John Stossel: The Stupidity of "Buy American"

[low preference guy]

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."

I'll try to take this one. Whenever productivity increases jobs are lost immediately. For example,some candle makers lost their jobs when new forms of energy and light bulbs appeared. So if you're arguing that free trade increases productivity and therefore destroys jobs, being consistent would mean to argue against any improvement in productivity.

 

[phill4paul]

I'll try to take this one. Whenever productivity increases jobs are lost immediately. For example, candle makers lost their jobs when new forms of energy and light bulbs appeared. So if you're arguing that free trade increases productivity and therefore destroys jobs, being consistent would mean to argue against any improvement in productivity.

I've heard about the same from Krigesin. So when are those new jobs gonna come around? In my sector of the nation its been over 30 yrs and counting in a steady decline. To the point of 20% real unemployment.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

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."

The fewer the manufacturing jobs with the more output, the better. There is no reason to waste resources on it if it can be done by fewer people. Allow people to move out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing jobs and into higher paying service sector jobs.

By your logic, we would be worse off if manufacturing production per capita increased ten fold due to a change in technology, and half of all labor in the sector lost their jobs as a result.

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?

No.

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?

Manufacting is at all time highs.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

I've heard about the same from Krigesin. So when are those new jobs gonna come around? In my sector of the nation its been over 30 yrs and counting in a steady decline. To the point of 20% real unemployment.

What is your sector?

The unemployment rate has been high since 2008. There is not a long term trend of high unemployment, just a severe recession turning into a depression due to awful interventionist government policies.

 

[low preference guy]

I've heard about the same from Krigesin. So when are those new jobs gonna come around? In my sector of the nation its been over 30 yrs and counting in a steady decline. To the point of 20% real unemployment.

When we have free tarde? When we eliminate trade barriers, NAFTA, CAFTA, and start trading with Cuba?

Also, there are obviously multiple things going on in the economy. Having free trade is beneficial but there might be other things destroying jobs, for example, the government shutting down Boeing plants in South Carolina, the Feds raiding Gibson Guitars in Tennessee, or FINRA fining Peter Schiff for hiring too many people. If there is free trade and the standard of living goes down at the same time, it's not because of free trade, but despite it.

 

[phill4paul]

What is your sector?

The unemployment rate has been high since 2008. There is not a long term trend of high unemployment, just a severe recession turning into a depression due to awful interventionist government policies.

As posted earlier. Furniture manufacturing. As stated earlier the areas leadership has decided the best course of action is a service industry for the retired. At half the wages for job seekers.

 

[phill4paul]

The fewer the manufacturing jobs with the more output, the better. There is no reason to waste resources on it if it can be done by fewer people. Allow people to move out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing jobs and into higher paying service sector jobs.

By your logic, we would be worse off if manufacturing production per capita increased ten fold due to a change in technology, and half of all labor in the sector lost their jobs as a result..

Again with this "move people out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing" Bullshit. Move them where? Still waiting on this answer that no one seems capable of doing other than phrases that beat a dead horse.

No.

The 'law' of comparitive advantage takes into account unemployment. At least from what I've read 'on the internet.' If it doesn't then it does not apply in a real world scenario. WTF don't you understand about this?

Manufacting is at all time highs.

I've admitted that. Fuck it is more, or less, proven. That still does not reconcile loss of industries that are critical for national, or state, preservation in the event of black out. Nor the job loss that comes with this.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

As posted earlier. Furniture manufacturing. As stated earlier the areas leadership has decided the best course of action is a service industry for the retired. At half the wages for job seekers.

I see. So do you want a tariff?

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Again with this "move people out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing" Bullshit. Move them where? Still waiting on this answer that no one seems capable of doing other than phrases that beat a dead horse.

You've been told several times. They would likely move to the service sector.

The 'law' of comparitive advantage takes into account unemployment. At least from what I've read 'on the internet.' If it doesn't then it does not apply in a real world scenario. WTF don't you understand about this?

Unemployment is not relavent because there is not a fixed number of jobs.

I've admitted that. Fuck it is more, or less, proven. That still does not reconcile loss of industries that are critical for national, or state, preservation in the event of black out. Nor the job loss that comes with this

They lose that outdated industry and gain a new one, creating more wealth than was ever possibly before. The unemployed labor will simply shift to where it is most effective.

 

[phill4paul]

You've been told several times. They would likely move to the service sector.

I'm glad you're finally getting my drift. Somehow I don't think you're seeing it like I do.

Unemployment is not relavent because there is not a fixed number of jobs.

The unemployed laud your correctness. Employment is never relevant.

They lose that outdated industry and gain a new one, creating more wealth than was ever possibly before. The unemployed labor will simply shift to where it is most effective.

WTF is an 'outdated' industry? Still looking for that magic 'full filler' that will solve unemployment.

 

[Kregisen]

I've admitted that. Fuck it is more, or less, proven. That still does not reconcile loss of industries that are critical for national, or state, preservation in the event of black out. Nor the job loss that comes with this.

The only arguments for protection are ones like this for example, which you haven't brought up until this point. Perhaps a country should lower its standard of living as insurance in order to guarantee its supply for items it uses for defense. (this is why not ALL economists support free trade...it's a trade off) Although, you mentioned you were in the furniture industry....not exactly the same as a tank.

 

[Kregisen]

Again with this "move people out of low paying, low skill, manufacturing" Bullshit. Move them where? Still waiting on this answer that no one seems capable of doing other than phrases that beat a dead horse.

You're getting pretty feisty here for someone with a lot of questions and no answers. Beggars can't be choosers after all. It's not expensive to go take a class with an expert and get every single question answered y'know.

