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

[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.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

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.

Perhaps so, but we do not have to give them the money to buy the whips and chains. We do not have to beggar our own work force by encouraging China to destroy its agrarian settlement in favor of slave labor camps. And we do not have to pretend that it isn't happening so they'll loan us some more money.

Stan Shannon wrote:

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.

You're right. Eliminate the 13th and 14th Amendments and we're all set.

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]

Would you agree that we do need a balance of reasonable tariffs though? I guess what I'm trying to get at is: Is it possible we've lowered the bar too far when calling something protectionist?

This statement is false

[Synaptrik]

Chris Austin wrote:

What you are refusing

I ignored the first attempt, but I'm not sleeping through economics nor am I refusing to see your point. I'm quite open to the prospect that I have it wrong. But I feel that this is worthy of discussion, so I'm persisting.

Chris Austin wrote:

1. We siginificantly lower our way of life/cost of living. or

The current market is forcing this.

Chris Austin wrote:

Once we stop consuming throw away products US based manufacturers will need to step up and outperform the competition. It's not something that can happen quickly.

I agree. But I don't see any real viable alternatives. A balancing factor is required and historically and currently in other countries this has been done through tariffs. And I should clarify that I'm discussing punitive tariffs but tariffs on par with the rest of the industrialized world, such as China, since they are mentioned earlier in this thread. They have more punitive tariffs against us than we have against them, so currently we are out of balance with our trading partners. I'm just suggesting that we return to a level playing field.

This statement is false

[Synaptrik]

Chris Austin wrote:

Can we level the playing field with tariffs?

Can we do so without tariffs? We're competing with countries that have tariffs. This isn't a level playing field. Case in point, the EU just added some for bio diesels against us.

This statement is false

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

He was, and you are, absolutely correct.

So, does that mean that instead of tariffs, what we really need is national health care to level the playing field?

[Lost User]

The United States have a number of tariffs in place. As does the European Union. As do many other countries around the world. That is fact.

Synaptrik wrote:

Can we do so without tariffs?

Only by being super-efficient in your manufacturing and re-introducing industry for products that you presently need to import. By that I mean, there is no one answer but you will need to put into practice the best traditions of systems analysis to assess probable solutions industry by industry, company by company, it can't be left to government. But if you want government to act in a particular way, remember the concept of an eye for an eye. Retaliation will happen, in fact, it is guaranteed, and a right royal mess with ensue.

[Lost User]

It is best to do away with all forms of protectionism. Tariffs, reasonable or not, is most likely to be matched by overseas countries.

[Oakman]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Thank you John. You have confirmed what I said in a thread below.

You continue to talk in terms of academics, I am afraid. In the real world, no country does not already have tariffs in place, and few if any countries have as few or as forgiving tariffs as does the US. Hardly any if we exclude the other English-speaking countries. Meanwhile we have repressive regimes which allow no free market within their borders, produce their goods using indentured labor in a manner resembling Nazi Germany's use of concentration camp inhabitants, spew deadly chemicals into the air without any scrubbing and export products that should be covered in blood to show what has been spent instead of money in their manufacture. And somehow, you talk as if the two are equals. :confused:

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.