Still Hating America.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
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.

You mess up the market with that sort of thing and you screw up many boomers' retirements. The fallout's enormous as we face down an entitlement crisis over the next 30 years.

This is not Japan. And Adder already addressed why Japan is no example for us to follow even if that were an option.

We can't afford slower growth.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
You don't understand the concept of absolute advantage in trade policy,

I understand the concept just like I understand the myth of the Unicorn. There is no such thing as an absolute advantage in trade.

Originally posted by Tables R Us 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).

The Pareto efficiency is applied to groups within in a nation, not a nation itself. Yes, in free trade situation certain groups in a nation are hurt (usually the monopolist) and others are advantaged (everyone else), but free trade between two nations always brings overall advantages for both nations.

Originally posted by Tables R Us There are a number of trade requirements to insure that a high wage country does not lose due to trade based on absolute advantage.

So you are saying a there are low wage countries (less developed) that have an absolute trade advantage over a high wage country (more developed). That would be news to the underdeveloped countries of this world. I guess if you believe in Unicorns (absolute advantage) then you can believe in anything.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
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.

Smoking crack is not healthy. You really should try to avoid it. Foreign production facilities are only used to serve foreign markets? Do you realize that if we only consumed stuff that was produced domestically everything you purchase in your everyday life would increase ten to twenty times in cost? Your cell phone probably has components that are manufactured in at least twenty countries.

Originally posted by Tables R Us Otherwise, you wind up with trading gains to the low wage country, based on absolute advantage.

Of course the low wage country gets trading gains but so does the rich country.

Originally posted by Tables R Us Adam Smith supported trading based on comparative advantage. He did not support trade based on absolute advantage.

Cite? What the hell does this mean?

Originally posted by Tables R Us
You and Adder aren't making arguments grounded in economic theory.

What are you talking about? Comparative advantage is a well established economic theory. That is what we are talking about. Absolute Advantage is similar to talking about Unicorns in a class on zoology.

Originally posted by Tables R Us 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.

What are your favorite authors: Lyndon LaRouche? L. Ron Hubbard? Do you believe the Trilateral Commission runs the world in concert with the Pope? I could "research" all this stuff, but it wouldn't increase my understanding of any subject. You need to reacquaint yourself with legitimate economic theory, and stop reading intellectually dubious books that are not based in fact or reality.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
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.

Because of their restricted trade policies Japan has not been able to make the transition into a service economy. The Japanese economy has not experience any significant growth since the late 80s. They have experience some growth recently but that is because they have finally reduced the power of MITI and MOF. Institutions that, through their insane bureaucratic rules, created all sorts of inefficiencies. In addition, because of their trade restrictions the life of the average Japanese sucks. I know, I lived in Tokyo for three years. Their standard of living is strongly diminished because of domestic high prices. The standard of living of the average American is two to three times that of the average Japanese because products in America are so much cheaper. They also are experience continued structural unemployment because their restricted system does not allow new companies to form. A company like Microsoft, Yahoo, or Google wouldn’t ever form in Japan. Japan is one country we should not look to for examples of who to emulate. You need to understand which developed countries have experience the most economic growth in the past twenty years to understand what policies work for developed countries. You need to do some basic economic comparisons and stop reading dubious economic treatises written by hacks.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Its got a very French feel at the moment.

Picked up one of those "tickler" things for $.50 in the Irish Bards bathroom?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It means he sounds like each and every other jackoff in the Senate.

He also said yesterday that Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst Secretaries of Defense in history. [I think he could have been fine in peacetime.]

The bane of a leader with a detached executive style is that, if you pick and trust the wrong suboordinates, you're screwed. (Especially if you think firing them will make you look weak.)

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
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.

Watch out guys, I've seen that word "pareto" in big thick books with lots of squiggly symbols.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
You . . . should really do some research.

One of the best Board Mottos ever.

S_A_M

[Adder]

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 (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.

Exactly zero serious economists (okay, there are some wack jobs out there, so maybe one or two) would agree with you that we a discussing a absolute advantage situation. Mostly because we aren't.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Adam Smith supported trading based on comparative advantage. He did not support trade based on absolute advantage.

Oh, and not that it proves anything, but the theory of comparative advantage is a concept that wasn't really developed until well after Smith's death.

[Spanky]

Political markets in action

By George Will

Two Democratic presidential candidates with national campaign experience are stumbling. A Republican candidate who has run only municipal campaigns is confounding expectations, calling into question some assumptions about Republican voters.


John Edwards has learned — surely he did not know it when they were hired — that two women employed by his campaign have Internet trails of vitriolic anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic, rants. One of them wrote a profane screed about God impregnating Mary and said the Catholic Church opposes the morning-after birth control pill in order to "force women to bear more tithing Catholics." The other woman, who sprinkles her commentary with a vulgar term for female genitalia, referred to George W. Bush's "wingnut Christofascist base."


