Trade does not "cost" jobs; immigration does not "cost" jobs
"screwing someone in a business transaction" has nothing to do with trade restrictions. Of course any transaction could give rise to an issue that needs to be adjudicated in the courts. But there is no difference if that transaction occurred with someone across the street or someone across the ocean. Trade across borders does not need any rules that does not apply to all transactions.
But one again you try to cover your cluelessness with extreme nastiness.
Tom_Reingold said:
bramzzoinks said:
Guns can hurt. Trade never can. The more unfettered the better.
Your attempt at an analogy is a complete failure. As usual.
I don't know where you've been living, but if you've never seen anyone screw anyone else in a business transaction, I suspect it has more to do with your cognition than location.
I'll try not to get wound up over your idiocy, because chances are, you're a troll. But if not, there is no way to show you what kind of idiot you are.
He's talking about global trade, not you selling your bike on Craigslist
jimmurphy said:
It is interesting that there is not more focus on the Dem side on job retraining and adult education to help the displaced workers. Or am I just missing the discussion?
The problem began with Ping-pong diplomacy. 10 years later, 200 million prospective workers entered the job market. 10 more years and another hundred m. from India entered the job market. They are willing to work for less.
It took another 10 years for machinery and industry to follow those workers to India, China, Dominican Repub, and so forth.
I doubt there will be enough jobs to fill, even with newly trained workers. Witness the "failure to launch" college grads of the past 10 years.
Protective tariffs might help.
Your analysis is so incorrect on so many levels, riddled with fixed pie fallacies.
Global trade is a large bunch of big transactions whereas "selling my bike on craigslist" is a small one. My point applies to both. Laws can be made to make mutual benefit likely, and laws can be made to benefit only some people. We must choose laws wisely.
bramzzoinks said:
"screwing someone in a business transaction" has nothing to do with trade restrictions. Of course any transaction could give rise to an issue that needs to be adjudicated in the courts. But there is no difference if that transaction occurred with someone across the street or someone across the ocean. Trade across borders does not need any rules that does not apply to all transactions.
But one again you try to cover your cluelessness with extreme nastiness.
With trade across national borders you have to account for linguistic and cultural differences.
Of course that may also apply to trade across the street but less likely.
Protective tariffs don't help - see textile industry one of the most protected in the USA. Most textile products (non FTA) come in with 15-30% duty depending on the arcane rules. Most free trade deals are basically a failure due to protectionism - ie you must use certain US components to qualify (ship to foreign country for make up) and then ship back with 100X it's weight in paperwork.
The idea though that you can have trade flow without rules is patently ridiculous. See dumping.
the notion that trade can just occur "naturally" across borders without any rules is naive. What would stop another country from subsidizing a favored industry which could then engage in predatory pricing practices in another country, and putting competitors out of business? Only regulation.
Predatory pricing is just a gift to the other country. All it does is lead to the bankruptcy of the county that that tries it.
Like when the Japanese bought all those U.S. assets at inflated prices in the late 70's and early 80's. It was a wonderful transfer of wealth to us.
jimmurphy said:
terp said:
there is nothing natural about baloney
Looks like author hacked you.
How about addressing the substance of PVW's post?
Sure thing Jim!
PVW said:
bramzzoinks said:
No it does not. There is no reason goods or services moving between the borders of countries should have any greater impediment than goods moving across a street. Any impediment is artificially created.
Even that simple analogy fails. Are streets natural? No, they're artificially created, and their existence certainly was not free. Are there cars traveling on that street? If so, then you probably can't just carry a box across the street whenever you like; you have to make sure you don't get hit by a car. If the authority that constructed that street was forward thinking, maybe the put in a crosswalk to help you cross the street with your goods. Of course, that involves making rules such as "cars need to stop at crosswalks," and some enforcement mechanism for people and vehicles that don't follow the rules...
