Still Hating America.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
They're Jewish, aren't they?

Highly doubtful, as Malkin is a avid supporter of Israel.

Unlike, say, John Edwards.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I'm afraid you're confused here. It's the Jews who are zealots.

• a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.

When the Islamists come knocking on your door for jizya, I sincerely hope that etymological distinction keeps you warm and fuzzy.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
Ty made a new thread and tried to make me go there

Do people have any grasp of reality over there? If so, I might lead the way.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
We are supposed to freak out about crazy-on-crazy threats now?

So when a conservative journalist (author, blogger, TV host) has her life threatened, its summarily dismissed as "crazy on crazy" behavior.

Perfect. If the law thing gets boring, send your resume to Markos. He'd love you.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
If the price of free trade is heavily progressive taxation with marginal rates going up to 70 or 90% to fund social welfare payments or programs -- and this is permanent -- do you like free trade? That's what we're talking about.

?!?!?. Who is talking about what? The price of free trade does not have to be "heavy taxation". The key to providing retraining programs etc. is continued economic growth. That is what free trade provides; continued and sustained economic growth. Without free trade you get sclerotic growth and you can't pay for anything. That is what is happening to parts of Europe and Japan because their protectionist policies and the costs of subsidies are not allowing their economies to grow fast enough.

Economic growth is the key to government income, and free trade policies are inextricably tied to economic growth - so are low taxes. The best way to pay for a "safety net" and for education is to keep taxes low and keep your markets open. You increase tax rates over forty five percent and you won't get mush growth and you won't get to pay for any of these projects.

As I said, look at which developed economies are growing the fastest right now and look at what their trade policies and tax policies are. Until that time, you simply can't pariticpate in an intelligent conversation concerning this subject.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
We are supposed to freak out about crazy-on-crazy threats now?

Are you saying that it is OK that Malkin had to move because of death threats? When the Dixie Chicks receive death threats its the end of the world, and free speech and our Constitution are under threat, but when Michelle Malkin or Dinesh D'Souza receive death threats, it is nothing to worry about.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I said, look at which developed economies are growing the fastest right now and look at what their trade policies and tax policies are. Until that time, you simply can't pariticpate in an intelligent conversation concerning this subject.

I understand that high taxes make economies grow slower, but that's irrelevant. Suppose protectionist barriers support wages for 90% of the US population, and eliminating those barriers would reduce their income. For those people to vote for eliminating these barriers unless they are fully compensated for the regulatory taking is irrational.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
I understand that high taxes make economies grow slower, but that's irrelevant. Suppose protectionist barriers support wages for 90% of the US population, and eliminating those barriers would reduce their income. For those people to vote for eliminating these barriers unless they are fully compensated for the regulatory taking is irrational.

First of all, free trade mainly affects manufacturing jobs and agricultural jobs which represent less than twenty percent and five percent (respectively) of the jobs in this country.

Second, many manufacturing jobs are dependent on the products being created by such manufacturing being sold over seas. So free trade agreements, like the WTO make those jobs possible. Trade barriers destroy these jobs. So any trade barriers hurt just as many jobs as they help; usually they hurt more jobs. More often than not, the people that are helped by trade barriers have more political clout and are in older industries that have a long tradition of lobbying (steel, agriculture), and they are benefited at the expense of new industries (high tech, internet, biotech) where all the new jobs are being created. The net effect of any trade barrier is lost jobs and depressed wages.

Third, free trade agreements insure that the inputs that go into certain items manufactured here are cheap enough to be competitive. Without the ability to purchase those inputs cheaply those products put together here (like many of the cars manufactured here) would not be competitively priced, the factories would be shut down and those jobs would be lost. Steel tariffs and quotas make it harder for cars manufactured in the United State to be sold overseas. US steel tariffs and quotas hurt the car industry the hardest.

Fourth, protectionist barriers do not protect jobs. They just help the owners of certain industries that have political clout in Washington get richer.

