This whole free trade/ free market thing

[majinkoola]

Of course I don't agree with a large tariff solely on steel. Of course that is pushed by the special interests. That doesn't mean all tariffs are bad and there shouldn't be some sort of tariffs on products.

Name the company that produces televisions in the US. Or airplanes, or the automobile company that is increasing production in the US. They're all gone, and tell me how that helps the economy. I'm not going to argue anymore that about the role of government in regulating trade, because it's in the Constitution.

And I disagree with RP on this, I already said that. Just like you disagree with him on excise taxes.

 

[user]

They're all gone, and tell me how that helps the economy.

You aren't seeing the hidden benefits. This does a great job of explaining them. Remember, "not merely for one group but for all groups."

 

[johnscr]

Thanks to everybody for the links, I will checking them out.
I agree with Corydoras too about some of points he brought up.



First of all, service jobs suck and pay shit, same could be said for banking unless you've worked your way up in the rankings.
And I think it's funny how some of the people on here think that higher education isn't necessary but right here we have somebody naming off jobs that require college education.
I think manufacturing jobs are important to have here because what about all of the people in the older generation (I'd say 40 and above) who have been laid off due to the manufacturing jobs going overseas. I don't think it makes more sense to buy products from poor countries, first of all we could use those jobs here, and second we should learn to become less dependent on other countries.
I'm sorry but i'm having a lot of trouble buying into this whole free market thing, it seems more harmful than the system we have right now. It seems as if the big businesses have everything to gain with a free market. How will WE THE PEOPLE benefit from this, and how will this help small businesses who are struggling to compete with the likes of Wal-Mart, Lowes, etc.?

I don't understand where these ideas come from. They are contrary to facts that are easily verified on the net. First of all unemployment is at historical lows, under 5% nationwide except for isolated pockets. Second of all manufacturing output in the US at a all time high. Now it is true that as percentage of all workers the fraction working in manufacturing is shrinking. How could that be ? Well for the same reasons the number of farmers has decreased to below 2% of the population even though we have more food than ever: productivity is much higher. Service jobs are basically any other type of job and include some of the highest paying jobs in the financial services and other industries.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Name the company that produces televisions in the US. Or airplanes, or the automobile company that is increasing production in the US. They're all gone, and tell me how that helps the economy.

So what? If it is more economic to trade for something (a plane, a train, an automobile, etc) rather than produce it yourself than trading for it is a benefit. You seem to only be focusing on what is seen and neglecting what is not seen. If it is more valuable to purchase TV's than to produce them, the factors of production that would have been used to produce TV's can be allocated to some other line of production.

 

[majinkoola]

Again, I don't really care what one economist says. Read The Great Betrayal and it will say exactly the opposite. I could easily find an economist's book in support of fiat money. So what?

What I am seeing is people losing jobs. What I am seeing is the erosion of the middle class. At the same time, even without sound money, but with protectionism, I am seeing people retain their jobs and a strengthening of the middle class in Japan.

For the fifth time, show me how it ISN'T working in Japan. How are we better off, with free trade, than Japan is with protectionism?

Ron Paul always mentions how we had better growth while on the gold standard. At the same time we had higher tariffs than we do now. Did those tariffs cripple us? No...we had high tariffs during the middle of the huge growth.

 

[majinkoola]

I don't understand where these ideas come from. They are contrary to facts that are easily verified on the net. First of all unemployment is at historical lows, under 5% nationwide except for isolated pockets. Second of all manufacturing output in the US at a all time high. Now it is true that as percentage of all workers the fraction working in manufacturing is shrinking. How could that be ? Well for the same reasons the number of farmers has decreased to below 2% of the population even though we have more food than ever: productivity is much higher. Service jobs are basically any other type of job and include some of the highest paying jobs in the financial services and other industries.

As RP as said, the unemployment figures are flawed. They don't include people who have been out of the work force for over 6 months. Many of those people are still looking for work.