So again - we might come up with simple rules, or more complex ones, but we'll still have rules and regulations. I completely agree that in general it's better if we can keep our rules simpler and keep bureaucracy leaner, but this fantasy that economic action is "natural" and states are "artificial" is baloney.
I'm not sure it's baloney. I mean state borders are man made. I can walk up to the US/Mexico border. And a assuming there's no wall. And for the record, if there was a wall. I'm sure it would be great and yuge and all that. And even if there was a wall, that is a man made construct. There is no natural division between Mexico and the US. There is an imaginary line between the countries. That sure sounds like a man made construct.
Assume I owned a coffee shop 10 feet north of the border. Furthermore, assume this Bramzzoinks guy lived 10 feet below that border. Today, Bramzzoinks is never having a cup of coffee in my shop. This, even though my coffee is other-worldly. That last sentence is not an assumption. That ***** is true.
The only reason BZ isn't drinking my coffee is a human construct called a national border. He's not going to go through the bureaucracy it would take to stop by my coffee shop. Now, remove that border and he's hanging out enjoying a scone and a nice cup of joe in my shop.
The reason we watch our borders so closely are numerous. But one of the big problems regarding letting people cross borders is the welfare state. If you have a welfare state this prospect becomes very problematic.
In terms of goods, while I would agree most would want some sort of minimum standard applied to goods that cross borders this isn't usually what happens. What usually happens is that we protect domestic producers with complex rules. The EU suffered from this. They created a large bureaucracy to implement rules. It's not clear who this bureaucracy answers to. However, there were some bizarre regulations. They had like 2200 regulations on milk or something. The nature of bureaucracy is that they tend to grow.
States are man-made constructs. As all things that are man made are temporary.
ml1 said:
the notion that trade can just occur "naturally" across borders without any rules is naive. What would stop another country from subsidizing a favored industry which could then engage in predatory pricing practices in another country, and putting competitors out of business? Only regulation.
If the other country started dumping free goods would that be a problem? Let's say Japan sent us 100,000 SUVs a year for free. This would make the US poorer somehow?
If I worked in a car factory this might be bad news. But it's difficult to argue that this makes the US poorer in the aggregate. It may displace some workers, hopefully temporarily.
The tough thing about free trade is that people need to be much more nimble. There's no more getting a job out of HS or College and just doing that job for 30 years and retiring. For the most part, those days are behind us.
I think you may have gotten my point reversed. Of course states, and the borders between them, are artificial. What's baloney is talking as if trade is not. In your coffee shop analogy, coffee shops are as human-created and artificial as borders.
As for the EU, I'm no expert on it so I can't really comment in depth on its regulations and structure. What I can say, from a general perspective, is that the 59 years since the founding of the European Economic Community (the progenitor of the EU) have seen a far more peaceful and prosperous Europe than the 59 years before. Perhaps more than any other time in European history, period. So they're doing something right.
Clearly they have some serious issues to address as well, but I think it's definitely a project very much worth saving. Again, I'm not an expert on the EU, so I can't speak at depth as to what an approach to reforming and strengthening the EU would look like, but it's certainly been an overwhelmingly net positive for Europe and the world than a negative.
To reiterate my original comment on this thread, I think globalization has actually been a net positive. Where we've failed, and must improve, is making sure the benefits of it better distributed. It's a tragedy that increased international economic integration has coincided with decreased intra-national economic integration. Increasing the overall wealth while decreasing the mechanisms for redistributing it undermines itself.
terp said:
jimmurphy said:
terp said:
there is nothing natural about baloney
Looks like author hacked you.
How about addressing the substance of PVW's post?
Sure thing Jim!
PVW said:
bramzzoinks said:
No it does not. There is no reason goods or services moving between the borders of countries should have any greater impediment than goods moving across a street. Any impediment is artificially created.
