I listen to union after union demanding stimulus packages contain 'Buy Australian/American/etc'

[dug777]

You don't have to be even slightly bright to realise that requiring stimulus projects to 'buy American/Australia/whatever' will quickly lead to a dramatically escalating round of trade barriers all round.

This will quickly put the brakes on world trade. Which doesn't sound so bad if you don't realise that most economies (developed and undeveloped alike) have a significant export sector.

Kicking the sh1t out of your export sector means domestic job losses.

It also removes a buffer for many economies (you may be aware that the US and Aus have been described as 'trading their way out of trouble' in certain quarters). Indeed, as the dollar (Aus and US respectively) devalues, it makes US and Aus exports more competitive globally, thus giving a boost to that sector of your economy.

This is quite without the broader advantages of free trade, of which much has been written that is far clearer than anything I could hope to produce. At a very high level, it allows a more efficient use of available resources while raising the living standards of the developing world AND the developed world.

It's win/win on a macro scale, but people find it hard to see the broader economic growth behind obvious micro sectoral changes and job losses. The easiest way to rebut the lowest level of protectionism proponent and explain that is to look at the US particularly over the last 70 years or so, but particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

Clearly there has been massive 'offshoring' leading to publicised and obvious job losses in certain sectors. However, there has been no corresponding rise in unemployment, and the US economy has grown astoundingly over that period, as has GDP per capita. Those jobs have been picked up elsewhere, in areas where the US does have a comparative advantage.

At the time, a brace of economies have pulled themselves into the developed world (South Korea and Japan being excellent examples). As their labour costs rise, like the US, certain industry is moving 'offshore' to China and other developing countries. However, the area under the curve is greater for those 'jobs' that were lost from the US to those countries, more goods were produced, at a lower cost, allowing Americans a higher standard of living than if the industry and jobs had merely stayed in the US.

:deep breath;

Anyway, that turned into a free-trade tirade

Krugman explains it far better than I could.

 

[techs]

There already is the equivalent to a massive round of protectionism.
China actually manipulates its currency so they artificially lower the price of what you buy from them.
Since our corporate owned government actualy encourages this attack on American workers and is refusing to do anything about this MASSIVE Chinese protectionism buy American, etc is the only option left to American workers.

And Krugman does it explain it well. You just completely misunderstood him since his position is the opposite of yours.

 

[nakedfrog]

<---- P&N

 

[meltdown75]

at least you don't have to see bumper stickers on every other vehicle that read, "Out of a job yet?! KEEP BUYING FOREIGN!"

:roll:

i really hate those bumper stickers.

 

[sdifox]

Protectionism never really worked for the US Agenda. One of the biggest stick the US has is trade, take that stick away and it would really diminish US influence.

Not to mention there is no way the manufacturing jobs are coming back even if you just say "Buy USA". Where are the manufactureres going to find the money and the guts to expand capacity to that extent?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: techs
There already is the equivalent to a massive round of protectionism.
China actually manipulates its currency so they artificially lower the price of what you buy from them.
Since our corporate owned government actualy encourages this attack on American workers and is refusing to do anything about this MASSIVE Chinese protectionism buy American, etc is the only option left to American workers.

And Krugman does it explain it well. You just completely misunderstood him since his position is the opposite of yours.

I don't have the appetite to get into the currency thing here (yeah, it's late & I'm off to bed), but two things first:

1) Protectionism will just make things worse. How exactly will it help in this situation, or do you just like the idea of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

*China's being mean, so let's completely fsck global trade and our export sectors (which, in case you missed it, aren't exactly insignificant in the US), yee haw!*

2) I wasn't aware that Krugman was against free trade. Please explain, because I could be wrong (it has happened before).

 

[speg]

It's been a pretty big deal in the news up here in Canada, glad to see they are coming around to their senses.

 

[Amused]

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Protectionism not only caused the recession of 1929/30 to become the great depression of the 30s, but has always had a negative effect on our economy.

BTW, those who hate HFCS? Guess why food makers use it? Protectionism.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: dug777
Kicking the sh1t out of your export sector means domestic job losses.

Yes, but this can be offset with jobs created by the increased demand for local goods, buying local goods are inherently better for your economy. Not only does it create local jobs, but it keeps the money flowing in your local economy.

At a very high level, it allows a more efficient use of available resources while raising the living standards of the developing world AND the developed world.

