Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Sooooo, people in unionized manufacturing jobs lose, people in high-end white collar jobs lose. Who wins?

Not all manufacturing jobs lose. Not all high end white collar jobs lose. And news jobs are created in all this. For every job lost 1.2 jobs are created in its place.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
If you are saying the only people that win are upper management and superstar inventors, actors, musicians, etc, then you are re-shaping the economy in a way that leads to massive inequality and isn't politically viable without marginal tax rates of 70% or 90% to redistribute money from them to everyone else.

No I am not saying that.

Originally posted by Tables R Us Soooo, I repeat, are you willing to have that level of income and wealth redistribution? The natives are getting restless about free trade and immigration. They will protect themselves. Maybe with protectionism. Maybe with very heavy progresive taxation. Maybe with something else. But they will protect themselves.

No - the natives are not getting restless. Certain special interest groups are getting wrestless. The vast majority of Americans beneift from free trade. Their incomes depend on free trade, and all the low prices they enjoy in their everyday life depends on free trade. If the protectionists ever did something stupid like revoked NAFTA or the WTO there would be mass job losses and massive prices increases. That is when you would have the real backlash.

Originally posted by Tables R Us Rich people aren't going to get a free lunch. You're an economist, you know there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Free lunch? That is a term void of meaning. Use terms that actually have meaning. Economics is not a zero sum game. By using the term "no free lunch" you are implying that economics is a zero sum game. The majority of Americans always have and always will continue to benefit from free trade. Trade restrictions benefit the few at the expense of the many. You have not stated anything in any of your myriad posts that disputes that.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He posed a hypothetical. You fought it instead of answering it.

Everyone here went to law school. It's not like we haven't seen that tried before.

We are talking about the real world. If I pose a hypothetical where monkeys fly out of my ass, why would anyone take it seriously. We don't need hypos, we are talking about economic policies that are in effect and how they affect real people.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
The majority of Americans always have and always will continue to benefit from free trade. Trade restrictions benefit the few at the expense of the many. You have not stated anything in any of your myriad posts that disputes that.

Median wages per worker haven't done much since 1990. Since 2000, median wages per worker have done even less. Meanwhile corporate profits are at a major high. Globalization and technology have shifted major gains from workers to shareholders, upper management, and money shuffling bankers and fund managers. Do you have any evidence that since 2000 wages per worker have been helped by globalization? If not, you aren't talking about the real world. You're talking about some theoretical universe in which Spanky is God.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Creating new jobs won't do any good. The problem is that India and China target ALL high value jobs. And they have huge numbers of poor workers that will chase them. They will bid down the returns on almost ALL labor relative to capital.



China and India are counting on them doing just that. Last Sunday's edition of Barron's says China expects 30% of US white collar jobs to be offshored.

Have you considered the possibility that China and India might be overestimating things?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Most workers do their saving over a career of 30 years. If wages equalize 10 or 20 years from now, many workers and all retirees who depemd on them are screwed. If wages equalize more than 30 years from now, almost all current workers are screwed.

Where do you get your wild assumptions? Wages will not equalize in anywhere near either time period.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Median wages per worker haven't done much since 1990. Since 2000, median wages per worker have done even less. Meanwhile corporate profits are at a major high. Globalization and technology have shifted major gains from workers to shareholders, upper management, and money shuffling bankers and fund managers. Do you have any evidence that since 2000 wages per worker have been helped by globalization? If not, you aren't talking about the real world. You're talking about some theoretical universe in which Spanky is God.

And trade is the only factor effecting wages?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Where do you get your wild assumptions? Wages will not equalize in anywhere near either time period.

Both China and India are growing at ten percent a year. That means their economies are doubling in size every seven years. That is creating new huge consumer markets for all american companies. That is tens of millions of new consumers every year that are able to buy plane tickets, requiring Boeing to build more planes, able to buy computers requireing microsoft products, buying more TV and VCRs requireing entertainment produced in LA, etc. etc. etc.

Billions of people are going to be pulled out of poverty, huge new markets are going to open up for American products and services. Globalizatoin is going to help a lot of people in this country and around the world.

The only large chunk of people that are going to get screwed are the Venezeulans whose Dictator has gone to the tables school of psuedo-economics and is going to condemn his entire country to poverty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
We are talking about the real world. If I pose a hypothetical where monkeys fly out of my ass, why would anyone take it seriously. We don't need hypos, we are talking about economic policies that are in effect and how they affect real people.

His hypothetical was designed to get you to focus -- if only for a moment -- on the interests of the "real people" who get screwed by free trade.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Muslims said "we don't really care. We just don't eat pigs. Racing them isn't going to bother us."

Has the gentleman farmer tried drawing Danish cartoons on the piggies?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Has the gentleman farmer tried drawing Danish cartoons on the piggies?

I have a related question: is it perceived as wrong to include any depiction of Mohammed or Allah? I've never seen a religous icon of either. It seems like there are always images of the Imans. I recognize the Danish cartoons were disrespectful, but does a respectful image exist?

and what about the word "Allah?" I had the Nike flame b-ball shoes that were taken off the market because the flames looked like they spell the name Allah. Can the word be used, if used in a none disrespectful way (ie not on my smelly shoes)?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have a related question: is it perceived as wrong to include any depiction of Mohammed or Allah? I've never seen a religous icon of either. It seems like there are always images of the Imans. I recognize the Danish cartoons were disrespectful, but does a respectful image exist?

and what about the word "Allah?" I had the Nike flame b-ball shoes that were taken off the market because the flames looked like they spell the name Allah. Can the word be used, if used in a none disrespectful way (ie not on my smelly shoes)?

Where is Atticus when you need him?

I thought any depiction of Mohammed or Allah was per se wrong, without regard to whether it's meant as respectful or not. I thought the word "Allah" was not per se wrong. I would believe Atticus if he told me I was wrong on either count.

I hope you saved your Nike shoes, because when the GWOT is over in a few years and we're looking back at it sentimentally, those are going to be worth a lot of $$$.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I hope you saved your Nike shoes, because when the GWOT is over in a few years and we're looking back at it sentimentally, those are going to be worth a lot of $$$.

or I'll have my feet cut off for having them.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Where is Atticus when you need him?

I thought any depiction of Mohammed or Allah was per se wrong, without regard to whether it's meant as respectful or not. I thought the word "Allah" was not per se wrong. I would believe Atticus if he told me I was wrong on either count.

I hope you saved your Nike shoes, because when the GWOT is over in a few years and we're looking back at it sentimentally, those are going to be worth a lot of $$$.

I had assumed that Hank was merely being sarcastic, but assuming that is not correct, my understanding is that Islam frowns on graphic depictions of just about anyone, but a depicition of Mohammed or Allah is particularly verboten.

Mosques, for example, are typically decorated only with verses from the Koran, rather than with any sort of painting.

Extrapolating from the Koran-verses-as-decoration thing, I would assume that means it is okay to use the written "Allah" but that is only a guess.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
I had assumed that Hank was merely being sarcastic,

Really? I couldn't have written a more benign post, could I?

Extrapolating from the Koran-verses-as-decoration thing, I would assume that means it is okay to use the written "Allah" but that is only a guess.

except that it isn't in many cases. got it. (this part is sarcastic)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or I'll have my feet cut off for having them.

Why are you so defeatist? We're going to win this war.

Conservatives are such pussies about this stuff.