Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What government change is going to have a serious impact on a minority when it comes to trade (in other words what change won't come from external forces beyond our control but actually policy changes by the US government that will hurt these minorities)?

The question is rhetorical, right?

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
So how do you stop AMD from hiring an Indian engineer to design a new microprocessor.

There are many ways. For example, one can require a license to do any job, condition a license on legal US residency, and punish employers of unlicensed employees the same way as we punish unauthorized practice of medicine or law.

Originally posted by Spanky
I am sorry but you are simply wrong about this. China will soon pass Japan as the second biggest market in the world. And since it is doubling in size every seven years, in the not to far distant future, its market will even surpass the United States. Do you really want to risk having our companies cut off from that market? And for what?

Per capita GDP in those countries isn't high enough for their economic growth to be self-sustaining any time soon. That is why they are heavily dependent on export driven growth, and will be for many years to come. Do you have empirical data saying per capita GDP is growing fast enough for them to stop pursuing mercantilist policies any time soon? Do you think they'll abandon policies of depressing their currencies relative to the US dollar any time soon? I'd like to see your data.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
What government change is going to have a serious impact on a minority when it comes to trade (in other words what change won't come from external forces beyond our control but actually policy changes by the US government that will hurt these minorities)?

There are many. For example, increasing J-1 or a H-1B Visas hurts US medical doctors by depressing their wages by forcing them to compete with foreign trained doctors.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The question is rhetorical, right?

No.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No.

I'm comparing two worlds: The one where the government eliminates trade barriers, and one where it doesn't. If you are suggesting that no one is directly hurt by government action, as opposed to natural market forces, I think you are engaging in a sort of sophistry to avoid acknowledging the plain consequences of the government action. If that's not what you're suggesting, I don't follow.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
There are many ways. For example, one can require a license to do any job, condition a license on legal US residency, and punish employers of unlicensed employees the same way as we punish unauthorized practice of medicine or law.

If the guy never leaves India, how will a license requirement help? You seemed focus on immigration but that is a small element of Globalization. How do you stop people from farming out services over the internet? If I email an accountant in India my books and he sends me back comments, how do you stop that? If I send my technical documents to be reviewed and edited in India, how do you stop that? People don't need licenses to operate in their own countries. With the internet they don't need to leave their own countries.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Per capita GDP in those countries isn't high enough for their economic growth to be self-sustaining any time soon.

What does self sustaining growth mean? Eventhough most of our growth in the United State is dependent on foreign trade, are we still capable of self sustaining growth? What relationship does per capita GDP have with self sustaining growth?

Originally posted by Tables R Us

That is why they are heavily dependent on export driven growth, and will be for many years to come. Do you have empirical data saying per capita GDP is growing fast enough for them to stop pursuing mercantilist policies any time soon?

What mercantilist policies are India and China pursuing? And why does GDP have to grow fast for them to drop these policies? If these policies are beneficial to them, why would they drop them if their economies grew faster than they are now? I also didn't realize that their GDP could grow much faster than ten percent.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Do you think they'll abandon policies of depressing their currencies relative to the US dollar any time soon? I'd like to see your data.

I think China artificially depressing their currency is hurting them more than it is helping them. Japan, Germany and Singapore all experience sustained high consistent export driven growth with strong currencies. Eventually the artificially depressed Yuan will hurt Chinese companies so much (because of their inablity to compete in the capital markets because of their lack of real purchasing power) they will have to let their currencies float naturally. In order to prevent their economies from overheating they will have to strengthen their currencies.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
There are many. For example, increasing J-1 or a H-1B Visas hurts US medical doctors by depressing their wages by forcing them to compete with foreign trained doctors.

That is a minor example. What steps can the US government implement (that it is likely to implement that will effect signficant amounts of people).

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
There are many ways. For example, one can require a license to do any job, condition a license on legal US residency, and punish employers of unlicensed employees the same way as we punish unauthorized practice of medicine or law.

I have more or less tried to avoid too much sarcasm with you, because you are obviously quite thoughtful, but I have to ask, what color is the sky in your world?