Even that simple analogy fails. Are streets natural? No, they're artificially created, and their existence certainly was not free. Are there cars traveling on that street? If so, then you probably can't just carry a box across the street whenever you like; you have to make sure you don't get hit by a car. If the authority that constructed that street was forward thinking, maybe the put in a crosswalk to help you cross the street with your goods. Of course, that involves making rules such as "cars need to stop at crosswalks," and some enforcement mechanism for people and vehicles that don't follow the rules...
So again - we might come up with simple rules, or more complex ones, but we'll still have rules and regulations. I completely agree that in general it's better if we can keep our rules simpler and keep bureaucracy leaner, but this fantasy that economic action is "natural" and states are "artificial" is baloney.
I'm not sure it's baloney. I mean state borders are man made. I can walk up to the US/Mexico border. And a assuming there's no wall. And for the record, if there was a wall. I'm sure it would be great and yuge and all that. And even if there was a wall, that is a man made construct. There is no natural division between Mexico and the US. There is an imaginary line between the countries. That sure sounds like a man made construct.
Assume I owned a coffee shop 10 feet north of the border. Furthermore, assume this Bramzzoinks guy lived 10 feet below that border. Today, Bramzzoinks is never having a cup of coffee in my shop. This, even though my coffee is other-worldly. That last sentence is not an assumption. That ***** is true.
The only reason BZ isn't drinking my coffee is a human construct called a national border. He's not going to go through the bureaucracy it would take to stop by my coffee shop. Now, remove that border and he's hanging out enjoying a scone and a nice cup of joe in my shop.
The reason we watch our borders so closely are numerous. But one of the big problems regarding letting people cross borders is the welfare state. If you have a welfare state this prospect becomes very problematic.
In terms of goods, while I would agree most would want some sort of minimum standard applied to goods that cross borders this isn't usually what happens. What usually happens is that we protect domestic producers with complex rules. The EU suffered from this. They created a large bureaucracy to implement rules. It's not clear who this bureaucracy answers to. However, there were some bizarre regulations. They had like 2200 regulations on milk or something. The nature of bureaucracy is that they tend to grow.
States are man-made constructs. As all things that are man made are temporary.
ml1 said:
the notion that trade can just occur "naturally" across borders without any rules is naive. What would stop another country from subsidizing a favored industry which could then engage in predatory pricing practices in another country, and putting competitors out of business? Only regulation.
If the other country started dumping free goods would that be a problem? Let's say Japan sent us 100,000
terp said:jimmurphy said:
terp said:
there is nothing natural about baloney
Looks like author hacked you.
How about addressing the substance of PVW's post?
Sure thing Jim!
PVW said:
bramzzoinks said:
No it does not. There is no reason goods or services moving between the borders of countries should have any greater impediment than goods moving across a street. Any impediment is artificially created.
Even that simple analogy fails. Are streets natural? No, they're artificially created, and their existence certainly was not free. Are there cars traveling on that street? If so, then you probably can't just carry a box across the street whenever you like; you have to make sure you don't get hit by a car. If the authority that constructed that street was forward thinking, maybe the put in a crosswalk to help you cross the street with your goods. Of course, that involves making rules such as "cars need to stop at crosswalks," and some enforcement mechanism for people and vehicles that don't follow the rules...So again - we might come up with simple rules, or more complex ones, but we'll still have rules and regulations. I completely agree that in general it's better if we can keep our rules simpler and keep bureaucracy leaner, but this fantasy that economic action is "natural" and states are "artificial" is baloney.
ml1 said:
the notion that trade can just occur "naturally" across borders without any rules is naive. What would stop another country from subsidizing a favored industry which could then engage in predatory pricing practices in another country, and putting competitors out of business? Only regulation.
If the other country started dumping free goods would that be a problem? Let's say Japan sent us 100,000 SUVs a year for free. This would make the US poorer somehow?
If I worked in a car factory this might be bad news. But it's difficult to argue that this makes the US poorer in the aggregate. It may displace some workers, hopefully temporarily.
The tough thing about free trade is that people need to be much more nimble. There's no more getting a job out of HS or College and just doing that job for 30 years and retiring. For the most part, those days are behind us.