It does not take much of a mathematician to see that this is impossible. You can't give money to one group with out taking it from another. This only looked possible because most of the major western nations have been running a debt economy for so long. It looks like that is now over, the debts are crashing down around us.

s win/win on a macro scale, but people find it hard to see the broader economic growth behind obvious micro sectoral changes and job losses.

So it is win/win as long as you don't mind being out of work?

clearly there has been massive 'offshoring' leading to publicised and obvious job losses in certain sectors. However, there has been no corresponding rise in unemployment, and the US economy has grown astoundingly over that period, as has GDP per capita. Those jobs have been picked up elsewhere, in areas where the US does have a comparative advantage.

This is untrue. Unemployment has been on the rise for a decade now, the government has just been continually redefining the measuring stick to hide the fact. And I find it hard to buy the claims that a group of people that are in increasingly staggering debt both individually and as a community, have raising GDP. GDP looks on the rise because we count credit as real money, even with the debt caused by that credit is nearly impossible to repay.

I'm not actually against free trade. But I do think we need to manage our import/export a little more carefully. We can not allow countries to put tariffs and trade restrictions on our goods with out retaliating. I believe that in a real free trade arrangement America does do very good, that is why I have little problems with agreements like NAFTA, which is pretty close to a true free trade agreement.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Amused
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Protectionism not only caused the recession of 1929/30 to become the great depression of the 30s, but has always had a negative effect on our economy.

BTW, those who hate HFCS? Guess why food makers use it? Protectionism.

The lessons that we should have learned from the protectionism of the 1920's and 30's is not that all protectionism is bad, but that global economics is a lot like global politics. Both follow similar trends, and both have devastating wars.

 

[Chryso]

I would like to see some trade barriers. Right now we bend over and take it from a lot of countries who have tariffs on our stuff.
Also, why the hell do we still outlaw Cuban stuff while bending over for the Chinese?

 

[sixone]

Because union leaders are politicians, when you get down to it. All they care about is strengthening their own power, and they don't care who gets hurt.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

I'm not actually against free trade. But I do think we need to manage our import/export a little more carefully. We can not allow countries to put tariffs and trade restrictions on our goods with out retaliating. I believe that in a real free trade arrangement America does do very good, that is why I have little problems with agreements like NAFTA, which is pretty close to a true free trade agreement.

You have not looked at NAFTA closely. It is entirely protectionist (for USA). Take a look at the softwood issue.

 

[BoomerD]

Protectionism as a whole is bad IMO, but for the stimulus package, requiring the use of American made products does not qualify as protectionism.

The purpose of the package is to stimulate the AMERICAN economy...by creating jobs across many sectors; construction, manufacturing, etc.

If this were protectionsim, it would impose heavy tariffs on all imported goods, restrict the import of goods from certain countries, etc.

Merely requiring that federal dollars be spent on American goods not only is NOT protectionism, it should be the law for ALL federal dollars.

(yes, I realize that SOME products sadly are no longer made in the USA, especially electronics and computer goods)

I do not care about the "world economy," I care about the AMERICAN economy. IF, as we fix our economy, the economy of other nations improves, that's fine, but if not, let them fix their own economies with their OWN monies.

 

[boomerang]

Even when times were good, container ships would arrive at our docks and return empty. Not with empty containers, with no containers. It wasn't cost effective to return them empty.

So, besides jobs, just what is it we're exporting here in the U.S.? How long can we continue this one way street?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: boomerang
Even when times were good, container ships would arrive at our docks and return empty. Not with empty containers, with no containers. It wasn't cost effective to return them empty.

So, besides jobs, just what is it we're exporting here in the U.S.? How long can we continue this one way street?

It was still more economical than making it locally, otherwise the companies would not be paying for the empty return trip.

Face it, as an economy matures, labour rates will go up and the only way to make money is to shift that to lower wage places and only keep the high margin industry like IP local.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
<---- P&N

Stop pointing out the obvious.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
at least you don't have to see bumper stickers on every other vehicle that read, "Out of a job yet?! KEEP BUYING FOREIGN!"

:roll:

i really hate those bumper stickers.

Seen on the streets of Mississauga

I'm pretty sure they don't make BMWs up here...

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Chryso
I would like to see some trade barriers. Right now we bend over and take it from a lot of countries who have tariffs on our stuff.
Also, why the hell do we still outlaw Cuban stuff while bending over for the Chinese?