We can't (and in my opinion shouldn't) keep meatpacking plants from hiring illegal immigrants, how are we going to assure that carboard box companies don't employ unlicensed engineers?

Do you think they'll abandon policies of depressing their currencies relative to the US dollar any time soon? I'd like to see your data.

Actually, in all seriousness, they probably will. Trying to manipulate your currency is extraordinarily expensive. Just ask Malaysia, Thailand, Soouth Korea, the Phillipines, etc.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ha'aretz: The U.S. is more pro-Israel than Israel is.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Japan, Germany and Singapore all experience sustained high consistent export driven growth with strong currencies.

You left off the ultimate (well, one of them anyway) posterboy for your policies, The Republic of Ireland.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ha'aretz: The U.S. is more pro-Israel than Israel is.

Hardly surprising. In this country, you are an antisemite if you dare to question the Israel government. But it is hardly surprising that the case is different inside a healthy democracy.


(not that I care, but you also cited a blog again. bad Ty.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm comparing two worlds: The one where the government eliminates trade barriers, and one where it doesn't. If you are suggesting that no one is directly hurt by government action, as opposed to natural market forces, I think you are engaging in a sort of sophistry to avoid acknowledging the plain consequences of the government action. If that's not what you're suggesting, I don't follow.

This isn't that complicated.
You said:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that if the government is going to change policy in a way with widespread benefits and severe impacts on a minority, it also ought to do something to alleviate the impact on the minority, whereas you think those who get screwed should lump it.

I said:

Originally posted by Spanky
What government change is going to have a serious impact on a minority when it comes to trade (in other words what change won't come from external forces beyond our control but actually policy changes by the US government that will hurt these minorities)?

That should speak for itself. But maybe you will understand it if I say this way. What specfic acts, or what trade restrictions can be lifted by the US government that will have a serious impact on a significant minority of people in this country? What trade restrictions are still out there that if the US government lifts them many people will lose their jobs or have their wages seriously diminshed? Clearly, we are not going to have open borders anytime soon, but what sort of stuff is in the works in these current trade deals being negotiated that if enacted will have this serious negative effect you anticpate requiring significant goverment action to remedy the losses incurred?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
You left off the ultimate (well, one of them anyway) posterboy for your policies, The Republic of Ireland.

That is a good point.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
That should speak for itself. But maybe you will understand it if I say this way. What specfic acts, or what trade restrictions can be lifted by the US government that will have a serious impact on a significant minority of people in this country? What trade restrictions are still out there that if the US government lifts them many people will lose their jobs or have their wages seriously diminshed? Clearly, we are not going to have open borders anytime soon, but what sort of stuff is in the works in these current trade deals being negotiated that if enacted will have this serious negative effect you anticpate requiring significant goverment action to remedy the losses incurred?

I'm not actually sure what is on the table at the moment, the only current protectionist policy that I am sure of is the steel tariffs. And it is pretty clear which workers would be "hurt" by (rightly) opening that industry to competition. I suspect that there are agriculture segments that could have be in similar circumstances.

But anyway, perhaps we can see where you are coming from. Do you support job training and a social safetynet for those whose jobs are displaced? Surely you recognize that the longer-term society benefits come at the expense of short-term hardship for those caught in the transition, right?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Hardly surprising. In this country, you are an antisemite if you dare to question the Israel government. But it is hardly surprising that the case is different inside a healthy democracy.


(not that I care, but you also cited a blog again. bad Ty.)

My fear is if we leave the defense of Israel solely to the Israelis we will end up with another holocaust. In addition, if U.S. policy towards Israel were left up to the Jews in this country (or Jimmy Cater), my fear would be that we would end up with another holocaust on our hands. I just don't think the majority of the Jews in this country appreciate the threat Israel faces and that is why I think so many Jews in this country complain about Israel's uncompromising defense posture. My view on this may be skewed because I went to see a talk by the head of the nearby Israeli consulate at the local reform synagogue, and these Jews were really angry about Israel’s actions in Lebanon. It almost seemed like the poor guy was going to get lynched. I think if they understood the true nature of the threat, and the depth of the hatred, they wouldn't complain so much about Israel’s military actions. I wish I could have shown the audience this:

www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0