A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The only thing I can find that I posted in the time period that he might have been confused by is "Anyway, basically I find all of this very interesting. I definitely, definitely agree that there are, on a general level, sex-linked differences in how people process information."

Like, maybe I was saying people process information differently when fucking than at other times.

Maybe he thought you meant "Having women in the lab makes men think differently, because in the presence of women they think only about sex"?

[SlaveNoMore]

Bad_Rich_Chic
Besides, W hasn't struck me as the most likeable guy recently. I was of the "I'd rather have a drink with John Kerry" persuasion, myself, though he didn't seem particularly likeable, either.

Yes, yes. But only because you like to babble on in French after a few cocktails.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
2. Frighteningly charismatic.

Besides, W hasn't struck me as the most likeable guy recently. I was of the "I'd rather have a drink with John Kerry" persuasion, myself, though he didn't seem particularly likeable, either.

I bet W is charming as all fuck in one-off, one-on-one or small group meetings. He (and Clinton) really really want to be liked. It's, uh, possible that at work I have that going on too. Though, the PTBs seem to think there's some kind of pit bull thing behind it -- which I think is probably true of Bush and Clinton. Nice as hell, charming, but aren't actually going to give up something unless it's tactical.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm a bit surprised. You're just his type.

Hah. Yeah, he loves the fatties.

I was just trying to stave off the comment about how he must have raped me (it would have been pedophilia too -- your wet dream!).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Most studies of the econ. benefits/harms of free trade show that one-sided free trade is still beneficial to the free trader (i.e.: opening your own market benefits your economy overall, regardless of the trade or fiscal policies of your trade partners); perhaps even moreso than two-sided free trade relatively speaking, because the free trader gets benefits while the non-free trader gets comparatively fewer than they would if they, too, were open. So I'd say that there can be beneficial "free trade" with China even if China does not practice free trade. Who says that "free trade" has to be two-sided?

FWIW, I think the argument that China has "suppressed" its currency is a bit silly. It's pegged to the dollar, has been for dogs years. The dollar is, compared to most currencies, way down, and so the yuan is, too. That probably does mean that the yuan is undervalued vis a vis the dollar (and other currencies) when compared to what it would be if it floated, but it doesn't mean the Chinese gov't has some evil policy to artificially "suppress" their currency as part of some devious plot to screw US textile workers, as the press often seems to imply. Their longstanding currency policy has, currently, the effect of producing a very low-valued currency, which is beneficial to them in various ways at the moment, but ... I dunno, you can't really think that everyone (else) in the world should radically shift currency policy every time the international market produces some weird and not really forseen effect, so the whole thing has always seemed to me to be more of a straw man for various interests than a real economic issue. Honestly, the US has done more to "artificially suppress" its currency than China has, and while you can argue whether this is wise policy or not, I don't see the "unfair artificially suppressed yuan!" crowd yelling about how US exporters have an unfair advantage and the G should do something about it.

In any event, I think the low yuan does give a net benefit to the US, and I don't have a view of whether it is an "acceptable" practice or not. It primarily harms the Chinese in the long term, and while I might not do it were I Captain of the Universe, generally thinking it preferable to take a hit to the economy now and get it back on track than to suffer the greater harm of an entrenched, non-competitive, protected economy later, I'm not, and if someone wants to screw up to my benefit I generally have no moral compunction about letting them, so ... whatever.

Actually, I think the real risk posed by yuan's peg to the dollar is that, compared to FDI in other countires, investment in China is comparatively cheap, which means companies and investors (US and everyone else alike) risk overexposure to the coming economic armageddon over there. Investors with experience over there have been seriously reducing their exposure for a year or more, but the usual "hey, I just read in Newsweek that everyone's been investing in X for a couple years, and the price has gone way up, so now must be the time to buy in!" stupid money is flooding in ....

Oh, and "2" on the farm subsidies. I have family farming the great breadbasket, and they've lost the farm multiple times due to the "oppression of the American farmer at the hands of know-nothing city-folk who just want cheap, un-American agricultural products" or some such bullshit, even with subsidies, but somehow they can't take a hint.

Wow. I will defer to the learned one. Clearly I am not qualified to carry your proxy.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Maybe he thought you meant "Having women in the lab makes men think differently, because in the presence of women they think only about sex"?

That would be in character -- him projecting his behavior/feelings onto the men in the lab. I think fake vaginas (or whatever it is that was listed as being illegal in AL) are legal in CA -- he should probably get one, to relieve some of that tension.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I don't know what China's going to do. But if currency suppression leads to cheaper prices for Chinese goods, it also leads to (prohibitively) higher prices for US exports to China.

The trade-off may be okay in your view. But it ain't "free trade." Is it?

What's teh mechanism to supress currency price? Selling a bunch of their currency, and printing more to fill its place? All that gets is rampant inflation, which has internal effects as well. Generally, it's pretty tough to affect currency prices other than by moral suasion, unless you have a really massive bankroll. Whatever you do ultimately reverses pretty quickly.

Why are we worried about exports to China? If they don't want to buy our stuff, so be it (of course they steal it through IP, but that's a different issue). Plenty of other countries want to buy our stuff, and that's fine.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
That would be really stupid on their part. I don't think they are that dumb.

