Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by sgtclub



Unskilled workers on average suffer long term wage loss from free trade and immigration. And given that globalization is moving up the food chain, skilled workers will as well. I doubt you can prove that gains in purchasing power will make up for that wage loss. If 50.1% of the U.S. population will have a worse standard of living due to free trade and immigration, they should vote against free trade and immigration. They should do that unless there are going to receive full compensation from the 49.9% of the U.S. population that benefits from free trade.

Retraining is no solution. Free trade and immigration are simply lowering the standard of living for U.S. workers that are substitutes for foreign workers in countries with lower standards of living. Retrain for any job you like, free trade and immigration are depressing wages at all skill levels. The clear beneficiaries of free trade and immigration are foreign workers in undeveloped countries and owners of capital. There is no good reason for U.S. workers to hurt themselves in order to benefit foreign workers and owners of capital.

I'm also in favor of eliminating double taxation of corporate earnings, as long as we hike taxes on high income individuals enough to recoup the losses in revenue.

You are focusing on the short term at the expense of the long term. I urge you to go back and re-read the two articles I posted. But here are the cliff notes:

The only drawback to increased productivity occurs in the very short run, when it slows job growth. In the long run, rising productivity is the only thing that makes it possible to improve our standard of living. As Berkley economist Brad DeLong has pointed out, it takes about 60 years for the income of the average American to double when the productivity of our labor force grows by 1.2 percent per year. It only takes 25 years for incomes to double when productivity grows by 3 percent per year. More income implies more economic growth and, therefore, more jobs. Which is to say, trying to put the kibosh on productivity growth in order to generate a few token jobs today would be utterly self-defeating.*

Comparative advantage, though frequently confused with absolute advantage, is actually a concept about relative relationships, not absolute ones. What the principle of comparative advantage actually implies is that each nation should specialize in what it does best relative to all the other things it could be doing and then trade with others for other needs. At its most basic level, comparative advantage is about opportunity cost: The country with the lowest opportunity cost of producing a good (i.e., the cost of producing that good in terms of other goods) should specialize in production of that good.
Let's take the example of software, since it seems to be on everyone's mind. Suppose that the only two goods in the world are T-shirts and computer software. For the sake of simplicity, let's say it costs us $10 to produce a single T-shirt, and $100 to produce a computer program. And let's also say it costs the Indians $5 to produce a single T-shirt, and $95 to produce a single computer program. In other words, the Indians can produce both T-shirts and computer programs more efficiently than we can.

Does that mean that the Indians will produce everything and that we'll produce nothing--and that, before long, the Indians will own us and the only kind of rice you'll ever be able to get in the United States is basmati...? (Sorry, we get a little carried away with this stuff sometimes.) The answer is, emphatically, NO. The reason is that it's still in both countries' interest to specialize in the good they have a lower opportunity cost of producing. In this case, we can produce 10 T-shirts for every computer program. The Indians can produce 19 T-shirts for every computer program. Since it only costs us 10 T-shirts to produce a computer program versus the Indians' 19, we should specialize in production of computer programs and trade them to the Indians for T-shirts (which will be cheaper for us when acquired through trade than when produced locally). They, on the other hand, should specialize in production of T-shirts and trade them to us for computer programs (ditto on the logic).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city

I'm also in favor of eliminating double taxation of corporate earnings, as long as we hike taxes on high income individuals enough to recoup the losses in revenue.

Almost missed this one. You are obviously not a supply-sider, so this discussion will probably be worthless, but just out of curiousity, what is a "high income individual" to you?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are focusing on the short term at the expense of the long term. I urge you to go back and re-read the two articles I posted. But here are the cliff notes:

What's their cost of document review?

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040308/D81688680.html

[Atticus Grinch]

Kissing cousins

Rapidly spreading ancestral roots and branches digitally mapped out by the Family Forest Project reveal closer family ties than originally thought between President Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry.

Heck, the two are related.

According to a fully sourced ancestral history lineage-linked in the Family Forest Web page, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry now are calculated to be at least 9th cousins twice removed. And as more of the pair's ancestral lines continue to grow, the relationship might become even closer, experts say.

On top of that, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry have several intriguing cousins in common: Walt Disney, Michael Douglas, Clint Eastwood, the Wright Brothers, Meriwether Lewis, Hugh Hefner, Clara Barton, Georgia O'Keeffe, Princess Diana -- and even former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Other members of the proud Bush-Kerry family include Benedict Arnold, Crown Prince Leka II of the Albanians, Prince Emanuel Filiberto of Italy, Crown Princess Margarita of Romania, Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, Princess Alexandra of Greece, Crown Prince Felipe of Spain, singer David Crosby and finally, um, John Hinckley Jr.

Washington Times. Registration and mild mental illness required.

