Dear Free Trade activists - thank you putting America at risk of foreign manipulation

[Le Jacquelope]

You keep saying this Roxleby, presumably in defence of capitalism. But the Even Bigger Thing is that it would occur anyway through evolution

Everybody's standard of living went up when they found they could kill animals as well as find Jackal leftovers. Standards of living rose when they found they didn't have to roam the countryside in search of roots and grasses. Standards of living rose when landowners realised their peasants worked more effectively if they were fed and housed.

It's got nothing to do with grand strides in US led initiatives or barter becoming money. It's what occurs naturally given the circumstances. In much the same way that revolution occurs naturally when the peasants become restive.

The technological factors, whilst being a part of the equation are a very small part in the whole 'dynamism is a necessary product of growth' thing.

It's not anything new or unique. It has its beginnings in the trees.
The greatest and one sure factor of dynamism in society is words. Technology wouldn't exist without words. But words would exist without technology. Therefore, technology has little bearing on raising standards of living.

We can get by without technology. A lot less slowly and with greater incidence of mortality perhaps but society as a whole would still move forward because it is necessarily dynamic and is driven by words.

And we can get by without capitalism OR communism even more easily than we can get by without technology.

 

[gauchecritic]

And we can get by without capitalism OR communism even more easily than we can get by without technology.

But not politics.

 

[ccnyman]

You keep saying this Roxleby, presumably in defence of capitalism. But the Even Bigger Thing is that it would occur anyway through evolution

Everybody's standard of living went up when they found they could kill animals as well as find Jackal leftovers. Standards of living rose when they found they didn't have to roam the countryside in search of roots and grasses. Standards of living rose when landowners realised their peasants worked more effectively if they were fed and housed.

It's got nothing to do with grand strides in US led initiatives or barter becoming money. It's what occurs naturally given the circumstances. In much the same way that revolution occurs naturally when the peasants become restive.

The technological factors, whilst being a part of the equation are a very small part in the whole 'dynamism is a necessary product of growth' thing.

It's not anything new or unique. It has its beginnings in the trees.
The greatest and one sure factor of dynamism in society is words. Technology wouldn't exist without words. But words would exist without technology. Therefore, technology has little bearing on raising standards of living.

We can get by without technology. A lot less slowly and with greater incidence of mortality perhaps but society as a whole would still move forward because it is necessarily dynamic and is driven by words.

We could do a comparative study. Take the U.S. and compare its economy and technology with a country not despoiled with a semi-capitalistic system, A\a country where nature took its course. Let's see, I believe many of the African countries (or tribes are much older than the U.S.) or perhaps Iran which is the cradle of civilization and so has a huge head start on the U.S.

 

[xssve]

No -- Germany had to pay reparations in the twenties as part of the treaty that ended WW 1 -- under the Wiemar Republic. Germany suspended payments in 1931.

My bad, I meant post WWI.

 

[xssve]

But the post-WWII Germans wanted to be Western.

As an aside (or actually, on-topic for the thread), you could imagine trying that with the USSR. They'd have had Christians toiling away in subzero temperature gulag labor camps making cheap Soviet TVs for you.

Made by Dead Russian Orthodox Christians. I have to apologize to God for that one, since I've never met a Christian-hunting atheist that I liked, but still, the raw irony of it probably would have escaped Lawd-fearin' free traders.

Russia has ben trying to Westernize since before the Romanovs. Much of their failure has to do with Vodka I believe.

 

[xssve]

We could do a comparative study. Take the U.S. and compare its economy and technology with a country not despoiled with a semi-capitalistic system, A\a country where nature took its course. Let's see, I believe many of the African countries (or tribes are much older than the U.S.) or perhaps Iran which is the cradle of civilization and so has a huge head start on the U.S.

