John Stossel: The Stupidity of "Buy American"

I suggested the community college because your other resource (internet) you're not using. I'm not an expert and I'm not trying to come across as "better than you", but at the same time, I would never go into a debate in something I have no idea in, like chemistry or engineering. You would learn a great understanding of this subject if you enroll in a class, though you could probably get the same information online if you really tried.
 
I suggested the community college because your other resource (internet) you're not using. I'm not an expert and I'm not trying to come across as "better than you", but at the same time, I would never go into a debate in something I have no idea in, like chemistry or engineering. You would learn a great understanding of this subject if you enroll in a class, though you could probably get the same information online if you really tried.

So are you gonna school me on my rebuttals or not?
 
I'm not gonna read through the last 18 pages of this thread, but guys this issue is ridiculously common sense.

I'm currently in an upper division international economics course, and we've gone over this all in great detail. Out of 430+ students, I'm in 1st place with a 112.1% test average, LOL. (so I know a little bit about this topic)

I am happy that you are doing so well in your studies.

When you compare those studies to thirty years of working experience, owning three businesses, and currently managing a 25 million dollar operation, you find that there is something missing, there is a disconnect between what the book says and what's in the real world.

You know, I got pissy with LPG, for calling me a "joke" but in retrospect, maybe he has a point.

In many ways I am uncouth, crude and certainly do not possess any higher degrees of learning.

I'm just an idiot high school drop out.

In fact, I'm a lot like this guy, who is also a joke:



A joke that knows more about the real world of economics than twenty professors.

School ain't the real world.
 
Last edited:
Ah. O.K. That is about as much as I need to know about the situation. A lowly dumbass like myself could not possibly understand the expanse of economics without a local community college edumacation. Fuck community college. I've dealt with the fucking mentality of the enlightened that teach curses there.
 
I am happy that you are doing so well in your studies.

When you compare those studies to thirty years of working experience, owning three businesses, and currently managing a 25 million dollar operation, you find that there is something missing, there is a disconnect between what the book says and what's in the real world.

In many ways I am uncouth, crude and certainly do not possess any higher degrees of learning.

I'm just an idiot high school drop out.

School ain't the real world.

No. It is all about 'theory' and 'laws.' Boots on the ground means NOTHING.
 
1. O.K. let's give all those Americans $100k. I'm one of them. How do you propose we go about this?

It was completely hypothetical in that I would never advocate for something like this, but if you want a solution that is STILL better than trade barriers, you could insert a tax on all goods like a sales tax, you could raise the income tax...if it's spread evenly it wouldn't distort trade near as much as tariffs do.

Also, I forgot to mention...if you WERE going to use protection to save American jobs, the best way to do it is through domestic subsidies. This is is because with a tariff you have both the production loss triangle and the consumption loss triangle. With a subsidy, you only have the production loss triangle. In short, you lose less wealth with a subsidy which has the same "positive" effects as a tariff or quota.



2. I thought you had? Is not full employment of each trading nation not considered in the law of comparative advantage? I believe it must be. The two people on the island story that the 'comparative advantage' school of thought likes to promote both have a job to fill. Unfortunately, that is not the case in reality.

What do you mean this isn't the case in reality? Are you saying there aren't new jobs to fill, and that tariffs on things like steel don't in the end cause more job losses than they save?

3. I'm not talking about ALL imports. I'm talking about a VARIETY of exports/national consumption in the manufacturing base.

You'll have to remind me what point 3 was talking about, and explain this answer again.
 
I am happy that you are doing so well in your studies.

When you compare those studies to thirty years of working experience, owning three businesses, and currently managing a 25 million dollar operation, you find that there is something missing, there is a disconnect between what the book says and what's in the real world.

You know, I got pissy with LPG, for calling me a "joke" but in retrospect, maybe he has a point.

In many ways I am uncouth, crude and certainly do not possess any higher degrees of learning.

I'm just an idiot high school drop out.

In fact, I'm a lot like this guy, who is also a joke:



A joke that knows more about the real world of economics than twenty professors.

School ain't the real world.



Those are some good accomplishments, but to go from "I've held x amount of jobs" to "I know how economics works" isn't any better than saying that causes you to know chemistry. Economics follows a set of laws that work. For example, just because you own 3 businesses does not mean that consumers are NOT going to buy less when prices rise.

