Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Oooh. You got me.... You have trapped me into admitting I want to screw the poor to benefit the rich. . . . Why not use a real world example instead of a hypo?

The point of the hypo is to determine what principle animates your adherence to free trade. You've made abundantly clear that your support is ideological, rather than principled.

Your are making an assumption that if sixty percent of the people are hurt by something that it still could be considered good "in the aggregate". Doesn't that depend on your definition of "aggregate"? If sixty percent of the people are hurt, especially the bottom sixty percent, no matter how much the wealthy benefit I don't see it as "good in the aggregate". Like I said, if it benefited the bottom forty percent at the expense of the top sixty percent, then it might be considered good in the aggregate but definitely not the other way around.

I'm not assuming anything. I posed a hypothetical, with numbers to make this perfectly clear. If 40% of the country is $100,000,000 better off and 60% of the country is $60,000,000 worse off, in the aggregate the country is $40,000,000 worse off. You are either dim or determined not to answer it.

To say that a job is stolen assumes that someone has an ownership interest in a job.

I said "OK." Let it go.

My uncle was working for a company in Miami, they got bought out by an Australian firm, and he was replaced by an Australian from the home office. My friend worked at a bank that was merged with a foreign bank and his job duplicated a job held by someone in France of all places, so his job was discontinued. When companies go under from competition from oversees, the executives lose their jobs to. Globalization affects everyone.

I didn't say it never happens, but I asked you about the relative impact on different classes.

You are not getting it. The demand for low end service jobs is a direct function of disposable income in this country. They are the first jobs to be created in a strong economy and the first jobs to go in a bad economy. When people have less disposable income, they eat out less, cut back on luxuries like landscaping etc. Free trade, through the efficiencies it creates, directly frees up more disposable income in a society, thereby placing more demand for low end service jobs. This in addition, to the new demand created for low end service jobs by new markets opening up overseas.

The question is whether the benefits to the unskilled of (a) being able to buy Chinese-made goods more cheaply at Wal-Mart, and (b) seeing more rich people come through McDonald's are outweighed by (c) the depressing effects on wages that come from losing so many jobs overseas.

Rather, that's the question for those of us whose views of these issues might be affected by empirical matters.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes, but can the loss of their job be blamed on "free trade"? My guess is, but for free trade, the $28 an hour job, probably wouldn't have existed. So these people had no problem with free trade, as long as they were benefitting, but once one of the priviledges of free trade is lost, all of sudden the system is the problem.

Actually those jobs grew from americans not buying foreign cars, and the UAW demanding more every contract. At soem point it became okay to buy foreign cars, then it became okay (and eventually necessary) for US automakers to ship manufacturing jobs to Mexico or China. Those high paying jobs are a rare anomaly today- but they certainly are not FROM free trade.

I am not arguing with you overall it might be good- I don't know- but being able to buy cheap underwear at Walmart is not going to make the guy whose wages dropped $18/hour better off.

I think that is all anyone has been saying to you.

It is like the family grocer blaming capitalism because competition from Safeway forced him to close his store. If it weren't for capitalism (and free markets) he would never had the store in the first place. His only option would have been apply for a job at a grocery store owned by the government.

Exactly. And even there we had Robinson Patman trying to save the family grocer, to no avail. But the family grocer is still worse off once the Safeway has opened- even though the neighborhood is better off.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Robinson Patman

A statute that is, thankfully, rarely enforced. And should be repealed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Spanky, the question I wanted answered is this. Why doesn't a massive increase in the labor force at all skill levels (by eliminating all trade barriers with India, China, and so on and by eliminating all barriers to immigration into the US) radically reduce the returns on labor in the US world and radically increase the returns on capital in the US? And that this effect won't last for at least 20 or 30 years, which is the peak earning years of most current workers. Do you have any empirical evidence this won't happen? If not, why should US workers vote to take these kinds of risks for the benefit of the wealthiest 1% in the US? Most people are risk averse.