When the women's works became known, it was reported that they had been, or were going to be, fired. Thirty-six hours later, after left-wing bloggers rallied to their defense, Edwards's campaign said they would be retained. Edwards explained that the women had assured him that "it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."


He really does? The two women — both of whom have resigned, pronouncing themselves, of course, victims of intolerance — are what they are and are unimportant. But a prospective president being so pliable under pressure and so capable of smarmy insincerity — what does he think were the women's intentions? — is very important.


In New Hampshire recently, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, "Now that we have a Democratic president . . ." Quickly correcting this slip, she said she meant "a Democratic Congress," but added: "If we had a Democratic president, we would end the war."


Well. She and others say they can "end the war." That phrase is a flinch from facts. They mean they can end U.S. involvement in the war. No one believes the United States has the power to prevent the war from raging on.


But if a Democratic president would implement withdrawal, the Democratic Congress could, by forbidding further spending to sustain forces in Iraq. So why is Clinton, who says that a Democratic president would properly withdraw U.S. forces, not voting for a policy she considers proper?


Congress has used denial of funds to express itself on, and influence, conflicts in Vietnam (1973) and Nicaragua (1982 and 1984). Also, on Nov. 2, 1983, two weeks after the bombing that killed 241 Americans in the Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, the House of Representatives voted on a measure to force the withdrawal of the Marines by March 1984 by cutting off funds for the Lebanon operation. The measure was defeated by a vote of 274 to 153, but the 153 included 18 Democrats who are still in the House, nine of whom are committee chairmen.

A question for the 18: If they believed defunding the Beirut operation was proper, why is it not proper to defund U.S. involvement in Iraq? One answer insistently suggests itself: They think that withdrawal would be too risky. Does Clinton agree?


Regarding the Republican race, for many months commentators have said that when the Republican base learns the facts about Rudy Giuliani's personal life (an annulled first marriage, a messy divorce, then a third marriage) and views on social issues (for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, in each case with limits), support for him will evaporate. But such commentary is becoming self-refuting. The insistent reiteration of it during Giuliani's coast-to-coast campaigning is telling activist Republicans — the sort of people who read political commentary — the facts about Giuliani. And so far those facts are not causing a recoil from him: According to the USA Today-Gallup poll, his lead over John McCain has grown from 31 percent to 27 percent in November to 40-24 today.


This does not mean that the social issues have lost their salience. People for whom opposition to abortion is very important might, however, think that in wartime it is not supremely important. Or they might reason, correctly, that presidents can change abortion policy only by changing the Supreme Court, so Giuliani's pledge to nominate justices like Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts is sufficient.


Furthermore, California's primary is being moved up to Feb. 5, and New Jersey's and some other states' might be moved to that date, so Giuliani's views on social issues might become, on balance, advantages. And suppose Giuliani convinces Republicans that he can become the first Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988 to be competitive for California's (now 55) electoral votes.


Markets are mechanisms that generate information. The political market is working: Americans are learning much about the candidates, and themselves.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

It's only Bush's fault to the extent he went in. The English should have learned from the Ottomans. The Russians should have learned from the English. And we should have learned from the Russians.

Nobody ever wins in Afghanistan. They just keep losing until they decide the fight is no longer worth the price. Iraq was just plain stupid to begin with.

[taxwonk]

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

Why don't you just answer the question, please.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
John Edwards has learned — surely he did not know it when they were hired — that two women employed by his campaign have Internet trails of vitriolic anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic, rants.

If Melissa McEwan ever wrote anything "anti-Catholic," a rant or otherwise, I've never seen it (and neither has this guy). But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Melissa McEwan ever wrote anything "anti-Catholic," a rant or otherwise, I've never seen it (and neither has this guy). But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Apparently, Amanda Marcotte's great sin was using the word "Christofascist" as a take off on the ever-popular Islamofascist. She's prettty clearly vulgar and has little or no couth, but I don't quite get the anti-Catholic rant. If we invited her to post here, she'd be right at home.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Apparently, Amanda Marcotte's great sin was using the word "Christofascist" as a take off on the ever-popular Islamofascist. She's prettty clearly vulgar and has little or no couth, but I don't quite get the anti-Catholic rant. If we invited her to post here, she'd be right at home.

Yes, but only Spanky purports to actually be involved in politics. And he is always right about everything, so no problem there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Melissa McEwan ever wrote anything "anti-Catholic," a rant or otherwise, I've never seen it (and neither has this guy). But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Who cares about Edwards? The guy's a one term senator with an amazingly chequered past.

You want to see the same Big Business that crowned our current Tut break out the full force of its wallet to squash a candidate? Nominate Edwards. He's a nightmare who's betting his entire candidacy on the most craven elements in our national psyche - entitlement and envy.

They'd have spent it last time, but they knew he was running with Kerry, so the fear that prick could actually get elected wasn't there.

I'd sooner vote for a Hillary/Al Franken ticket.