So economy and technology are the only measures of success?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You keep saying this Roxleby, presumably in defence of capitalism. But the Even Bigger Thing is that it would occur anyway through evolution

Everybody's standard of living went up when they found they could kill animals as well as find Jackal leftovers. Standards of living rose when they found they didn't have to roam the countryside in search of roots and grasses. Standards of living rose when landowners realised their peasants worked more effectively if they were fed and housed.

It's got nothing to do with grand strides in US led initiatives or barter becoming money. It's what occurs naturally given the circumstances. In much the same way that revolution occurs naturally when the peasants become restive.

The technological factors, whilst being a part of the equation are a very small part in the whole 'dynamism is a necessary product of growth' thing.

It's not anything new or unique. It has its beginnings in the trees.
The greatest and one sure factor of dynamism in society is words. Technology wouldn't exist without words. But words would exist without technology. Therefore, technology has little bearing on raising standards of living.

We can get by without technology. A lot less slowly and with greater incidence of mortality perhaps but society as a whole would still move forward because it is necessarily dynamic and is driven by words.

It didn't happen in the Soviet Union, or in China before it opened it's economy. It's not happening in Africa, or in Latin America after many countries there failed to follow through on timid market-opening half-measures. In contrast, it does happen everyplace that opens itself up to competition, innovation, trade and various forms of market dynamism. We probably aren't going to agree about what drives economies forward, but what I've described here is enough to falsify the "evolution" hypothesis.

 

[S-Des]

So economy and technology are the only measures of success?

Well, you could use Iran's record of treatment of homosexuals, rights for women, or religious tolerance as measures if you'd like. I'd be OK with scientific advancement (medicinal as well as mechanical) as standards as well.

 

[colddiesel]

It didn't happen in the Soviet Union, or in China before it opened it's economy. It's not happening in Africa, or in Latin America after many countries there failed to follow through on timid market-opening half-measures. In contrast, it does happen everyplace that opens itself up to competition, innovation, trade and various forms of market dynamism. We probably aren't going to agree about what drives economies forward, but what I've described here is enough to falsify the "evolution" hypothesis.

I assume from your argument that you would therefore not approve of subsidies which eliminate competition? For example the USA pays subsidies of about $12Billion pa to its farmers ,The EU almost as much and the Japanese about $6billion.How can Africa and Latin America possibly compete in these highly protected markets?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I assume from your argument that you would therefore not approve of subsidies which eliminate competition? For example the USA pays subsidies of about $12Billion pa to its farmers ,The EU almost as much and the Japanese about $6billion.How can Africa and Latin America possibly compete in these highly protected markets?

Your assumption is correct.

Rich western farmers with entitlement mentalities, ripping off consumers and taxpayers, and sucking the lifeblood from third world economies. Bastards, and asshole politicians who keep selling us and the world out to them. Grrrr . . .

 

[xssve]

Well, you could use Iran's record of treatment of homosexuals, rights for women, or religious tolerance as measures if you'd like. I'd be OK with scientific advancement (medicinal as well as mechanical) as standards as well.

Why would you want to do that? I'm referring to quality of life vs. standard of living - the two don't always equate.

In fact the evidence suggests that perception of inequality is th eprimary stressor behind high crime rates in the US and the developed world in general, i.e., there are no free rides, there are always trade offs in terms of opportunity cost.

It's pretty clear that political meddling and corporatist policies have a great deal to do with anti-globalization ethics, in these cases, resistance is clearly a reaction formation against the excesses of the effort to establish multinational hegemoney - and we're not necessarily talking radical Salfist terrorism here, but more critically, their support network, who while not perhaps entirely symapthetic to Salfist philosophy, provide aid and support due to opposition to globalism.

"Why do they hate us"? Conservatives keep asking - because we treat them like animals - the reaction formation is predictable and it's hihgly disengeneius to turn around and pretend your motives are above reproach.

Capitalism is a system based on making no pretense that self interest is a primary motivation of human behavior - the only motive according to many. Even conservatives used to admit that and not try to elevate self centered greed and psychopathic indifference to a virtue - this, unfortunately, is no longer the case, and confuses the issue with moralized rhetoric.

