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

Lost User

Although you can use the thumbs-up and thumbs-down symbols, there certainly has been a more adult feel to the place now that voting and message reporting can no longer be done. To discuss an issue with people who actually want to discuss issues has been made all the more possible. But that won't mean that there won't be reasons to have full bodied - even full blooded - arguments. Thus far a benefit and AFAIK, no moderators in sight, so, it does shows that we can behave like adults. :)

73Zeppelin

We should wear Shriner hats and pledge allegiance to disembodied heads.

Stan Shannon

I think competition at every level of society improves quality and lowers prices. I don't believe for a moment that there is any society or ethnicity on the planet that doesn't understand that, or cannot achieve it with a little effort. But, I don't believe that there is anything inherent in tariffs that encourages that one way or another. The only way that would work is if every society on the planet isolated itself economically from all the others and each one lived as a little economic island. 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 just don't see it happening. You have to go in one direction or the other - economic unification or economic disintegration. Economic stability will never happen anywhere.

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.

Lost User

Stan Shannon wrote:

Economic stability will never happen anywhere.

With the right instruments in place, there is a chance of that happening. But defining those instruments will be most problematic, it becomes internationally and domestically political very quickly and can get very messy indeed.

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:

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:

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

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

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.