Regarding manufacturing decreasing because of productivity - yes, productivity is getting better. However, the share of foreign goods in the market is way higher than it used to be.

And service jobs do include some of the highest paying jobs. But they include the lowest paying as well. There's a reason the US suffers more poverty than most first world countries, and it's not because we don't have socialistic policies.

So what? If it is more economic to trade for something (a plane, a train, an automobile, etc) rather than produce it yourself than trading for it is a benefit. You seem to only be focusing on what is seen and neglecting what is not seen. If it is more valuable to purchase TV's than to produce them, the factors of production that would have been used to produce TV's can be allocated to some other line of production.

What other line of production? Our manufacturing base is shrinking, period. What is it that Americans are producing so much more now? No, we are living beyond our means by running huge trade deficits that certainly cannot last.

 

[user]

Again, I don't really care what one economist says. Read The Great Betrayal and it will say exactly the opposite. I could easily find an economist's book in support of fiat money. So what?

By that logic there's no point in you reading our posts here, either. I'm asking you to read what that one economist says so you can see the arguments for yourself.

What I am seeing is people losing jobs. What I am seeing is the erosion of the middle class. At the same time, even without sound money, but with protectionism, I am seeing people retain their jobs and a strengthening of the middle class in Japan.

For the fifth time, show me how it ISN'T working in Japan. How are we better off, with free trade, than Japan is with protectionism?

Ron Paul always mentions how we had better growth while on the gold standard. At the same time we had higher tariffs than we do now. Did those tariffs cripple us? No...we had high tariffs during the middle of the huge growth.

Again, you aren't seeing the hidden benefits of free trade (and comparative advantage, as murrayrothbard pointed out). Even if you perceive Japan's economy to be stronger than ours, can you prove any short-term benefits do not come at the cost of long-term benefits, and for more people?

 

[johnscr]

Again, I don't really care what one economist says. Read The Great Betrayal and it will say exactly the opposite. I could easily find an economist's book in support of fiat money. So what?

What I am seeing is people losing jobs. What I am seeing is the erosion of the middle class. At the same time, even without sound money, but with protectionism, I am seeing people retain their jobs and a strengthening of the middle class in Japan.

For the fifth time, show me how it ISN'T working in Japan. How are we better off, with free trade, than Japan is with protectionism?

Ron Paul always mentions how we had better growth while on the gold standard. At the same time we had higher tariffs than we do now. Did those tariffs cripple us? No...we had high tariffs during the middle of the huge growth.

You may want to find a different example instead of Japan. Their economy grew at only half the rate of the US during this decade. It is unsubstantiated, nonfactual thinking like this that is preventing rational trade policies from being implemented

 

[majinkoola]

Conversing with user is pointless, he is just referencing books but not stating any of the arguments, probably because he doesn't have a good grasp of the arguments himself.

And yeah, the statistics the government get us are 100% correct. We only have 2% inflation right now, don't we?

And Japan is a good example. Unions have way more power there, as does the government, the elderly are even a bigger strain, they have inflationary policies. Yet the yen has still consistently gained on the dollar, and growth is starting to pick up.

Read about protectionism, rather than dismissing it because of your supposed great expertise on the subject. I have learned about free trade. I major in economics at a top 10 university, hear about it all the time and have talked with professors about it. But have you looked at the effects of protectionism? I doubt it. Until then, peace.

 

[johnscr]

As RP as said, the unemployment figures are flawed. They don't include people who have been out of the work force for over 6 months. Many of those people are still looking for work.

Regarding manufacturing decreasing because of productivity - yes, productivity is getting better. However, the share of foreign goods in the market is way higher than it used to be.

And service jobs do include some of the highest paying jobs. But they include the lowest paying as well. There's a reason the US suffers more poverty than most first world countries, and it's not because we don't have socialistic policies.



What other line of production? Our manufacturing base is shrinking, period. What is it that Americans are producing so much more now? No, we are living beyond our means by running huge trade deficits that certainly cannot last.