It is not the government's fault the American people are not voting for American products with their wallet.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: meltdown75
at least you don't have to see bumper stickers on every other vehicle that read, "Out of a job yet?! KEEP BUYING FOREIGN!"

:roll:

i really hate those bumper stickers.

Seen on the streets of Mississauga

I'm pretty sure they don't make BMWs up here...

He might be German

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: dug777
Kicking the sh1t out of your export sector means domestic job losses.

Yes, but this can be offset with jobs created by the increased demand for local goods, buying local goods are inherently better for your economy. Not only does it create local jobs, but it keeps the money flowing in your local economy.

That's an amusing point, because jobs that are lost to more efficient or cheaper production elsewhere can also (and clearly have been for decades) be replaced in areas where the US does have comparative advantage. Any loss of jobs is usually a messy and unpleasant affair, but you support it when it means people retrenching from export sectors to internally consumed production? That's ironic

At a very high level, it allows a more efficient use of available resources while raising the living standards of the developing world AND the developed world.

It does not take much of a mathematician to see that this is impossible. You can't give money to one group with out taking it from another. This only looked possible because most of the major western nations have been running a debt economy for so long. It looks like that is now over, the debts are crashing down around us.

It doesn't take much common sense to see that you don't know what you are talking about. Let me explain numerically. If country A's raw materials and labour costs twice as much as raw materials and labour in country B in real terms, then with teh same amount of money you will be able to produce half as much, at twice the price.

Protectionism would mean Country A consumers lose, because their purchasing power is halved. The people in Country B also lose, because they don't get the jobs (which at even half the rate of pay of Country A, represent a dramatic increase in living standards for those people).

Over time, Country B's standard of living will increase, as will real wages (see Japan and South Korea). Those jobs may even move back to the US, but for that period we will all have been better off on a macro level (and the vast, vast majority of us at a micro level too).

s win/win on a macro scale, but people find it hard to see the broader economic growth behind obvious micro sectoral changes and job losses.

So it is win/win as long as you don't mind being out of work?

Again, ironic and inconsistent that you think job losses are perfectly acceptable in export sectors of the economy, but unacceptable in import competing sectors.

clearly there has been massive 'offshoring' leading to publicised and obvious job losses in certain sectors. However, there has been no corresponding rise in unemployment, and the US economy has grown astoundingly over that period, as has GDP per capita. Those jobs have been picked up elsewhere, in areas where the US does have a comparative advantage.

This is untrue. Unemployment has been on the rise for a decade now, the government has just been continually redefining the measuring stick to hide the fact. And I find it hard to buy the claims that a group of people that are in increasingly staggering debt both individually and as a community, have raising GDP. GDP looks on the rise because we count credit as real money, even with the debt caused by that credit is nearly impossible to repay.

The US population has grown dramatically, stupendously even since the scond world war, and unemployment figures have generally remained very healthy over that period. I would be fascinated if you can point to a single period of national US unemployment growth that has been a direct result of 'free-trade'. You'll be able to point to geographical and sectoral decline, but nationally more than enough jobs have been created in areas where you do have a comparative advantage to offset both offshoring and your dramatic population explosion since the 40s.

GDP is a simple measure of the final market value of all goods and services produced in the economy. GDP isn't perfect, but I'm not aware that counting credit as real money has anything to do with GDP figures.

I'm not actually against free trade. But I do think we need to manage our import/export a little more carefully. We can not allow countries to put tariffs and trade restrictions on our goods with out retaliating. I believe that in a real free trade arrangement America does do very good, that is why I have little problems with agreements like NAFTA, which is pretty close to a true free trade agreement.

:smacks forehead;

No, you should work through diplomatic and other channels to reduce protectionism elsewhere. It's becoming increasingly unnacceptable (we have a democrat in the White House who's spoken out against the proposed clauses!) and any further protectionist measures are a both a significant step backwards, and likely to provoke retailiation that will directly cause US job losses. You might want to remind me again why you think those job losses and retrenchments are acceptable, but that import competing job losses and retrenchments are not.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: dug777
You don't have to be even slightly bright to realise that requiring stimulus projects to 'buy American/Australia/whatever' will quickly lead to a dramatically escalating round of trade barriers all round.

This will quickly put the brakes on world trade. Which doesn't sound so bad if you don't realise that most economies (developed and undeveloped alike) have a significant export sector.