Fifth, the US economy is inextricably intertwined with the world economy, so any attempts at protectionism ends up hurting more workers than it benefits.

Sixth, trying to help the US economy by instituting trade barriers is like trying to fix an engine with a sledgehammer. It always does more harm than good. The only way to help workers in America is to make them more productive than their foreign counterparts. Putting up trade barriers just makes a few people wealthier at the expense of making everyone else in the country poorer.

Seventh, the only people that argue for creation science are people that have no basic understanding of biology, geology, astronomy and physics. They use pseudoscience to back up their arguments. In a similar vein, anyone that understands economics does not support trade distorting policies, the only people that do use pseudo-economics to back up their arguments. Just like evidence that man lived at the same time as the dinasours is apocryphal manufactured evidence to support pseudoscience, the concept of a nation having an overall absolute trade advantage is apocryphal manufactured evidence to support pseudo-economics.

(BTW: I know it is not very Republican of me, but as I have said many times on this board, I support both a progressive income tax and the minimum wage. Every tax dollar you take from Sebby is less useful to him than the tax dollar you take from a truck driver. The poorer you are the more efficient you are when it comes to spending your money (as long as you earn it yourself), so from an economic perspective, if you have to take money, it is better for the economy to take that money from a rich person than from a less rich person. But having said that, tax rates should never go over forty percent for anyone. If the minimum wage is not high enough to get someone off government assistance, or not high enough to provide for the basic needs for the family, what good is that job to the overall society? I know I disagree with scripture (the Economist) on this but the Economist has just not figured out what Adder has pointed out - Spanky is always right. In addition, the Democratic Leadership Council agrees with me on this, and Senator a Clinton is a strong supporter of that group).
.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Are you saying that it is OK that Malkin had to move because of death threats? When the Dixie Chicks receive death threats its the end of the world, and free speech and our Constitution are under threat, but when Michelle Malkin or Dinesh D'Souza receive death threats, it is nothing to worry about.

They call it "Shut Up And Blog"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
First of all, free trade mainly affects manufacturing jobs and agricultural jobs which represent less than twenty percent and five percent (respectively) of the jobs in this country.

Second, many manufacturing jobs are dependent on the products being created by such manufacturing being sold over seas. So free trade agreements, like the WTO make those jobs possible. Trade barriers destroy these jobs. So any trade barriers hurt just as many jobs as they help; usually they hurt more jobs. More often than not, the people that are helped by trade barriers have more political clout and are in older industries that have a long tradition of lobbying (steel, agriculture), and they are benefited at the expense of new industries (high tech, internet, biotech) where all the new jobs are being created. The net effect of any trade barrier is lost jobs and depressed wages.

Third, free trade agreements insure that the inputs that go into certain items manufactured here are cheap enough to be competitive. Without the ability to purchase those inputs cheaply those products put together here (like many of the cars manufactured here) would not be competitively priced, the factories would be shut down and those jobs would be lost. Steel tariffs and quotas make it harder for cars manufactured in the United State to be sold overseas. US steel tariffs and quotas hurt the car industry the hardest.

Fourth, protectionist barriers do not protect jobs. They just help the owners of certain industries that have political clout in Washington get richer.

Fifth, the US economy is inextricably intertwined with the world economy, so any attempts at protectionism ends up hurting more workers than it benefits.

Sixth, trying to help the US economy by instituting trade barriers is like trying to fix an engine with a sledgehammer. It always does more harm than good. The only way to help workers in America is to make them more productive than their foreign counterparts. Putting up trade barriers just makes a few people wealthier at the expense of making everyone else in the country poorer.

Seventh, the only people that argue for creation science are people that have no basic understanding of biology, geology, astronomy and physics. They use pseudoscience to back up their arguments. In a similar vein, anyone that understands economics does not support trade distorting policies, the only people that do use pseudo-economics to back up their arguments. Just like evidence that man lived at the same time as the dinasours is apocryphal manufactured evidence to support pseudoscience, the concept of a nation having an overall absolute trade advantage is apocryphal manufactured evidence to support pseudo-economics.