Criticism of globalization are loking out for their self interests, neither faction is catagorically more sanctified than the other, it's merely that the side with the money and the power has more forceful means at it's disposal to try and satisfy it's self interest.

It is our failure to apply democratic principle when it comes to protecting corporate profit margins that guarantee perpetual war, that too is human nature.

See Imperialism - with new means and modern techniques of propaganda at it's disposal, it's just another round - but I predict it will end the same way.

You can blame it on whoever you want, play "what if", and "woulda coulda shoulda", it's still going to be failure and that is the bottom line.

 

[xssve]

Your assumption is correct.

Rich western farmers with entitlement mentalities, ripping off consumers and taxpayers, and sucking the lifeblood from third world economies. Bastards, and asshole politicians who keep selling us and the world out to them. Grrrr . . .

What farmers? Those were cleaned out under Reagan, we're talking industrialized agriculture, calling them "farmers" is simply another propaganda technique.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What farmers? Those were cleaned out under Reagan, we're talking industrialized agriculture, calling them "farmers" is simply another propaganda technique.

I missed Regan's extermination campaign - was it like Stalin and the Kulaks? However I did notice a vast increase in professionalization and size as technology and production process advances led to greater economies of scale, and forced small one-man operations to adapt (like start growing some specialty or "organic" product) or find something else to do what with their lives. But otherwise, yeah, that's who I mean - industrialized agricultural producers.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Your assumption is correct.

Rich western farmers with entitlement mentalities, ripping off consumers and taxpayers, and sucking the lifeblood from third world economies. Bastards, and asshole politicians who keep selling us and the world out to them. Grrrr . . .

How do non-subsidized US corporations compete against Government-subsidized businesses in other countries?

That's like sending Rocky Balboa into a boxing ring against a guy in mechanized battle armor. What are Rocky's chances?

 

[rgraham666]

That's like sending Rocky Balboa into a boxing ring against a guy in mechanized battle armor. What are Rocky's chances?

Since he's also the script writer, pretty damned good.

Unfortunately we don't have script writers for real life.

Or perhaps you can look at subsidies as script writing, in your favour.

 

[trysail]

Fisher, Poole, Lockhart Say Trade Barriers Harmful

Fisher, Poole, Lockhart Say Trade Barriers Harmful (Update2)

By Steve Matthews

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Southern U.S. states should improve workers' skills to compete in the global economy rather than look to trade restrictions for protection, three Federal Reserve bank presidents said.

Barriers to commerce can backfire and hurt the economy as overseas partners retaliate by imposing their own restrictions against U.S.-made goods, the Fed chiefs from Dallas, St. Louis and Atlanta told a meeting of the Southern Governors' Association in Biloxi, Mississippi, today. The Fed presidents didn't discuss the current economic outlook or monetary policy.

``The answer is not protectionism,'' Richard Fisher of the Fed Bank of Dallas said in his speech. ``Rather than labor fruitlessly to protect your constituents from foreign competition, you and your legislatures must prepare them for it.''

Fed officials have been touting the benefits of free trade as members of Congress call for restrictions on imports from China, accusing the world's fastest-growing major economy of keeping its currency artificially cheap to benefit exporters.

``Some U.S. legislative proposals seem to be based on a presumption that trade retaliation is an effective strategy; however, economic history suggests otherwise,'' St. Louis Fed President William Poole said today.

Improving workers' skills can also help lure overseas capital to the U.S., said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.

``Attracting investment -- foreign or domestic -- depends crucially on having a workforce with the right blend of skills,'' he said.

Hurricane Katrina

Biloxi was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, which struck the Gulf Coast of the U.S. on Aug. 29, 2005. The storm swamped low-lying areas, including the city of New Orleans, killed 1,330 people and caused an estimated $96 billion in damage in Mississippi and Louisiana.

``The people in Biloxi have done a tremendous job in bouncing back,'' Lockhart said in his speech. ``While there's still a lot more work to be done, this region's ongoing recovery serves as a reminder of the resilience of the broader American economy.''

