Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I responded to your question. I pointed out that cleaning out the areas inside Pakistan is not the issue. The issue is that we do not have, and have not ever had, enough troops in Afghanistan to provide even basic security or stability within the country.

Recently, I heard that we also don't have enough troops to repel the Taliban's anticipated spring offensive. (Again, that would be inside Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.) On this point, I acknowledge that the person who said this is a demonstrated incompetent when it comes to issues of military planning and strategy, so if you say he's wrong I suppose I'll believe you.

Or, instead, you could just keep asking the same question and pretending that I didn't answer.

If you can't clear Pakistan all you are doing is keeping troops in Afghanistan forever- you can't "win." The DEMS here who actually know, or read things, have admitted that the additional troops are on the order of 10 or 20, 000. Between the countries with combat troops there that wouldn't be anything. (As an aside, Bush can't fuck up a war being fought by so many countries anymore than he "failed" to get Osama in the mountains.)

The only valid argument anyone here made was GGG's point that the type of troop that we need for the 20000 was largely troops that are all tied up in Iraq- that is some specialists. But you aren't making that point, are you?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you can't clear Pakistan all you are doing is keeping troops in Afghanistan forever- you can't "win." The DEMS here who actually know, or read things, have admitted that the additional troops are on the order of 10 or 20, 000. Between the countries with combat troops there that wouldn't be anything. (As an aside, Bush can't fuck up a war being fought by so many countries anymore than he "failed" to get Osama in the mountains.)

The only valid argument anyone here made was GGG's point that the type of troop that we need for the 20000 was largely troops that are all tied up in Iraq- that is some specialists. But you aren't making that point, are you?

I take it by this post that you don't agree with or give any credence to my view that we are never going to successfully get out of either Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you can't clear Pakistan all you are doing is keeping troops in Afghanistan forever- you can't "win." The DEMS here who actually know, or read things, have admitted that the additional troops are on the order of 10 or 20, 000. Between the countries with combat troops there that wouldn't be anything. (As an aside, Bush can't fuck up a war being fought by so many countries anymore than he "failed" to get Osama in the mountains.)

Let me guess -- back in 2001, you predicted that Bush would have to beg NATO to provide more troops, just like you predicted that the war in Iraq would last a good five years.

Your "aside", however, is particularly ridiculous. You were expecting France to lead this war? Or maybe Ecuador?

The only valid argument anyone here made was GGG's point that the type of troop that we need for the 20000 was largely troops that are all tied up in Iraq- that is some specialists. But you aren't making that point, are you?

I've made that point a number of times on this board. One of the ways Bush fucked up Afghanistan was by diverting troops to Iraq.

You agree with that now?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I take it by this post that you don't agree with or give any credence to my view that we are never going to successfully get out of either Iraq or Afghanistan?

That may be true, but if it is then that's not Bush's fault. Both wars have had lots and lots of countries fighting them.

The Coalition of the Barely Willing has not become the Coalition of the Potential Scapegoat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I take it by this post that you don't agree with or give any credence to my view that we are never going to successfully get out of either Iraq or Afghanistan?

I hadn't seen that. Of course you have my proxy on all things Politics. I'll stand down.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Adder
You assume that it is even possible to maintain a wage gap between the U.S. and other countries.

There are all sort of policies to promote economic nationalism. Tarriffs, currency controls, capital controls, discriminatory regulations, excise taxes. Japan and many other developed countries have economic policies that put their country first.

The elitists like to say globalism is inevitable. It isn't at all. Ronald Reagan, Greenspan, and other intionally reduced taxes, regulations, tarriffs, and so on, in order to grow the economy faster. They knew this would result in greater inequality, but they didn't care. Other people do. And their numbers will only increase. White collar workers are politically active. They have voices to protest, and slow down, and even stop free trade and immigration policies.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
There are all sort of policies to promote economic nationalism. Tarriffs, currency controls, capital controls, discriminatory regulations, excise taxes.

You think the American and Eruopean explosion of economic growth in the 20th century was completely unconnected to the decline of such policies?

Japan and many other developed countries have economic policies that put their country first.

How's that working out for Japan?

The elitists like to say globalism is inevitable. It isn't at all.

It isn't inevitable, but it is necessary to long-term growth and stability.

Ronald Reagan, Greenspan, and other intionally reduced taxes, regulations, tarriffs, and so on, in order to grow the economy faster.

The reductions in barriers to trade pre-date (by a long time) both of those individuals, but I am sure Greenspan will be happy to learn that he is being given credit for trade policy.

They knew this would result in greater inequality, but they didn't care. Other people do. And their numbers will only increase. White collar workers are politically active. They have voices to protest, and slow down, and even stop free trade and immigration policies.

Thanks for dropping in, Pat.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Free trade is not in the interest of most voters

Considering that most of the US economy, and almost every job in it is reliant on free trade, this statement could not be more wrong

Originally posted by Tables R Us
because most voters get most of their money from wages

I think about seventy percent of the economy is service based. Most serviced based jobs can't be exported. Many can, but the overwhelming majority can't making this statement completely erroneous.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
and free trade with low wage countries bids down the price of labor.

In certain areas we don't have a comparative advantage in, but bids them up in areas we do have a comparative advantage.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
China's minstry of commerce estimates that 30% of US white collar jobs will be offshored by 2010.

????. Do you even understand what this means? Where did you get this? Are you saying that 30% of the white collar jobs that are currently in the US, or you talking about an increase from from some percentage to thirty percent (meaning a certain percentage below thirty percent are already offshored and it will increase to 30%)?

Originally posted by Tables R Us China intends to transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy by taking these jobs.

