A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wow. It has been a while since I have met someone that actually buys this psuedoeconomic B.S. coming from the the unions. It is like listening to the Christian Coalitions statements on evolution and believing that.

"First the bulk of the benefits to to shareholders". What about lower prices in america that benefit everyone. Especially the poor. The consumer is by far the biggest beneficiary. As someone who has lived in seven countries I can tell you that money goes a great deal farther in the US than anywhere. In Japan you have to make three times the amount of money you make here to have the same standard of living. Yet, on average American workers make more money. More money and products are cheaper.

As far as foreign wages depressing US wages. That is comparing apples and oranges. You need to look at productivity of the workers and looking at the comparable pay for comparable productivity. In addition, if free trade repressed domestic wages how do you explain Hong Kong and Singapore. Singapore has the highest paid workers in Asia. In 1960 they were a third world nation and now they are a first world nation. And according to almost any published ranking, Singapore has the freest economy in the world. So why doesn't the phillipine workers right next store making a dollar a day depress Singapores wages.

Opening markets has never reduced the number of living wages. NAFTA increased wages in this country.

Can we agree that free trade, in the aggregate, benefits the country, but that a subset of people suffer?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• Given these realities of free immigration, the best alternative to the present quota system is an ancient way of allocating a scarce and popular good; namely, by charging a price that clears the market. That is why I believe countries should sell the right to immigrate, especially the United States that has so many persons waiting to immigrate. To illustrate how a price system would work, suppose the United States charges $50,000 for the right to immigrate, and agrees to accept all applicants willing to pay that price, subject to a few important qualifications. These qualifications would require that those accepted not have any serious diseases, or terrorist backgrounds, or criminal records.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/index.html

Do you support indentured servitude? If not, who is going to clean your hotel bathroom and make your chicken fingers at the bar?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
The US because of supposedly free trade with China and India. (Of course, it's not actually free trade because of their currency manipulation and various trade barriers.) It's not just high levels of productivity that have prevented wage gains during the current economic expansion. Corporate profits, in contrast, have been doing quite well.

Real wages have gone up every decade in America since the end of WWII. And what makes you think wage gains have been supressed by China and India. This whole argument is ridiculous because the facts have made any argument moot. You look at any example of free trade in the world and the results are in. The more open your trade is the better the standard of living for your working class. Any time you try and restrict free trade it is the poor and the working class the get it the worst. Unions don't care about the poor and the working class. They just care about keeping the jobs that exist. They don't care about creating new jobs, or higher paying jobs. They just want to protect the jobs that exist at this time. Consequently all they do is push for economic policies that prevent flexilibity in the economy thereby depressing incomes at every socioeconomic level.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
IIRC, there were upwards of a dozen "originals" of the Declaration. They were copied out longhand at about the same time from TJ's text (and others inclusing Adams), and sent around to be published in the various colonies. I have a vague notion that several survive.

S_A_M

eta: P.S. You know eminent domain is an interesting issue when Bilmore, club, GGG and I line up more or less on one side, with Spanky and Ty on the other. Burger -- who knows?

Can't be that interesting as I haven't even been compelled to read them all.

Ad(solipsist)der

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Can we agree that free trade, in the aggregate, benefits the country, but that a subset of people suffer?

A subset of people suffer temporarily, but it is miniscule compared to the benefits. Its like when the lightbulb was invented, a subset of people, the candlemakers were negative effected. But in the end the overall benefit to almost everyone was beneficial.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
A subset of people suffer temporarily, but it is miniscule compared to the benefits. Its like when the lightbulb was invented, a subset of people, the candlemakers were negative effected. But in the end the overall benefit to almost everyone was beneficial.

Unless you're older, and you work in an industry that's moving offshore, and as a practical matter you're not going to be able to move into part of the economy with better prospects.

I'm not disputing that free trade is, on the whole, beneficial. I'm saying that the benefits ought to be distributed better. The government should do more to help those who lose out.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Can we agree that free trade, in the aggregate, benefits the country, but that a subset of people suffer?

Trade restrictions are always special ineterest proposals. They temporarily benefit a small number of people to the dentriment to the short term and long term benefit of the entire society. The argument between restricted trade and free trade is just as moot as the argument between socialism and capitalism. Any argument against free trade is just rehashed arguments used by socialist for economic statism.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


Holy fuck- even hotter than /Eva- if their periods co-incide then string theory becomes a "strong theory" correct Adder?

Don't know. But please PM me her phone number.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unless you're older, and you work in an industry that's moving offshore, and as a practical matter you're not going to be able to move into part of the economy with better prospects.

That argument can be made for anyone who gets pushed out by scientific progress or greater efficiencies, not just free trade. It is just another example of the old man who makes stagecoach wheels and can't do anything else.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Trade restrictions are always special ineterest proposals. They temporarily benefit a small number of people to the dentriment to the short term and long term benefit of the entire society. The argument between restricted trade and free trade is just as moot as the argument between socialism and capitalism. Any argument against free trade is just rehashed arguments used by socialist for economic statism.

I'm not talking about trade restrictions. I'm talking about a package that includes (a) removing trade restrictions, and (b) some kind of benefits for the people who get screwed as a result. (Like we compensate who have their property taken when the government wants to do something better with it.)

That argument can be made for anyone who gets pushed out by scientific progress or greater efficiencies, not just free trade. It is just another example of the old man who makes stagecoach wheels and can't do anything else.

The difference being that free trade, unlike scientific progress, is a political decision, not a fact of nature.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The difference being that free trade, unlike scientific progress, is a political decision, not a fact of nature.

Natural selection / sexual selection/ free trade........ it's all Darwinian. Believe in it- don't- but pick one.

[Spanky]

[i]
I'm not disputing that free trade is, on the whole, beneficial. I'm saying that the benefits ought to be distributed better. The government should do more to help those who lose out.

What you are really talking about is capitalsim. Capitalism does not distribute benefits very evenly. Its the worst system save the rest. I have no problem with the government taking care of those people that can't take advantage of the system. But don't mess with the system that is creating all the wealth. Free markets produce the most wealth. Trade restrictions reduce growth and wealth creation. Just tax the wealth and help those in need but don't ever think you can outwit or out do the invisible hand.

[Replaced_Texan]

I'm going to think of you as Tobias from Arrested Development as long as you have this avatar, Hank. Just so you know.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure--so you ask him to tell everyone about their techniques. Besides, it gives the advisory committee representation of all views.

The FBI hired tons of former safecrackers.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not talking about trade restrictions. I'm talking about a package that includes (a) removing trade restrictions, and (b) some kind of benefits for the people who get screwed as a result. (Like we compensate who have their property taken when the government wants to do something better with it.)

A job is nothing like a property right. No one is required to employ you. A business is also not like a property right. No one is required to use your services. You can't compensate everyone everytime they lose in the Capitalist system. If a new lawyer comes in, competes and eats away at my profits, can I get some compensation because the free market hurt me.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop The difference being that free trade, unlike scientific progress, is a political decision, not a fact of nature.

Scientific progress can be squelched by a political decision. You could make lightbulbs illegal thereby saving the candlemaker's job. Free markets produce more wealth than restricted markets. That is a fact of nature.