What data should we use to measure employment then ? The number of people employed is also at an all time high. The US today is the largest manufacturer in the world, in fact in all of history. And manufacturing output continues to grow at a healthy pace. The US has the highest per capita income of any major nation and the least poverty (after all how many people live on under $1 day - the UN definition of poverty ?)

 

[rory096]

Do yourself a big favor- enroll in a macroeconomics course at your local community college.

 

[user]

Conversing with user is pointless, he is just referencing books but not stating any of the arguments, probably because he doesn't have a good grasp of the arguments himself.

Fortunately that is incorrect. As I've said before, either you haven't read the best works in favor of free trade, in which case you should, or you have read them and there's not much point in me restating all of the arguments again. And by the way, it looks like I've referenced exactly as many books as you have.

Read about protectionism, rather than dismissing it because of your supposed great expertise on the subject. I have learned about free trade. I major in economics at a top 10 university, hear about it all the time and have talked with professors about it. But have you looked at the effects of protectionism? I doubt it. Until then, peace.

This is a hypocritical appeal to authority, and a particularly bad one at that, considering the nature of most universities today.

 

[rory096]

Of course I don't agree with a large tariff solely on steel. Of course that is pushed by the special interests. That doesn't mean all tariffs are bad and there shouldn't be some sort of tariffs on products.

Name the company that produces televisions in the US. Or airplanes, or the automobile company that is increasing production in the US. They're all gone, and tell me how that helps the economy. I'm not going to argue anymore that about the role of government in regulating trade, because it's in the Constitution.

And I disagree with RP on this, I already said that. Just like you disagree with him on excise taxes.

Boeing, one of the two big airplane manufacturers in the world, makes airplanes, and Airbus, the other one, isn't based here, but employs a lot of people here.

 

[angrydragon]

majinkoola, you keep referring to a book as well?

 

[majinkoola]

Wow, y'all are real tough ganging up on the internet. Um ok.

The US is the largest manufacturer in the world, but Japan is gaining on us in terms of share of the market, and produce more manufacturing per person. The US does not have the highest per capita income, so I don't know where you get that from. Even if we did it should be much higher as we don't have the socialist policies of other nations. And we certainly do not have the least poverty. Way to bring up false stats.

I mentioned about my college to show that I had at least listened and read pro-free trade works. I doubt you have read anything that supports protectionism. I don't consider myself an expert in free trade, but I have at least looked at the arguments.

I'm referencing the book because user keeps referencing a book. There isn't just one opinion on the topic, as much as you may hate that. That's why I keep bringing it up.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Hoppe

"[Any] alleged 'empirical proof' of the protectionist thesis must be rejected out of hand as containing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The inference drawn from historical data is no more convincing than if one were to conclude from the observation that rich people consume more than poor people that it must be consumption that makes a person rich. Indeed, protectionsits such as Buchanan characteristically fail to understand what is actually involved in defending their thesis. Any argument in favor of international protectionism rather than free trade is simultaneously an argument in favor if interregional and interlocal protectionism. Just as different wages rates exist between the United States and Mexico, Haiti, or China, for instance, such differences also exist between New York and Alabama, or between Manhattan, the Bronx and Harlem. Thus, if it were true that international protectionism could make an entire nation prosperous and strong, it must also be true that interregional and interlocal protectionism could make regions and localities prosperous and strong. In fact, one may even go one step further. If the protectionist argument were right, it would amount to an indictment of all trade and a defense of the thesis that everyone would be the most prosperous and strongest if he never traded with anyone else and remained in self-sufficient isolation. Certainly, in this case no one would ever lose his job, and unemployment due to 'unfair' competition would be reduced to zero. In thus deducing the ultimate implication of the protectionist argument, its complete absurdity is revealed, for such a 'full-employment society' would not be prosperous and strong; it would be composed of people who, despite working from dawn to dusk, would be condemned to poverty and destitution or death from starvation." Hans-Hermann Hoppe, On Free Trade and Restricted Immigration, Democracy: The God That Failed p153.