Like most people that have a minimal understanding of economics, you think that economics is a zero sum game. It is not. Both the Chinese economy and the US economy, if they both continue to grow, will continue to create jobs.

Originally posted by Tables R Us Corporate profits in the US are at a historic high because wage competition from other countries has depressed wage growth for most workers.

For almost the entire history of this country there has been wage competition from other countries. Restriction on free trade does nothing to address this issue. Trade restrictions just simply benefit certain interests groups at the expense of the rest of the nation.

Originally posted by Tables R Us The democrats are right to oppose free trade with low wage countries like China. It's not in the interest of most voters.

Trade restrictions benefit very few people, and deprive the rest of the country of jobs and lower prices.

Originally posted by Tables R Us Article on how US companies want Indian and Chinese engineers because they're cheaper than US engineers. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/i...urced_to_India

How will trade restrictions stop this from happening?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your "aside", however, is particularly ridiculous. You were expecting France to lead this war? Or maybe Ecuador?

I bet a General is leading it. Or do you think the French are following Bush on this one?

I've made that point a number of times on this board. One of the ways Bush fucked up Afghanistan was by diverting troops to Iraq.

You agree with that now?

the only point you made is that you don't have very good reading comprehension. Sorry otoh you've done a great job advocating that you lack reading comprehension- silver lining Mr. Advocate!!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
There are all sort of policies to promote economic nationalism. Tarriffs, currency controls, capital controls, discriminatory regulations, excise taxes. Japan and many other developed countries have economic policies that put their country first.

The elitists like to say globalism is inevitable. It isn't at all. Ronald Reagan, Greenspan, and other intionally reduced taxes, regulations, tarriffs, and so on, in order to grow the economy faster. They knew this would result in greater inequality, but they didn't care. Other people do. And their numbers will only increase. White collar workers are politically active. They have voices to protest, and slow down, and even stop free trade and immigration policies.

This is an "Onion" type thing, right?

If not, PM me your cures for cancer and heart disease. I'm no elitist; you're high.

The labor marketplace is irreversibly global. No, I'm not explaining it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your "aside", however, is particularly ridiculous. You were expecting France to lead this war?

Its got a very French feel at the moment.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
You think the American and Eruopean explosion of economic growth in the 20th century was completely unconnected to the decline of such policies?



How's that working out for Japan?



It isn't inevitable, but it is necessary to long-term growth and stability.



The reductions in barriers to trade pre-date (by a long time) both of those individuals, but I am sure Greenspan will be happy to learn that he is being given credit for trade policy.



Thanks for dropping in, Pat.

:td:

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
Like most people that have a minimal understanding of economics, you think that economics is a zero sum game. It is not. Both the Chinese economy and the US economy, if they both continue to grow, will continue to create jobs.

You don't understand the concept of absolute advantage in trade policy, and how it leads to one country winning and the other losing (pareto inefficient), as opposed to trade based on comparative advantage where both win (pareto efficient). There are a number of trade requirements to insure that a high wage country does not lose due to trade based on absolute advantage. One of them is that there is no movement of labor or capital between countries, unless foreign production facilities are only used to serve foreign markets. Otherwise, you wind up with trading gains to the low wage country, based on absolute advantage.

Adam Smith supported trading based on comparative advantage. He did not support trade based on absolute advantage. You and Adder aren't making arguments grounded in economic theory. You are making arguments based on libertarianism, and Adder is making arguments based on some kind of liberal utilitarianism. You two should really do some research. Trade based on absolute advantage leads to a lower standard of living.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
You don't understand the concept of absolute advantage in trade policy, and how it leads to one country winning and the other losing, as opposed to trade based on comparative advantage where both win. There are a number of trade requirements to insure that a high wage country does not lose due to trade based on absolute advantage. One of them is that there is no movement of labor or capital between countries. Otherwise, you wind up with trading gains to the low wage country, based on absolute advantage. Another big requirement is that both countries must be operating at their productive capacity. Otherwise, the country with excess labor wins at the other's expense. Almost all the third world is not operating at capacity.

Adam Smith supported trading based on comparative advantage. He did not support trade based on absolute advantage. You and Adder aren't making arguments grounded in economic theory. You are making arguments based on libertarianism, and Adder is making arguments based on some kind of liberal utilitarianism.

Are you really suggesting we attempt to, and even could somehow, prevent a movement of labor and capital between China and the US? How?

Your policies seek to avoid the inevitable and in delaying it winds up drawing out the pain. The folly of it is conceded by the fact that those who'd normally be your ally in the argument - the Democrat Party - don't even float these ideas. There is no policy cure all for this. We simply have to wait for the cost of foreign labor to rise until there's parity. China's is already rising. India's is in certain areas and will probably across the board in suit.

Shit, I think Business Week had a really good argument about why policy fixes can't stop globalization last November or December. It was general, but this is a general issue.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you really suggesting we attempt to, and even could somehow, prevent a movement of labor and capital between China and the US? How?

No, it's OK to allow US investors and businesses have foreign production in low wage countries as long as they are only used to sell offshore. You can use tarriffs, civil liability, and criminal liability to prevent goods from coming back to the home market. Toyota and Honda manufacture cars in the US for sale in the US, not for sale in Japan.

The Japanese have employed tactics like this for years, and they've preserved their standard of living at the cost of slower growth. A major reason that P/E ratios for Japanese companies are much lower than P/E ratios for US companies is that by law and by custom businesses are managed in part for the benefit of workers. Because of this, the Japanese companies are less profitable, so investors pay less for them. But partly because of these policies, Toyota is on its way to becoming the biggest car manufacturer in the world.