Capitalism? Nah, Moneterism.
-
No problem.
-
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?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why would you want to pay more for goods "Made in America" that are arguably equivalent to those cheaper goods made elsewhere?
As I just got finished saying to Stan, few people would prefer to buy a GM car instead of a Honda. But you can hardly argue that we have not become a throw-away society, can you? Or that the vast majority of goods coming out of the sweatshops (and Honda isn't a sweatshop) are shoddily made with QA an afterthought if considered at all.
73Zeppelin wrote:
America traded domestic production for massive consumption of cheaper foreign goods
Absolutely. And the only way I see to address this problem in the real world, is to stop allowing China to use Gresham's Law to destroy the American economy. I have no problem, by the way with having a fair market - one where both sides do not engage in protectionism, both sides show the same regard for the environment, and both sides show the same concern for the safety of their products. Any other form of Free Trade is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
73Zeppelin wrote:
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?
I am not suggesting that South Carolina engage in protectionist practices, geography would make that a waste of time. The United States has a much larger and potentially robust market for its homegrown goods than Switzerland or South Carolina could have. The EU, which is much more comparable has both overt and covert tariffs protecting its members than the US has had in at least 30 years.
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.
-
Yes, I still have it.
-
Oakman wrote:
Agreed. But in the real world, exactly what must the US do to achieve a positive balance of trade short of threatening to nuke anyone who doesn't buy from us instead of the far east?
Well, that's the 10,000 dollar question. With an increasingly diminished domestic manufacturing industry (I think you are about to lose GM), a large trade deficit and an economic downturn, I think it will not be easy for the US to reduce the trade deficit anytime soon. I think it should be a more long-term goal. In any event, the deficit should stop accumulating because I don't think there is much desire from the US consumer for consumption at the moment.
Oakman wrote:
That may be the received wisdom, but I think much of it is promulgated by the globalists (like Ilion.) But, the argument I have always heard has always been that poorer countries needed to protect their homegrown industry and only the great exporters (like the US until the 70's) could afford no tarrifs - so China, India et al should lower their trade barriers and understand why we are raising ours now.
It's good to question the perceived wisdom, but I don't understand how instituting protectionist trade tariffs will be beneficial to the US.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Well, that's the 10,000 dollar question.
Given what Bernake is doing to our currency, soon $10,000 will not be enough to get you on a bus heading for the next town over.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I don't understand how instituting protectionist trade tariffs will be beneficial to the US.
As I said in my response to a different post, I am all in favor of a fair market - with no tariffs. But trying to maintain financial parity with a trading partner that enslaves its workforce, destroys the environment, and manufactures goods that are toxic or dangerous, is dumb, immoral, and probably a violation of the oath of office taken by most government officials.
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:
Why would you want to pay more for goods "Made in America" that are arguably equivalent to those cheaper goods made elsewhere?
As I just got finished saying to Stan, few people would prefer to buy a GM car instead of a Honda. But you can hardly argue that we have not become a throw-away society, can you? Or that the vast majority of goods coming out of the sweatshops (and Honda isn't a sweatshop) are shoddily made with QA an afterthought if considered at all.
73Zeppelin wrote:
America traded domestic production for massive consumption of cheaper foreign goods
Absolutely. And the only way I see to address this problem in the real world, is to stop allowing China to use Gresham's Law to destroy the American economy. I have no problem, by the way with having a fair market - one where both sides do not engage in protectionism, both sides show the same regard for the environment, and both sides show the same concern for the safety of their products. Any other form of Free Trade is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
73Zeppelin wrote:
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?
I am not suggesting that South Carolina engage in protectionist practices, geography would make that a waste of time. The United States has a much larger and potentially robust market for its homegrown goods than Switzerland or South Carolina could have. The EU, which is much more comparable has both overt and covert tariffs protecting its members than the US has had in at least 30 years.
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:
As I just got finished saying to Stan, few people would prefer to buy a GM car instead of a Honda. But you can hardly argue that we have not become a throw-away society, can you? Or that the vast majority of goods coming out of the sweatshops (and Honda isn't a sweatshop) are shoddily made with QA an afterthought if considered at all.