(BTW: I know it is not very Republican of me, but as I have said many times on this board, I support both a progressive income tax and the minimum wage. Every tax dollar you take from Sebby is less useful to him than the tax dollar you take from a truck driver. The poorer you are the more efficient you are when it comes to spending your money (as long as you earn it yourself), so from an economic perspective, if you have to take money, it is better for the economy to take that money from a rich person than from a less rich person. But having said that, tax rates should never go over forty percent for anyone. If the minimum wage is not high enough to get someone off government assistance, or not high enough to provide for the basic needs for the family, what good is that job to the overall society? I know I disagree with scripture (the Economist) on this but the Economist has just not figured out what Adder has pointed out - Spanky is always right. In addition, the Democratic Leadership Council agrees with me on this, and Senator a Clinton is a strong supporter of that group).
.

Apparently you got bored after this preamble and never got around to addressing Tables' point.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you saying that it is OK that Malkin had to move because of death threats? When the Dixie Chicks receive death threats its the end of the world, and free speech and our Constitution are under threat, but when Michelle Malkin or Dinesh D'Souza receive death threats, it is nothing to worry about.

Okay, so I was a little too flip (sheesh). Threats of violence are always unacceptable, and those directed at Ms. Malkin should be denounced, just like threats of violence against anyone else who states an opinion.

But that don't make her not batshit crazy.

(I will note for the record that I don't recall ever saying anything abot the Dixis Chicks or D'Souza, so you can keep your intimation of a double standard to yourself)

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
I understand that high taxes make economies grow slower, but that's irrelevant. Suppose protectionist barriers support wages for 90% of the US population, and eliminating those barriers would reduce their income. For those people to vote for eliminating these barriers unless they are fully compensated for the regulatory taking is irrational.

Perhaps. But the obvious flaw in your argument is that protectionist barrers are not supporting the wages of 90% of the U.S. population. And the effect that you assume would flow from the elimination of your imaginary barriers is also far from clearly established.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apparently you got bored after this preamble and never got around to addressing Tables' point.

He also forgot to mention the Tables is assuming a static economy. Jobs, wages and capital will shift to more productive activities in the U.S. is response to more competitive trade from abroad. So, while wages may decline in automobile manufacturing (or steel production, or help-desk support, or whatever), fewer people in the U.S. will be engaged in those activities, shifting to other areas where the U.S. has a comparative advantage.

There are two things that make U.S. politians nervous about this: (1) they have constituants that are auto workers who are losing jobs, and (2) they can't explain where those new jobs are going to come from. There are solutions (like the ones Tables has mentioned) to both of those.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
He also forgot to mention the Tables is assuming a static economy. Jobs, wages and capital will shift to more productive activities in the U.S. is response to more competitive trade from abroad. So, while wages may decline in automobile manufacturing (or steel production, or help-desk support, or whatever), fewer people in the U.S. will be engaged in those activities, shifting to other areas where the U.S. has a comparative advantage.

There are two things that make U.S. politians nervous about this: (1) they have constituants that are auto workers who are losing jobs, and (2) they can't explain where those new jobs are going to come from. There are solutions (like the ones Tables has mentioned) to both of those.

Unlike Tables, I'm willing to assume that the gains from free trade outweigh the losses, for the country as a whole. I didn't think he was suggesting that 90% of the population would lose out -- I understood his post as presenting that hypothetical to make more real the fact that there will be many losers, and that they have a political voice. As you suggest, the losses from free trade are felt more than the gains, partly because of endowment effect -- people value the job they already have more than the one they might get. And partly because the losses are concretely attributable to free trade, and that's often less clear about the gains.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The leaders of the Nazi party were mostly atheists.

I wasn't really thinking of just the Nazi party. I was largely condemning almost the entirety of the populations of the world who stood by and let the Nazis slaughter 6 million Jews because, well, after all they were just Jews.