1) First of all, what barriers with India and China are you talking about? What barriers did we have with India and China that are now lost that are making it easier for jobs to move to these countries?

2) The bulk of the barriers that have come down; have been dropped by India and China, not by the United States. China and India had trade restrictions preventing the US from selling stuff in those countries. Those barriers have come down. But what barriers has the US recently dropped with those countries that have allowed US jobs to move to these countries?

3) There were never any barriers preventing call centers in India. Tariffs, NAFTA and the WTO only deal with manufacturing and agriculture which is like only twenty percent of our economy. There never have been barriers that could prevent companies in the United States from using engineers or operators in India.

4) There has always been a massive cheap unskilled labor force out there competing with American jobs. We have some of the most expensive labor in the world. Ninety percent of the countries out there already have cheaper labor. Our corporations have always had a myriad of options for moving to cheaper labor sources. The introduction of Indian and Chinese labor is not going to change the situation much. China and India are not opening up new cheaper markets for labor that did not exist elsewhere in the world.

5) China is no different than any other country that has competed with our wages. India is different in that a large portion of its population speaks English, and with modern telecommunications this poses a threat for the first time for certain services. But there never have been any sort of barriers to prevent that sort of competition. There never had been any sort of barriers erected that would prevent a US company from using an Indian call center, or using Indian engineers.

6) The magic of India and China is that they are growing economically, meaning that their populations have much more purchasing power which opens up vast new markets for the US. The most important thing the US can do is insure that those markets remain open to US companies. Free trade agreements insure that our companies have access to those markets. I don't understand why you think those trade agreements threaten US jobs? What exactly do these trade agreements do that threaten so many US jobs? Eighty percent of the US economy is not addressed by these agreements, so how can they affect US jobs that much? I don't see it. But I see how those trade agreements create massive new markets for American companies.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with you about agricultural barriers, many of which our government supports for fear of pissing off politically influential groups like the sugar lobby. What do you think about that flavor of free trade, Tables?

I don't have strong feelings about agricultural subsidies, except that I'm against agricultural subsidies that promote bad environmental policies, like growing water intensive crops in arid regions. I also don't like corn-based ethanol; it's a wasteful way of generating energy relative to sugar-based ethanol.

[Adder]

It's time to play, Who Said That?

"There are different levels among men; there is a human hierarchy. To deny it is absurd, and to disregard it a shameful confusion. ... This is the absolute right of human civilization when the hour comes to impose itself upon barbarism."







Answer: pre-WWII French journalist, written in support of the fascists

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
It's time to play, Who Said That?

"There are different levels among men; there is a human hierarchy. To deny it is absurd, and to disregard it a shameful confusion. ... This is the absolute right of human civilization when the hour comes to impose itself upon barbarism."

Céline?

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) First of all, what barriers with India and China are you talking about? What barriers did we have with India and China that are now lost that are making it easier for jobs to move to these countries?

The barriers I'm talking about have been technological, and I'm talking about imposing regulatory or tax barriers to replace them, unless US workers are fully compensated for any losses in wages compared to their prior wages in absolute terms and relative to the wealthy. People lose as much happiness from decreases in absolute earnings as they do from decreases in their earnings relative to others.

Originally posted by Spanky
6) The magic of India and China is that they are growing economically, meaning that their populations have much more purchasing power which opens up vast new markets for the US.

India and China aren't rich enough to be major markets. It's risk averse to assume that will be the case until most US workers are dead. Most people are risk averse, so we ought to assume that unless you have evidence showing otherwise.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The point of the hypo is to determine what principle animates your adherence to free trade. You've made abundantly clear that your support is ideological, rather than principled.

What the hell does that mean? Wanting economic policies that benefits the American economy as a whole is ideological and not principled? Whatever.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not assuming anything. I posed a hypothetical, with numbers to make this perfectly clear. If 40% of the country is $100,000,000 better off and 60% of the country is $60,000,000 worse off, in the aggregate the country is $40,000,000 worse off. You are either dim or determined not to answer it.