Kicking the sh1t out of your export sector means domestic job losses.

It also removes a buffer for many economies (you may be aware that the US and Aus have been described as 'trading their way out of trouble' in certain quarters). Indeed, as the dollar (Aus and US respectively) devalues, it makes US and Aus exports more competitive globally, thus giving a boost to that sector of your economy.

This is quite without the broader advantages of free trade, of which much has been written that is far clearer than anything I could hope to produce. At a very high level, it allows a more efficient use of available resources while raising the living standards of the developing world AND the developed world.

It's win/win on a macro scale, but people find it hard to see the broader economic growth behind obvious micro sectoral changes and job losses. The easiest way to rebut the lowest level of protectionism proponent and explain that is to look at the US particularly over the last 70 years or so, but particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

Clearly there has been massive 'offshoring' leading to publicised and obvious job losses in certain sectors. However, there has been no corresponding rise in unemployment, and the US economy has grown astoundingly over that period, as has GDP per capita. Those jobs have been picked up elsewhere, in areas where the US does have a comparative advantage.

At the time, a brace of economies have pulled themselves into the developed world (South Korea and Japan being excellent examples). As their labour costs rise, like the US, certain industry is moving 'offshore' to China and other developing countries. However, the area under the curve is greater for those 'jobs' that were lost from the US to those countries, more goods were produced, at a lower cost, allowing Americans a higher standard of living than if the industry and jobs had merely stayed in the US.

:deep breath;

Anyway, that turned into a free-trade tirade

Krugman explains it far better than I could.

Are you kidding me? Its the global economy that has ruined the US. We should not be dependent on trade, we need to be more self sufficient as a nation. Making everything, and importing nothing. Our trade imbalance is going to bring this country to its knees, when our "credit" line eventually runs out.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: dug777
You don't have to be even slightly bright to realise that requiring stimulus projects to 'buy American/Australia/whatever' will quickly lead to a dramatically escalating round of trade barriers all round.

This will quickly put the brakes on world trade. Which doesn't sound so bad if you don't realise that most economies (developed and undeveloped alike) have a significant export sector.

Kicking the sh1t out of your export sector means domestic job losses.

It also removes a buffer for many economies (you may be aware that the US and Aus have been described as 'trading their way out of trouble' in certain quarters). Indeed, as the dollar (Aus and US respectively) devalues, it makes US and Aus exports more competitive globally, thus giving a boost to that sector of your economy.

This is quite without the broader advantages of free trade, of which much has been written that is far clearer than anything I could hope to produce. At a very high level, it allows a more efficient use of available resources while raising the living standards of the developing world AND the developed world.

It's win/win on a macro scale, but people find it hard to see the broader economic growth behind obvious micro sectoral changes and job losses. The easiest way to rebut the lowest level of protectionism proponent and explain that is to look at the US particularly over the last 70 years or so, but particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

Clearly there has been massive 'offshoring' leading to publicised and obvious job losses in certain sectors. However, there has been no corresponding rise in unemployment, and the US economy has grown astoundingly over that period, as has GDP per capita. Those jobs have been picked up elsewhere, in areas where the US does have a comparative advantage.

At the time, a brace of economies have pulled themselves into the developed world (South Korea and Japan being excellent examples). As their labour costs rise, like the US, certain industry is moving 'offshore' to China and other developing countries. However, the area under the curve is greater for those 'jobs' that were lost from the US to those countries, more goods were produced, at a lower cost, allowing Americans a higher standard of living than if the industry and jobs had merely stayed in the US.

:deep breath;

Anyway, that turned into a free-trade tirade

Krugman explains it far better than I could.

Are you kidding me? Its the global economy that has ruined the US. We should not be dependent on trade, we need to be more self sufficient as a nation. Making everything, and importing nothing. Our trade imbalance is going to bring this country to its knees, when our "credit" line eventually runs out.

Are you kidding me? The CIA World factbook tells me the fob value of your exports in 2008 was $1.377 trillion, so almost 10% of your GDP.

That's a huge boost to your economy, and maintains a huge swag of domestic jobs.

Self-sufficiency and security of supply are entirely different issues, but to suggest that trade has ruined your economy is nonsensical, it's a huge part of the dramatic growth the US has enjoyed since the second world war.