Thanks Terp! ;-) Will respond tomorrow. I agree with many of your points. But not all...
Just going to drop this here for reference.
http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
Philosophical points about what counts as "natural" and what counts as "artificial" aside, I do think most states are better off when they agree to let people and good cross their borders with a minimum amount of obstacles.
Talking EU again, while I have no experience running a business there, so can't speak to the regulations, I do have family, friends, and colleagues who live and work in Europe, and the free movement of people across borders has been transformative for them. Being able to work, study, and travel so seamlessly across the region has been immensely positive for them.
PVW said:
I think you may have gotten my point reversed. Of course states, and the borders between them, are artificial. What's baloney is talking as if trade is not. In your coffee shop analogy, coffee shops are as human-created and artificial as borders.
Coffee shops are real. I can go to one and get a cup of coffee.
PVW said:
As for the EU, I'm no expert on it so I can't really comment in depth on its regulations and structure. What I can say, from a general perspective, is that the 59 years since the founding of the European Economic Community (the progenitor of the EU) have seen a far more peaceful and prosperous Europe than the 59 years before. Perhaps more than any other time in European history, period. So they're doing something right.
Correlation is not causation. Trade is great. I think countries should trade. If there is no reason to stop the free movement of people, than the free movement of people is great. What is less great is the centralization of powers especially to a bureaucracy in which they don't have any agency.
PVW said:
Clearly they have some serious issues to address as well, but I think it's definitely a project very much worth saving. Again, I'm not an expert on the EU, so I can't speak at depth as to what an approach to reforming and strengthening the EU would look like, but it's certainly been an overwhelmingly net positive for Europe and the world than a negative.
How so?
PVW said:
To reiterate my original comment on this thread, I think globalization has actually been a net positive. Where we've failed, and must improve, is making sure the benefits of it better distributed. It's a tragedy that increased international economic integration has coincided with decreased intra-national economic integration. Increasing the overall wealth while decreasing the mechanisms for redistributing it undermines itself.
There is no question that globalization has been a net positive. The problems occur when the elites get to make the rules and the rules are slanted for their benefit. I don't personally see BREXIT, as it is know, as a rejection of globalization. I think its rather a victory for sovereignty. Globalization and sovereignty are not mutually exclusive concepts, despite what you may read in the press.
I'm not sure what you mean by "decreasing the mechanisms for redistributing" wealth. I think the distribution of wealth has increased. Global poverty has decreased greatly due to globalization. Those in the west do not feel that as much for a couple of reasons. First, these new workers who crawled out of poverty are competing with labor in the west for wages. Second, monetary policy and the resulting financialization of the economy has eroded some of the benefits of globalization(cheap prices, real wages) and has caused severe asset inflation. This does tilt the playing field towards the rich.
Given all of that, think about how wealthy the US has become. Not only are we able to have children not work(this is not feasible everywhere, and not even in the US for that long), we can afford to have adults not work. You have people going to secondary schools for years, and never working. That of course comes with it's own problems. In addition, we have people who retire and don't work for multiple decades.
terp said:
PVW said:
I think you may have gotten my point reversed. Of course states, and the borders between them, are artificial. What's baloney is talking as if trade is not. In your coffee shop analogy, coffee shops are as human-created and artificial as borders.
Coffee shops are real. I can go to one and get a cup of coffee.
?
"Artificial" doesn't mean "not real." The internet is artificial, yet we're still having a conversation on it.
If you're offering, though, I'll take my coffee with a splash of milk, no sugar. Not too particular about the roast, though I do like Italian.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale - Rain or Shine Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
Free Items
Rentals
Advertisement
I don't know where you've been living, but if you've never seen anyone screw anyone else in a business transaction, I suspect it has more to do with your cognition than location.
I'll try not to get wound up over your idiocy, because chances are, you're a troll. But if not, there is no way to show you what kind of idiot you are.