I agree with all that. I think the US is in terrible economic trouble, but for the most part, this is just the chickens coming home to roost after engaging in debt-fuelled binge consumerism. The Chinese were quite happy to supply the US with cheap products and fuel that consumption by snatching up US debt. In my opinion, they used you as a money pump to fuel their own economic growth. The Chinese are aggressive economically, using the US an manipulating the renminbi. I think it's nothing short of economic warfare. This is why I am very concerned about the amount of US debt that they hold. What if they start dumping it? They're making in-roads into Africa and South America. They're snatching up your future trade partners. All the while, America was happy to peddle CDOs around in order to buy up Ferraris and hit the golf courses. And now everyone's standing around, scratching their heads, wondering what to do while, surely, the Chinese are planning their next moves, securing future resources and building up their military. Honestly, it frightens me a little. That's not an anti-American rant. In my opinion (and I'm not a growth economist), I think the US has to get right back to simple economics 101 along with a little patience. I think Americans have to learn the values of savings and prudent investment. They have to learn that buying things they cannot afford is irresponsible behaviour and that there is more to life than unchained consumerism. Weening dependence on foreign energy sources will bring jobs back home, and upgrading infrastructure will also create work and boost the economy. I don't think Obama is too far from the mark in what he wants to do. The problem is that people want a solution now and I'm not convinced that this can be turned around in the next, say, 5 years. This is a long-term engagement. You're trying to undo decades of a cultural predilection for debt financed consumption and a belief that bigger (be it cars, houses, TVs, whatever) is better. Start doing that and I'm sure, I'm sure, that manufacturing will return to the US and that people will be happy to buy Americ
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Well, that's the 10,000 dollar question.
Given what Bernake is doing to our currency, soon $10,000 will not be enough to get you on a bus heading for the next town over.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I don't understand how instituting protectionist trade tariffs will be beneficial to the US.
As I said in my response to a different post, I am all in favor of a fair market - with no tariffs. But trying to maintain financial parity with a trading partner that enslaves its workforce, destroys the environment, and manufactures goods that are toxic or dangerous, is dumb, immoral, and probably a violation of the oath of office taken by most government officials.
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:
Given what Bernake is doing to our currency, soon $10,000 will not be enough to get you on a bus heading for the next town over.
That could be a necessary evil. Too soon to tell.
Oakman wrote:
But trying to maintain financial parity with a trading partner that enslaves its workforce, destroys the environment, and manufactures goods that are toxic or dangerous, is dumb, immoral, and probably a violation of the oath of office taken by most government officials.
I couldn't agree with you more. It could very well be that punitive tariffs could do much in curbing such behaviour from the Chinese. However, I think there is an appropriate time and a place for protectionist policies - I just don't think that time is now. It's probably better to stabilize the domestic economy before the US starts tackling the problem of China - and China is an economic problem, both to themselves and others.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anything resembling a tariff was a temporary expendient until the next war of conquest could be organized.
As I pointed out to you, Rome allowed the Empire's provinces to level tariffs against other provinces. That was not a temporary expendient (nor were the tariffs against Persia, for that matter - they lasted longer than the US has existed) but a permanent part of the financial structure of the Empire. Interesting that you should be arguing in favor of big government and I should be arguing against people having the right to buy unfettered by government interference.
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:
As I pointed out to you, Rome allowed the Empire's provinces to level tariffs against other provinces. That was not a temporary expendient (nor were the tariffs against Persia, for that matter - they lasted longer than the US has existed) but a permanent part of the financial structure of the Empire.
OK, I'll concede that point to you - although I think a direct comparison of that to the moden conept of tariffs is a stretch. Conquest, as I said, was almost always to control trade and resources, which at the very least gives one an upper hand in the application of tariffs.
Oakman wrote:
Interesting that you should be arguing in favor of big government and I should be arguing against people having the right to buy unfettered by government interference.
For my part, I'm not arguing for it as much as I'm simply trying to establish that the problem has historically been difficult one to control by any means. The efforts to control economics by politics has always resembled a greased pig catching contest more than anything else.
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 wrote:
As I just got finished saying to Stan, few people would prefer to buy a GM car instead of a Honda. But you can hardly argue that we have not become a throw-away society, can you? Or that the vast majority of goods coming out of the sweatshops (and Honda isn't a sweatshop) are shoddily made with QA an afterthought if considered at all.
I agree with all that. I think the US is in terrible economic trouble, but for the most part, this is just the chickens coming home to roost after engaging in debt-fuelled binge consumerism. The Chinese were quite happy to supply the US with cheap products and fuel that consumption by snatching up US debt. In my opinion, they used you as a money pump to fuel their own economic growth. The Chinese are aggressive economically, using the US an manipulating the renminbi. I think it's nothing short of economic warfare. This is why I am very concerned about the amount of US debt that they hold. What if they start dumping it? They're making in-roads into Africa and South America. They're snatching up your future trade partners. All the while, America was happy to peddle CDOs around in order to buy up Ferraris and hit the golf courses. And now everyone's standing around, scratching their heads, wondering what to do while, surely, the Chinese are planning their next moves, securing future resources and building up their military. Honestly, it frightens me a little. That's not an anti-American rant. In my opinion (and I'm not a growth economist), I think the US has to get right back to simple economics 101 along with a little patience. I think Americans have to learn the values of savings and prudent investment. They have to learn that buying things they cannot afford is irresponsible behaviour and that there is more to life than unchained consumerism. Weening dependence on foreign energy sources will bring jobs back home, and upgrading infrastructure will also create work and boost the economy. I don't think Obama is too far from the mark in what he wants to do. The problem is that people want a solution now and I'm not convinced that this can be turned around in the next, say, 5 years. This is a long-term engagement. You're trying to undo decades of a cultural predilection for debt financed consumption and a belief that bigger (be it cars, houses, TVs, whatever) is better. Start doing that and I'm sure, I'm sure, that manufacturing will return to the US and that people will be happy to buy Americ
73Zeppelin wrote:
And now every one's standing around, scratching their heads, wondering what to do while, surely, the Chinese are planning their next moves, securing future resources and building up their military. Honestly, it frightens me a little. That's not an anti-American rant.