That is obviously not that great for America. But that hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion on trade.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The question is whether the benefits to the unskilled of (a) being able to buy Chinese-made goods more cheaply at Wal-Mart, and (b) seeing more rich people come through McDonald's are outweighed by (c) the depressing effects on wages that come from losing so many jobs overseas.

Rather, that's the question for those of us whose views of these issues might be affected by empirical matters.

Losing what jobs overseas? As I said, and Adder pointed out, more jobs are created than lost. So instead of free trade bringing a depressing effect on wages it puts upward pressure on wages. In addition, the vast majority of the bottom two quintiles do not reap the negative effects of free trade, they do not hold the vast majority of the jobs that are lost. Their wages go up and the cost of commodities come down. They are the winners. It is the workers that hold traditional old economy manufacturing jobs that lose out, but they are generally in the middle class, and they are a small portion of the population, even among the middle quintile. In addition, trade barriers do not do much to protect these jobs anyway, because most of them are also dependent on overseas consumption, so just preserving American consumption for these jobs doesn't really help for most.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I said, and Adder pointed out, more jobs are created than lost.

If you had been reading, you'd know I said that too. Hank has my proxy.

eta: In four months you'll say that I disagree with you across the board on free trade. Sigh.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
The barriers I'm talking about have been technological, and I'm talking about imposing regulatory or tax barriers to replace them, unless US workers are fully compensated for any losses in wages compared to their prior wages in absolute terms and relative to the wealthy. People lose as much happiness from decreases in absolute earnings as they do from decreases in their earnings relative to others.

So how do you stop AMD from hiring an Indian engineer to design a new microprocessor. And if you are successful, then why won't other countries implement the same rules to prevent other countries from hiring our engineers? How do you stop Quicken from using Indian call centers? And if you do, you can only stop people calling from the United States to these call centers, you can't stop Canadian, british and any other english speaking users of quicken from using Indian call centers. And of course, if you put up barriers stopping us from using Indian call centers, other countries can stop US call centeres from servicing calls from their countries. And India, at growing at ten percent a year is is turning into a huge market. Most US corporation are not going to want to lose that market.

Like I said, instituting trade rules to help the US economy is like using a sledge hammer to fix an engine. Every blow does more harm than good.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
India and China aren't rich enough to be major markets. It's risk averse to assume that will be the case until most US workers are dead. Most people are risk averse, so we ought to assume that unless you have evidence showing otherwise.

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?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
I don't have strong feelings about agricultural subsidies, except that I'm against agricultural subsidies that promote bad environmental policies, like growing water intensive crops in arid regions. I also don't like corn-based ethanol; it's a wasteful way of generating energy relative to sugar-based ethanol.

What about the fact that they increase the price of food for the poor, or that they prevent third world countries from selling their crops here, thereby hampering their development? Or that they encourage soil erosion and the loss of top soil? Or that they encourage the use of much more pesticides and chemicals than are necessary? Or that their existence screws up trade deals preventing our access to foreign markets? Or the fact that abribusiness uses the profits from such subsidies to influence Republicans that hold power in rural states, to turn away from the traditional Republican laizes faire stance on subsidies, and giving the anti-free trade Republicans a stronger position in the party, and giving the Republicans an artificially high representation in the US Senate?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you had been reading, you'd know I said that too. Hank has my proxy.

eta: In four months you'll say that I disagree with you across the board on free trade. Sigh.

For the record, what do you disagree with me on free trade? That way there will be no confusion later.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
For the record, what do you disagree with me on free trade? That way there will be no confusion later.

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.

eta: The analogy is imperfect, but free trade is kind of like the reverse of a lottery, in that most people get some benefits, some people get really screwed, and no one opts in or out.

[Spanky]

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.

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)?