegrown industry a fighting chance,

And I think all we have to do to give homegrown industry a fighting chance is to get government and labor unions off their backs. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Get rid of that and it would help a lot.

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.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

He argued that the real problem was that all our competitors governments subsidized the cost of employee health care, while US firms are expected to provide that subsidy, thus making the cost of doing business not a level playing field.

He was, and you are, absolutely correct. Along with with the workplace regulations, environmental requirements, health care is a cost of business only in the US (and possibly Japan). Of course nothing beats having a throughly cowed labor force unable to protest against 7 day, 12 hour shifts and afraid to stay out sick.

Rob Graham wrote:

Clearly, China does not subsidize it's citizens health care costs at present, but it seems to be clearly moving in that direction

I'm sure it subsidizes all party member's costs. It only the 90% of their population that qualifies for the term, "peasant," that they let die from what would be minor problems over here.

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]

Rob Graham wrote:

You'd lose that bet...

Of course you'd say that. . .

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.

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

Chris Austin wrote:

You want manufacturing back into this country? Then be willing to pay for it. Don't complain when you have to pay an extra $200 for a computer monitor.

Jordan doesn't have any manufacturing to speak of, but I would happily pay more to get some decent quality products. I was positioned in China for 1.5 years and I know exactly what you're talking about and exactly what trash quality is.