The 'law' of comparitive advantage takes into account unemployment. At least from what I've read 'on the internet.' If it doesn't then it does not apply in a real world scenario. WTF don't you understand about this?

It's obvious he's not the one here who doesn't understand it. What kind of argument are you trying to make with unemployment? How does it affect whether comparative advantage rings true or not?

 

[Kregisen]

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.

I guess I didn't know someone had to be perfect in order to agree with them on something? You're trying to tell me that the quote "The heart of conservatism is libertarianism" is true ONLY if Reagan was a good president? Is this the kind of logic people use?

Reagan also skyrocketed the deficits. Are you going to accuse me of liking deficits and the war on drugs too? Perhaps truth is truth no matter which mouth it comes out of.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

You're getting pretty feisty here for someone with a lot of questions and no answers. Beggars can't be choosers after all. It's not expensive to go take a class with an expert and get every single question answered y'know.







It's obvious he's not the one here who doesn't understand it. What kind of argument are you trying to make with unemployment? How does it affect whether comparative advantage rings true or not?

He could read a variety of books on the subject online for free as well. Most of Bastiats writing, Economics in one lesson by Hasslett , and this list of books on Mises.org on various economic subjects can all be found online.

 

[nbhadja]

What's the point of low prices if there are no jobs for many people so they can't buy anything?

I know people are saying "resources are used more efficiently" so they free up more resources over here to create jobs, but at some point people stop buying stuff. The economy is not unlimited. There is a limit- people aren't gonna buy everything under the sun. Even if they wanted to (which they dont'), they wouldn't have enough money for it anyways. If the main things go overseas due to cheap slave labor then what else is there to produce at home? If car production, TV production etc all went overseas (like real life), then what left is to produce at home? You think people can afford to buy cars, tvs etc (we know they will buy these 2 things), plus whatever thing America is producing?


I don't have a problem with free trade in a world with no slave labor, but the moment any country has slave labor it throws a wrench in free trade.

In a real free market world, everyone will have living wages. As a result, these unfair price advantages caused by countries willing to work their people like slaves would not exist in a global free market because these places would have living wages. No one would voluntarily work for slave wages in a global free market like they are forced to do in many countries like China for example.

Sure if America was a completely free market country with complete free trade even in a world of slave labor like China life would be much better than it is now in this system, but I just think that the quality of life would decrease with complete free trade in a world with countries like China because we would have have much lower wages, longer hours and forced to compete with these slave countries like China.

Free markets are all about competition, and the only way to compete with places like China is to work for slave wages and live in deplorable conditions.

 

[phill4paul]

You're getting pretty feisty here for someone with a lot of questions and no answers. Beggars can't be choosers after all. It's not expensive to go take a class with an expert and get every single question answered y'know.

I'm getting 'fiesty' because you have yet to adequately answer my three simple question.

It's obvious he's not the one here who doesn't understand it. What kind of argument are you trying to make with unemployment? How does it affect whether comparative advantage rings true or not?

The law of comparative advantage only holds true if there is full employment in both countries. There is also a number of other factors involved. You're the one that brought it up and it's obvious you are the one here that does not understand this.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The only arguments for protection are ones like this for example, which you haven't brought up until this point. Perhaps a country should lower its standard of living as insurance in order to guarantee its supply for items it uses for defense. (this is why not ALL economists support free trade...it's a trade off) Although, you mentioned you were in the furniture industry....not exactly the same as a tank.

You ever notice the US does not invade countries whom they are trading with? The record is clear; protectionism leads to war. There is no argument for protectionism, unless of course you personally benefit from the limiting of competition.

Now, a flat low tariff to use to fund the State...it's the least worst of any tax, but it has to be uniform and used to get rid of all internal taxation. Good luck with that.

 

[specsaregood]

Not sure what your point is....are you asking me how inflation enters into this?

1. inflation decreases the value of that currency.
2. because of this, exports will be "cheaper" to foreigners while imports will be "more expensive" to the domestic country
3. Foreigners gain wealth by trading their non-inflated currency in for additional imports due to inflation in exporting country

Does that answer your question? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask.

How many dollars have we printed up and exported, do you think price inflation has really kept up even near with the amount of our monetary base inflation?

 

[erowe1]

Those are wise words in the OP.

 

[nbhadja]

You ever notice the US does not invade countries whom they are trading with? The record is clear; protectionism leads to war. There is no argument for protectionism, unless of course you personally benefit from the limiting of competition.

Now, a flat low tariff to use to fund the State...it's the least worst of any tax, but it has to be uniform and used to get rid of all internal taxation. Good luck with that.

Not true at all. We invade countries that do not have US installed puppet dictators that whore their people out to the US corporations as slave labor. If anything, if those countries had protectionism they would reduce poverty and kick out out the imperialist US and EU corporations. But when they do that, they get invaded by the US because the US corps want cheap slave labor overseas.

It's the countries we "trade" with that have puppet corporatist governments installed by the CIA which cause 3rd word poverty.

Look at what Venezuela and Cuba did after throwing out the US puppet governments and using protectionist measures. Poverty reduced by 50% in Venezuela and extreme poverty reduced by 75%. Cuba went from 33% extreme poverty to one of the lowest poverty rates on earth, even lower than America. 2/3rds of Cuba was even owned by US and European corporations before they kicked them out.

Likewise, after kicking out the US installed monarch government, Libya went from one of the poorest nations on earth to one of the richest nations in Africa. They even had a higher standard of living than some European countries and they had one of the most comfortable lifestyles on earth.