Anyone who considers it so is probably a a Know-Nothing Walmart Greeter. I think you're right on the money. It's certainly true that we climbed into this barrel ourselves, nailed it shut, and rolled over the cliff and into the river - now we're floating over Niagara Falls and yelling "Get me Out of Here!" I am more'n a little frightened more for my kids and their kids than I am for myself. I do not see any way of avoiding armed conflict with China.
73Zeppelin wrote:
They have to learn that buying things they cannot afford is irresponsible behaviour and that there is more to life than unchained consumerism
If they are given the time. Most of the real solutions, as opposed to band aids, will only work if China - and to a lesser extent Russia and India (though the latter is in danger of starving to death) graciously permit the (arrogant and imperialistic as they think of us) Americans to rise again.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I don't think Obama is too far from the mark in what he wants to do.
More and more it appears to me that he, and his allies in the Congress, are consumerists of the first water. They are borrowing money like crazy to pay for the governmental equivalent of cheap products, not because they will help, but simply because they have the power. One of the reasons I fear armed conflict is that sooner or later the next generation - the kids who cannot yet vote - are going to realise that my generation has hocked their salaries and their kids salaries in an orgy of spending. The only other response I can see is a deliberate inflation of the money supply to the point where the amount owed becomes small compared to our GDP (measured in current dollars) again. I cannot imagine that the Chinese would sit by a let that happen. Hell, the social security administration which holds 40% of all the Treasury notes outstanding might secede from the Union and We'd have another civil war, but this time the Blue (haired ladies) and the Gray (haired men) would be on the same side.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click inte
-
Oakman wrote:
Given what Bernake is doing to our currency, soon $10,000 will not be enough to get you on a bus heading for the next town over.
That could be a necessary evil. Too soon to tell.
Oakman wrote:
But trying to maintain financial parity with a trading partner that enslaves its workforce, destroys the environment, and manufactures goods that are toxic or dangerous, is dumb, immoral, and probably a violation of the oath of office taken by most government officials.
I couldn't agree with you more. It could very well be that punitive tariffs could do much in curbing such behaviour from the Chinese. However, I think there is an appropriate time and a place for protectionist policies - I just don't think that time is now. It's probably better to stabilize the domestic economy before the US starts tackling the problem of China - and China is an economic problem, both to themselves and others.
73Zeppelin wrote:
It could very well be that punitive tariffs could do much in curbing such behaviour from the Chinese
But, as I just said to Stan, the best bet with tariffs is to keep them high enough to help the local economy, low enough that smuggling doesn't become lucrative. If we go for "punishing" China, we simply empower whichever country's mafia owns a lot of cargo carriers.
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's probably better to stabilize the domestic economy before the US starts tackling the problem of China - and China is an economic problem, both to themselves and others.
Has China ever lost a war? (battles, yes.)
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:
As I pointed out to you, Rome allowed the Empire's provinces to level tariffs against other provinces. That was not a temporary expendient (nor were the tariffs against Persia, for that matter - they lasted longer than the US has existed) but a permanent part of the financial structure of the Empire.
OK, I'll concede that point to you - although I think a direct comparison of that to the moden conept of tariffs is a stretch. Conquest, as I said, was almost always to control trade and resources, which at the very least gives one an upper hand in the application of tariffs.
Oakman wrote:
Interesting that you should be arguing in favor of big government and I should be arguing against people having the right to buy unfettered by government interference.
For my part, I'm not arguing for it as much as I'm simply trying to establish that the problem has historically been difficult one to control by any means. The efforts to control economics by politics has always resembled a greased pig catching contest more than anything else.
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:
The efforts to control economics by politics has always resembled a greased pig catching contest more than anything else.
Someone pointed out that since political power has the ability to create problems for commerce, it also has the ability to create advantages. I'm not sure that hands-off is the only advantage - you have said you are in favor of regulation. Re Roman tariffs, it may be simply be that Rome's tariffs - being well regulated and less extortionate that that of the several thousand warlords they replaced, represented a lowering of the cost of goods and an increase in supply.
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.