Which one of them will have to respond to David Crosby's arrest? I say we should crucify Bush on the Benedict Arnold thing, too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Which one of them will have to respond to David Crosby's arrest? I say we should crucify Bush on the Benedict Arnold thing, too.

Fine, as long as we can pin O'Keefe's vagina flowers on Kerry.

Confidential to Atticus: Benedict Arnold was just trying to work with "old Europe." Why the hate?

[Hank Chinaski]

In Malaysia, an upcoming election pits "pro-fundamentalist" v. "pro-secular gov't"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...aysia_election

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has vowed to confront the Islamic fundamentalist opposition, which has suggested that pro-government voters will be sent to hell.

"This is a topic we have to face," Abdullah told a rally of supporters in Malacca state, the New Straits Times newspaper reported Monday. "We cannot shrug if off just like that. We will reply."

The fundamentalist Pan-Malaysia Islamic party's spiritual leader, widely respected cleric Nik Aziz Nik Mat, said earlier that Muslims "naturally, will go to heaven for choosing an Islamic party, while those who support un-Islamic parties will logically go to hell."

So far Nik Aziz hasn't taken a position on gay marriage.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
vagina flowers

Overly-tanned guy, please. This is obviously Bush.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[Somebody in the media has finally picked up upon what I have been saying for a while - they must be reading this board]

I agree with you that Edwards' blunt sound bite argument about jobs and the negative effects of free trade isn't really accurate. However, I think there is a much more nuanced argument to be made that the Bush tax cuts were poorly structured to create jobs, and fostered the investment of profits in the stock market rather than increasing payrolls.

In my opinion there are a few holes in the article's argument when it comes to defending the poor job-creation record of Bush's tax cuts. For example, rather than dispelling the widely held belief that tax cuts targeted at the lower income classes would have more of a direct effect on consumption (and payroll employment), the article simply says "For one thing, there is evidence that affluent people spend a higher proportion of their income than economic models have traditionally predicted." But no further evidence of this is presented or discussed.

At any rate, what do you think of this paragraph from that article:

Even though the Bush tax cuts have succeeded at stimulating the economy, they've done so at enormous (and largely unnecessary) long-term cost. The large deficits created by such K-Street goodies as a cut in the tax on dividend income and the (longer-term) lowering of top marginal income tax rates, will almost certainly drive up interest rates once the economy sees a few quarters of growth. That could choke off the expansion not long after it starts.

Not that you have to agree with everything the guy writes. I'm just curious to see if you are equally persuaded by his "on the other hand" comments.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I agree with you that Edwards' blunt sound bite argument about jobs and the negative effects of free trade isn't really accurate. However, I think there is a much more nuanced argument to be made that the Bush tax cuts were poorly structured to create jobs, and fostered the investment of profits in the stock market rather than increasing payrolls.

Tax cuts are never structured to create or eliminate jobs. They are but one of several "levers" that can be pulled in order to stimulate the economy. Stimulating the economy eventually = growth which eventually = jobs.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience At any rate, what do you think of this paragraph from that article:

Not that you have to agree with everything the guy writes. I'm just curious to see if you are equally persuaded by his "on the other hand" comments.

I have posted numerous times that IMHO, the deficits should be blamed on overspending, rather than the tax cuts, especially considering the most of the tax cuts have yet to really go into effect due to their phased in nature.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Tax cuts are never structured to create or eliminate jobs. They are but one of several "levers" that can be pulled in order to stimulate the economy. .

True, but if you listened to bush et al., you would think they were like a direct injection of crack into the economy. They're not--they set the groundwork for a robust economy, but their short-term stimulative effect is pretty minimal.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I have posted numerous times that IMHO, the deficits should be blamed on overspending, rather than the tax cuts, especially considering the most of the tax cuts have yet to really go into effect due to their phased in nature.

So the Heritage Foundation calculator that says I'll save some 20 grand on last year's taxes is misleading me?

I'll agree that the future looks even worse as the cuts accelerate, but they've been substantial already.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
True, but if you listened to bush et al., you would think they were like a direct injection of crack into the economy. They're not--they set the groundwork for a robust economy, but their short-term stimulative effect is pretty minimal.

That depends on how they are structured, but in this case I agree with you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'll agree that the future looks even worse as the cuts accelerate, but they've been substantial already.

Not really, as a percentage of the deficit.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Tax cuts are never structured to create or eliminate jobs.

Well, I can agree that tax cuts aren't structured to eliminate jobs.

They are but one of several "levers" that can be pulled in order to stimulate the economy. Stimulating the economy eventually = growth which eventually = jobs.

The economy is generating jobs at a rate significantly below that which we've seen during periods of similar overall GDP growth levels over the past several decades and recoveries. What in your mind has resulted in the weakening of the stimulus -> growth -> jobs causal chain? Is it just some sort of malaise based on the current war on terror which is somehow overcoming the stimulative effects of tax cuts and increased defense and security expenditures?

edited to fix tags.