 

[johnscr]

Wow, y'all are real tough ganging up on the internet. Um ok.

The US is the largest manufacturer in the world, but Japan is gaining on us in terms of share of the market, and produce more manufacturing per person. The US does not have the highest per capita income, so I don't know where you get that from. Even if we did it should be much higher as we don't have the socialist policies of other nations. And we certainly do not have the least poverty. Way to bring up false stats.

I mentioned about my college to show that I had at least listened and read pro-free trade works. I doubt you have read anything that supports protectionism. I don't consider myself an expert in free trade, but I have at least looked at the arguments.

I'm referencing the book because user keeps referencing a book. There isn't just one opinion on the topic, as much as you may hate that. That's why I keep bringing it up.

All I'm asking is for you to check the facts. Look at this http://www.uschina.org/public/documents/2006/09/us-manufacturing.pdf
From 1995 to 2005 US share of the growing world market increased slighty from 22.3% to 22.4% while Japan fell from 21.1% to 17.8% Small countries like Luxembourg may have higher GDP but I said major as in G-8. Please show me a country with less poverty then the US.

 

[user]

I mentioned about my college to show that I had at least listened and read pro-free trade works. I doubt you have read anything that supports protectionism.

Again, you're wrong about that.

I'm referencing the book because user keeps referencing a book.

What? I referenced a book one time, after you did. Then you did it a second time. Why would you say something so misleading when the posts are right here for everyone to see?

 

[rory096]

Wow, y'all are real tough ganging up on the internet. Um ok.

The US is the largest manufacturer in the world, but Japan is gaining on us in terms of share of the market, and produce more manufacturing per person. The US does not have the highest per capita income, so I don't know where you get that from. Even if we did it should be much higher as we don't have the socialist policies of other nations. And we certainly do not have the least poverty. Way to bring up false stats.

I mentioned about my college to show that I had at least listened and read pro-free trade works. I doubt you have read anything that supports protectionism. I don't consider myself an expert in free trade, but I have at least looked at the arguments.

I'm referencing the book because user keeps referencing a book. There isn't just one opinion on the topic, as much as you may hate that. That's why I keep bringing it up.

The US is 4th in GDP per capita (behind Luxembourg, Ireland and Norway).

 

[user]

"[Any] alleged 'empirical proof' of the protectionist thesis must be rejected out of hand as containing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The inference drawn from historical data is no more convincing than if one were to conclude from the observation that rich people consume more than poor people that it must be consumption that makes a person rich. Indeed, protectionsits such as Buchanan characteristically fail to understand what is actually involved in defending their thesis. Any argument in favor of international protectionism rather than free trade is simultaneously an argument in favor if interregional and interlocal protectionism. Just as different wages rates exist between the United States and Mexico, Haiti, or China, for instance, such differences also exist between New York and Alabama, or between Manhattan, the Bronx and Harlem. Thus, if it were true that international protectionism could make an entire nation prosperous and strong, it must also be true that interregional and interlocal protectionism could make regions and localities prosperous and strong. In fact, one may even go one step further. If the protectionist argument were right, it would amount to an indictment of all trade and a defense of the thesis that everyone would be the most prosperous and strongest if he never traded with anyone else and remained in self-sufficient isolation. Certainly, in this case no one would ever lose his job, and unemployment due to 'unfair' competition would be reduced to zero. In thus deducing the ultimate implication of the protectionist argument, its complete absurdity is revealed, for such a 'full-employment society' would not be prosperous and strong; it would be composed of people who, despite working from dawn to dusk, would be condemned to poverty and destitution or death from starvation." Hans-Hermann Hoppe, On Free Trade and Restricted Immigration, Democracy: The God That Failed p153.

This ("no trade") and the famous Candlemakers' petition are my two favorite reductiones ad absurdum of protectionism.