Right. So what's the harm in their selling to the US at low prices? That it forces our low-wage workers to switch to different jobs? We've been facing that problem, internally and externally, for years. Hell, Ludd broke some cotton gins (or something) for just that reason.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, yes. But only because you like to babble on in French after a few cocktails.

Wow. If you can tell that my drunken babble is French, my French is better than I think it is.

Or is that your nice way of telling me that my posts are so filled with friendly-aggressive-incoherent blather that it is evident that, for me, the cocktail hour has already begun? Hic.

BR(I got me menu-French and dos-cervezas-por-favor-Spanish)C

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wow. I will defer to the learned one. Clearly I am not qualified to carry your proxy.

God, I'd love to have you on the other side in negotiations. You give up so easily when faced with well-phrased (though only half-thought-out) "blather."

That was, actually, not a shot at DS.

ETC phrasing and include "blather."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
God, I'd love to have you on the other side in negotiations. You give up so easily when faced with well-phrased (though only half-thought-out) "blather."

That was, actually, not a shot at DS.

ETC phrasing and include "blather."

It may have been blather, but that blather convinced me my understanding the Chinese currency situation was lacking.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
It may have been blather, but that blather convinced me my understanding the Chinese currency situation was lacking.

Your understanding of most (if not all) of the topics you discuss is lacking. This is a slam, though it is also equally true of me and everyone else on the board for nearly every topic. I mean, fuck, your evidence on medmal insurance rates is what some guy told you at a local Republican Party meeting of some kind.

ETA, after reading Sidd's post, you were so bowled over by her facility with language and ability to remember and regurgitate bits of things that you didn't even notice the glaring issue with this statement:

The dollar is, compared to most currencies, way down, and so the yuan is, too. That probably does mean that the yuan is undervalued vis a vis the dollar (and other currencies) when compared to what it would be if it floated,

I don't know crap about whether the yuan is overvalued or undervalued, but I know that the fact that the yuan is pegged to the dollar (and has been for a very long time), and the fact that the *dollar* is down, combined, can't tell you anything about whether, in reality, the yuan is undervalued w/r/t non-dollar currencies as to what its value would be if floated.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Most studies of the econ. benefits/harms of free trade show that one-sided free trade is still beneficial to the free trader (i.e.: opening your own market benefits your economy overall, regardless of the trade or fiscal policies of your trade partners); perhaps even moreso than two-sided free trade relatively speaking, because the free trader gets benefits while the non-free trader gets comparatively fewer than they would if they, too, were open. So I'd say that there can be beneficial "free trade" with China even if China does not practice free trade. Who says that "free trade" has to be two-sided?

It's a definitional issue, I suppose. But, if the yuan floated, and were worth $1.50, and China imposed a 33% tariff on all US goods -- would you call that "free trade"? Would you think it was beneficial? It might get you cheaper shirts at Wal-Mart, but it doesn't help us sell American-built computers in China. Instead, we end up making them there.

And there is plenty of dispute to the theory that there's a net benefit to the one party who is opening its markets. If your idea were true -- the party with liberal trade policies benefits, the one without them does not -- then we would never pressure other countries to open their markets.

FWIW, I think the argument that China has "suppressed" its currency is a bit silly. It's pegged to the dollar, has been for dogs years. The dollar is, compared to most currencies, way down, and so the yuan is, too. That probably does mean that the yuan is undervalued vis a vis the dollar (and other currencies) when compared to what it would be if it floated,

Wow. That IS silly. I mean, suggesting that the value of the yuan is articifically suppressed, just because it is undervalued as a result of a government policy that pegs the currency to the dollar rather than letting it float? I don't know what came over me.

but it doesn't mean the Chinese gov't has some evil policy to artificially "suppress" their currency as part of some devious plot to screw US textile workers, as the press often seems to imply.

Again, I can't imagine what came over me, thinking that the Chinese government might have something to do with the policy of keeping the yuan pegged to the dollar. Or that it might not be an accident that they did so. Or that it might be related to keeping export prices low so as to provide more manufacturing jobs.

In any event, I think the low yuan does give a net benefit to the US, and I don't have a view of whether it is an "acceptable" practice or not. It primarily harms the Chinese in the long term,

Again, lots of disagreement on that. From Beijing, among other places.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
God, I'd love to have you on the other side in negotiations. You give up so easily when faced with well-phrased (though only half-thought-out) "blather."

That was, actually, not a shot at DS.

Or he's really smart, in that he lets others take on the work of making his arguments so long as they appear to be doing OK.

That said, I sometimes think all my comments on economics (or anything else, really) should be concluded "So sayeth the literature major." However, since economists are really just people who can tell you tomorrow why what they said yesterday would happen today didn't happen, and to the extent the dismal science has value it is usually in more clearly expressing what is really common sense, I feel free to have at it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why are we worried about exports to China?

Some of those consumers who would otherwise benefit from prices depressed by the subsidization of Chinese manufacturers don't have money to spend because their employers can't compete with those Chinese manufacturers.

How odd that we tend to think of the average citizen as a consumer instead of a producer. Hello, trade deficits.