Growth in the US and UK, among other developed nations, has been turbo-charged by savings from the developing world. That has certainly caused huge problems (and indeed, many commentators would point those huge imbalances and flows are root causes of our current problems), but running a CAD is not neccessarily a problem if that is used to fund productive investment.

Growth in the US economy has been real and sustained, and both physical trade and capital inflow have been a significant contributors to that growth.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: dug777
You don't have to be even slightly bright to realise that requiring stimulus projects to 'buy American/Australia/whatever' will quickly lead to a dramatically escalating round of trade barriers all round.

This will quickly put the brakes on world trade. Which doesn't sound so bad if you don't realise that most economies (developed and undeveloped alike) have a significant export sector.

Kicking the sh1t out of your export sector means domestic job losses.

It also removes a buffer for many economies (you may be aware that the US and Aus have been described as 'trading their way out of trouble' in certain quarters). Indeed, as the dollar (Aus and US respectively) devalues, it makes US and Aus exports more competitive globally, thus giving a boost to that sector of your economy.

This is quite without the broader advantages of free trade, of which much has been written that is far clearer than anything I could hope to produce. At a very high level, it allows a more efficient use of available resources while raising the living standards of the developing world AND the developed world.

It's win/win on a macro scale, but people find it hard to see the broader economic growth behind obvious micro sectoral changes and job losses. The easiest way to rebut the lowest level of protectionism proponent and explain that is to look at the US particularly over the last 70 years or so, but particularly in the last thirty or forty years.

Clearly there has been massive 'offshoring' leading to publicised and obvious job losses in certain sectors. However, there has been no corresponding rise in unemployment, and the US economy has grown astoundingly over that period, as has GDP per capita. Those jobs have been picked up elsewhere, in areas where the US does have a comparative advantage.

At the time, a brace of economies have pulled themselves into the developed world (South Korea and Japan being excellent examples). As their labour costs rise, like the US, certain industry is moving 'offshore' to China and other developing countries. However, the area under the curve is greater for those 'jobs' that were lost from the US to those countries, more goods were produced, at a lower cost, allowing Americans a higher standard of living than if the industry and jobs had merely stayed in the US.

:deep breath;

Anyway, that turned into a free-trade tirade

Krugman explains it far better than I could.

Are you kidding me? Its the global economy that has ruined the US. We should not be dependent on trade, we need to be more self sufficient as a nation. Making everything, and importing nothing. Our trade imbalance is going to bring this country to its knees, when our "credit" line eventually runs out.

Are you kidding me? The CIA World factbook tells me the fob value of your exports in 2008 was $1.377 trillion, so almost 10% of your GDP.

That's a huge boost to your economy, and maintains a huge swag of domestic jobs.

Self-sufficiency and security of supply are entirely different issues, but to suggest that trade has ruined your economy is nonsensical, it's a huge part of the dramatic growth the US has enjoyed since the second world war.

Growth in the US and UK, among other developed nations, has been turbo-charged by savings from the developing world. That has certainly caused huge problems (and indeed, many commentators would point those huge imbalances and flows are root causes of our current problems), but running a CAD is not neccessarily a problem if that is used to fund productive investment.

Growth in the US economy has been real and sustained, and both physical trade and capital inflow have been a significant contributors to that growth.

unfortunately, this means we as a nation grew too fast. Much like the housing bubble, our economy overinflated itself, except now we might be to the point of no return.
Because we artificially inflated ourselves, we have priced ourselves out of many key markets, (especially those of raw materials, manufactured goods, and technology.) Our economy will soon be based primarily on the basis of investments and other services. unfortunately, since our manufacturing capabilities made those service jobs profitable... the loss of those key sectors of goods production to outsourcing will lead to a failure of our current primary economy R&D/investment/services/management. An economy of nearly pure SERVICES without an actual GOODS basis is NOT sustainable.

Either we will go through a corrective measure, and restart our sustainable producing industry factories in which everyone will go back to 20-35K per year jobs like it should be...
... or we will collapse under the weight of an unsustainable economy.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: sao123
Either we will go through a corrective measure, and restart our sustainable producing industry factories in which everyone will go back to 20-35K per year jobs like it should be...
... or we will collapse under the weight of an unsustainable economy.

Wow! So the lowly worker is to blame? You've drunk more of the collegiate Kool-Aid than I believe anyone here before you has.

Prosperity will flourish with the return of the class system. Who'd a thunk.