Responding to questions from governors led by Mississippi's Haley Barbour, the Fed officials said that job training can help workers thrive after they lose employment when low-skilled manufacturing plants close.

University Experience

``Some people will sit in relatively low-value employment until they get a kick from the behind that forces them'' to make a change, Poole said. ``And they will be happier having gone through the transition,'' he added, telling the governors of his own experience losing a job when he failed to get tenure as a university professor.

``How do we deal with the pain of job loss?'' Poole said. ``To some extent we have to understand that pain is unavoidable. I had to go through it and I came out the other side OK.''

The Fed bank presidents didn't refer to recent actions by the central bank to stem a credit crunch caused by falling values of securities backed by subprime mortgages.

On Aug. 17, the Fed cut the discount rate on direct loans to banks in an effort to increase the availability of capital as investors shunned assets linked to subprime mortgages. Policy makers pledged ``to act as needed'' to ease the impact of market turbulence on the economy.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

How do non-subsidized US corporations compete against Government-subsidized businesses in other countries?

That's like sending Rocky Balboa into a boxing ring against a guy in mechanized battle armor. What are Rocky's chances?

Oh, I missed this one before.

Here's a great example, although it's not perfectly "clean": Boeing vs. Airbus. B is kicking A's butt, because A not only gets the subsidies, it gets the accompanying skewed incentives, enabling of sloppy practices and decision making, and political manipulations promoting that last.

 

[amicus]

Oh, I missed this one before.

Here's a great example, although it's not perfectly "clean": Boeing vs. Airbus. B is kicking A's butt, because A not only gets the subsidies, it gets the accompanying skewed incentives, enabling of sloppy practices and decision making, and political manipulations promoting that last.

~~~

You are probably aware that Boeing Companie's new 767 or 787, I forget, with a more fuel efficient and cleaner burning jet engine is taking future market orders away from the subsidized Airbus corporation. I think it may have something to do with the freedom to innovate in a competitive environment.

Amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

~~~

You are probably aware that Boeing Companie's new 767 or 787, I forget, with a more fuel efficient and cleaner burning jet engine is taking future market orders away from the subsidized Airbus corporation. I think it may have something to do with the freedom to innovate in a competitive environment.

Amicus...

Yeah, I think it's the 787 they call the "Dreamliner," the first big "plastic" jet (composites). Boeing is now many years ahead of Airbus in this vital next generation of commercial airliner, because the latter has been dinking around with that monstrous and highly problematic double-decker jumbo, which is increasingly looking like a white elephant. Airbus is also crippled by political mandates on where to to locate plants, which means it cannot efficiently organize production.

Boeing got fat, dumb and sloppy for a brief period in the last decade, and had a near-death experience as a result that caused them to straighten-up-and-fly-right. Airbus has always been fat, dumb and sloppy, because direct subsidies make it comparatively immune to such near-death experiences. It's not quite as bad as Reagan's "closest thing to immortality - a government agency," but it's much more more like that than like a real company subject to market pressures.

The example isn't completely "clean," because Boeing does receive indirect subsidies such as tax abatements, and benefits from the economies of scale generated from having a large book of military business, but it's much closer to a genuine free-market risk-incurring entity than Airbus. It's publicly owned, and if its managers fuck up and lose money stockholders get antsy and fire their asses. In contrast, Airbus managers have to worry more about stepping on political toes by closing inefficient plants. It's no way to run either a railroad or an aerospace company.

Bottom line is, Boeing's "the freedom to innovate in a competitive environment" is a byproduct of being relatively immune to those kinds of pressures, and of having the freedom to fail.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

FREE TRADE

When you buy something made in China (or anywhere) you pay for it with DOLLARS. Those DOLLARS get deposited in American banks. The Chinese then use those DOLLARS to buy American stuff to ship back to China. Stuff like airplanes, computers, oil, lumber, whatever we have that they want.