I've argued this subject with you too many times in the past AF, so all I can say is I've taken classes and have done research on the issue, and almost all economists agree, and you once told me you didn't believe in these micro-economic principles because "all the teachers are keynesians" when keynesianism has nothing to do with micro-economics, it has to do with macro-economics.

There's really no refuting micro-economics, but there are different economic thoughts on MACRO econ.
 
It was completely hypothetical in that I would never advocate for something like this, but if you want a solution that is STILL better than trade barriers, you could insert a tax on all goods like a sales tax, you could raise the income tax...if it's spread evenly it wouldn't distort trade near as much as tariffs do.

Honestly, THIS right here is your problem. You deal in hypothetical instead of reality. It's kinda like having a 112.1% test score. WTF? 100% should be considered the absolute.


What do you mean this isn't the case in reality? Are you saying there aren't new jobs to fill...

That's exactly what I'm saying. The employment rate would bear out what I am saying.

You'll have to remind me what point 3 was talking about, and explain this answer again.

You've got the 112.1% test score. You don't have reading comprehension skills?
 
Those are some good accomplishments, but to go from "I've held x amount of jobs" to "I know how economics works" isn't any better than saying that causes you to know chemistry. Economics follows a set of laws that work. For example, just because you own 3 businesses does not mean that consumers are NOT going to buy less when prices rise.

No, it doesn't.

But I know what works, what made money and what sunk me.

Brilliant men have made a hash of more than one economy around the world.

Keynes was a lettered economist, considered a genius.

Is he right?

I've argued this subject with you too many times in the past AF, so all I can say is I've taken classes and have done research on the issue, and almost all economists agree, and you once told me you didn't believe in these micro-economic principles because "all the teachers are keynesians" when keynesianism has nothing to do with micro-economics, it has to do with macro-economics.

I'm not quite sure that was me.

I'm not going to deny it outright, but it doesn't sound like something I'd say.

And yes, we've gone around and around, as have others.

I still maintain, that, based on what is going on now, "free trade" as defined and practiced right now, is, in it's part, destroying the economy.

You have a Ronald Reagan quote in your sig line.

Ronald Reagan slapped tariffs on all sorts of goods, some with positive results, like Harley Davidson that was able to get some breathing room and avoid bankruptcy in 1983. Or Toyota and Honda plants in this country, making the best selling cars in the country.

But yet you quote him.

Sometimes people just look at things differently, for whatever reason. Doesn't make them assholes or wrong about everything else.

I wish I could respond in greater detail, just this is killing me since I banged up my left hand pretty bad the other day.
 
Last edited:
Did you miss THIS relative point in my post?

phill, I'm not getting your point. Would you say the same thing if he said "almost all economist agree that the minimum wage increases unemployment"?

By "same thing" I mean "get your head out of a book".
 
Last edited:
Did you miss THIS relative point in my post?
You claim that he needs to get his head out of a book and stop using theories. The Austrian School of Economics, which Ron Paul subscribes to, is known for only using theories. Theories are the only thing economics can be based on.

The fact that all Austrian Economists and 90% of mainstream support Free Trade is relevant, especially when they have supported it for 200 years now.
 
You claim that he needs to get his head out of a book and stop using theories. The Austrian School of Economics, which Ron Paul subscribes to, is known for only using theories. Theories are the only thing economics can be based on.

The fact that all Austrian Economists and 90% of mainstream support Free Trade is relevant, especially when they have supported it for 200 years now.

I bet most people haven't read the excellent link someone posted here, the article written by Jeffrey Tucker that has an example and goes through the numbers. That's probably one of the most straight forward explanations of the benefits of free trade.
 
phill, I'm not getting your point. Would you say the same thing if he said "almost all economist agree that the minimum wage increases unemployment"?

By "same thing" I mean "get your head out of a book".

My point would be that Krigisen has his head up his ass. As in his head is in a book regarding Economics. I've given solid rebuttal that I've asked answers for. I've received nothing but hypothetical and misdirected answers thus far.
 
Christ, let pose my questions again anew. Riddle me this...

1. I agree that manufacturing output has increased. However, and I think the point being made by the dumbasses here, like myself, is that as you say "we're losing manufacturing JOBS."

2. Does not Comparative advantage include an analysis of each nations employment rate? Does not the entire premise rest on full employment by each nation engaging in it?

3. Rubber bands eventually wear and break. What then when one or the other nation has lost all of it's manufacturing capacity in certain industries and and the nation is so far into insolvency that this manufacturing cannot easily be resurrected?
 
Back
Top