The Chinese DO NOT stuff all those Dollars into barrels and ship the barrels back to China. The Dollars stay here in our economy.

The Chinese also use the Dollars to buy our government debt. Treasury bonds. Or they trade the Dollars for other currencies. But the Dollars never leave America.

So the argument that FREE TRADE is bad for America is nonsense.

 

[amicus]

FREE TRADE

When you buy something made in China (or anywhere) you pay for it with DOLLARS. Those DOLLARS get deposited in American banks. The Chinese then use those DOLLARS to buy American stuff to ship back to China. Stuff like airplanes, computers, oil, lumber, whatever we have that they want.

The Chinese DO NOT stuff all those Dollars into barrels and ship the barrels back to China. The Dollars stay here in our economy.

The Chinese also use the Dollars to buy our government debt. Treasury bonds. Or they trade the Dollars for other currencies. But the Dollars never leave America.

So the argument that FREE TRADE is bad for America is nonsense.

~~~

Well put JBJ, and welcome to the forum...


amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

FREE TRADE

When you buy something made in China (or anywhere) you pay for it with DOLLARS. Those DOLLARS get deposited in American banks. The Chinese then use those DOLLARS to buy American stuff to ship back to China. Stuff like airplanes, computers, oil, lumber, whatever we have that they want.

But yet we're running a massive trade deficit with China. So, in a net sense, we're buying far more from then than they are from us.

The Chinese DO NOT stuff all those Dollars into barrels and ship the barrels back to China. The Dollars stay here in our economy.

For the most part, the dollars stay in virtual barrels on their side. If they sell it, that means they're selling it back to us.

The Chinese also use the Dollars to buy our government debt. Treasury bonds. Or they trade the Dollars for other currencies. But the Dollars never leave America.

So the argument that FREE TRADE is bad for America is nonsense.

Your facts have very large gaps. We're not gaining interest off those dollars and debt, they are. The whole point of them buying our dollars is it leaves America - that's why it's called 'selling it back' when they divest.

China knows they can ruin America by selling it back, which is why they're making these threats. Why else would China make such threats?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Oh, I missed this one before.

Here's a great example, although it's not perfectly "clean": Boeing vs. Airbus. B is kicking A's butt, because A not only gets the subsidies, it gets the accompanying skewed incentives, enabling of sloppy practices and decision making, and political manipulations promoting that last.

Uhm, isn't Boeing subsidized?

 

[Handprints]

FREE TRADE

When you buy something made in China (or anywhere) you pay for it with DOLLARS.

The Chinese also use the Dollars to buy our government debt. Treasury bonds. Or they trade the Dollars for other currencies. But the Dollars never leave America.

So the argument that FREE TRADE is bad for America is nonsense.

Just an addendum from me: while you can argue than free trade doesn't often do any harm, imbalanced trade can sometimes be bad, sometimes not.

The US' trade imbalance with China is keeping prices for a lot of things in the US low, keeping inflation way down (under the 100-year average for almost a decade), increasing employment in the retail sector, etc. However, it can cause structural problems, particularly if one nation's exports are significantly higher-tech than the other's: the high-tech exporter might lose a lot of its remaining low tech jobs; the low-tech one has trouble justifying investment in kick-starting any high-tech industry (unless it's a centrally-planned economy, like China's or Singapore's.)

Imbalances also put strain on currencies: the US' imbalance with China is definitely putting some downward pressure on the dollar although, to be fair, US' trade with Asia as a whole is more or less balanced. China's escaping upward pressure on its currency by use of sterilisation accounts (it's amazing how many problems you can solve with a balanced budget, no debt and spare cash.)

Hope that's of use and thanks for the crystal-clear explanation you gave,
H

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Uhm, isn't Boeing subsidized?

See my post 144 above. Short answer: Indirectly, to a very modest degree. Nothing remotely comparable to Airbus.

BTW, I hope you're taking notes on the priceless economic lessons Handprints is giving over in Ami's "shang challenge" thread.