Just say no to unions

[smackababy]

What does that have to do with the obvious presence of US comparative advantage in certain sectors as evidenced by our exports?

I'd like to see a breakdown at what we export. I'd wager a large portion of that is entertainment related things or non essential goods like Pepsi and Coke. I'd also wager that a lot of our finished goods we export are made with imported raw materials. Do you have any data besides the total cost?

 

[fskimospy]

I'd like to see a breakdown at what we export. I'd wager a large portion of that is entertainment related things or non essential goods like Pepsi and Coke. I'd also wager that a lot of our finished goods we export are made with imported raw materials. Do you have any data besides the total cost?

A great deal of our imports are raw materials, fuels, etc, yes. As for if a product is essential, why does that matter? I'm sure that there are plenty of breakdowns of us balance of trade by sector floating around.

 

[soccerballtux]

In this country's founding days there was a great debate over whether to buy railroad rail stock from France. I forget who said it, but my favorite point went something like this.

If we buy the rails, we'll have the rails and France will have the money.

If we do not buy the rails, we'll have the money and France will have the rails.

If we make the rails, we'll have the money and the rails.

That still holds today.

It's not a matter of we.
If we buy the rails from China, I'll have money, we'll have rails, and they'll have some money.
If we make the rails here, I'll have no money because I didn't outsource.

 

[soccerballtux]

What does that have to do with the obvious presence of US comparative advantage in certain sectors as evidenced by our exports?

What's the breakup of the exports? Lets see which ones the world would be willing to pay import tarrifs on, then we can figure out if we should tax 3rd world produced goods.

 

[1prophet]

People in different countries are better at creating some goods than others, much like some people in the US specialize in different goods and services and specialization often creates pretty amazing increases in quality and efficiency. Sure all that money might stay in the economy, but if those rails cost twice as much time and effort to make here as somewhere else that person could have probably been employed in an industry where his work was much more productive.

Say a normal pace for making widget A and widget B is 1 hour. If I'm twice as fast as normal at making widget A and you're twice as fast as normal at making widget B and we both need 10 of each we could both work 10 hours and then trade widgets. If we made them all ourselves we would have to work twice as long. Sure I'm employed for 20 hours instead of 10, but that's not much of a positive.

Of all the so called liberal hypocritical bullshit,

that money staying in the economy pays the fair share of taxes you liberals cry about, that higher payed American worker doesn't need to ride the welfare train like many at Walmart do,

the robust middle class now has time to enjoy things like the fine arts, take their kids on vacation, enroll their kids in extra curricular activities that was once the domain of the rich while not worrying when the next paycheck is coming from to put food on the table while listening to how bad you liberals are by Rush Limbaugh.



those jobs that you look down on weren't shipped to those countries just for lower wages or because they made faster widgets that you minimum wage make believe liberal types espouse,

they also avoid many if not all the Environmental, Labor, and Safety laws you phony liberals continually push for,

(Here go ahead compete with these widget makers I dare you,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-LLsODnuHI)


The corporate owned Democrats want the type of unions that exist in China and other countries, where the union officialdom is completely incorporated into the government apparatus, having no independent voice and thus little ability to improve the lives of working people.


You phony liberals ,along with your buddies the union bosses, continually stab unions in the back from Clinton to Obama with your free trade agreements or illegal immigration while telling them they must vote democrat because the only other choice is those evil republicans.


At least with those evil conservative pro business republicans you know you are getting fucked, they don't try to pass it of as love like you phony corporate bought and paid for liberal democrats.

 

[Genx87]

That sounds awesome until you consider how much we import.

We import because it is more efficient to do so. Do you want to pay more for products that are American made? Why? Is that more or less efficient for an economy?

 

[Genx87]

I'd like to see a breakdown at what we export. I'd wager a large portion of that is entertainment related things or non essential goods like Pepsi and Coke. I'd also wager that a lot of our finished goods we export are made with imported raw materials. Do you have any data besides the total cost?

If we use imported materials so what? We created wealth taking those raw materials, making something, and exporting it. We wont do that at a loss for long.

 

[sandorski]

Why would the structure of the business impact whether it's employees should collectively bargain?

Good question. I was just wondering if the Non-Profit's form of Income was such that it could afford such a thing.

 

[Zorba]

How do you explain the $1.5 trillion in US exports? If we don't have an advantage over their products, why are people buying them?

The whole claim of comparative advantage is that it is a waste to do things you aren't best at or are low value. That claim only makes sense if you are maxing out your resources. We are not maxing out our resources. So the argument is why make 10 of A when you can make 20 of B and someone else can make 20 of A, except since we are not resource limited, if we ship out A, there is no B waiting to be made, because someone else would already be making it. As long as you are not resource limited, why wouldn't you make A and B, even if you were better at B?

I am not saying we don't have industry and things we are better out, but we have shipped out a ton of manufacturing without replacing it with something we are better at.

 

[Zorba]

We import because it is more efficient to do so. Do you want to pay more for products that are American made? Why? Is that more or less efficient for an economy?

I worked for an oil and gas equipment company for awhile. Many of our customers demanded made in the US, would pay the premium, no question. Some of these customers made the demands because their unions required it, others did it because they thought it was patriotic.

But because the US has outsourced so much, even when you want to pay the premium you can find made in the US. For example, no Fisher Regulators/Valve bodies are made in the US. All the major valve/regulator companies have outsourced all their lines. We had to get waivers all the time, because you straight can not buy American made parts, even when the customer is willing to spend any amount to get it.

BTW: I pay more for American, because I know it supports other American consumers, which in turn helps me. Or I can buy from China, where the money is likely lost forever, or only a small amount of it comes back. The problem is no one in America wants to think their actions have long term consequences.

Of course there are times importing makes sense, but just because it is cheaper shouldn't be the only reason.

 

[MongGrel]

Of all the so called liberal hypocritical bullshit,

that money staying in the economy pays the fair share of taxes you liberals cry about, that higher payed American worker doesn't need to ride the welfare train like many at Walmart do,

the robust middle class now has time to enjoy things like the fine arts, take their kids on vacation, enroll their kids in extra curricular activities that was once the domain of the rich while not worrying when the next paycheck is coming from to put food on the table while listening to how bad you liberals are by Rush Limbaugh.



those jobs that you look down on weren't shipped to those countries just for lower wages or because they made faster widgets that you minimum wage make believe liberal types espouse,

they also avoid many if not all the Environmental, Labor, and Safety laws you phony liberals continually push for,

(Here go ahead compete with these widget makers I dare you,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-LLsODnuHI)


The corporate owned Democrats want the type of unions that exist in China and other countries, where the union officialdom is completely incorporated into the government apparatus, having no independent voice and thus little ability to improve the lives of working people.


You phony liberals ,along with your buddies the union bosses, continually stab unions in the back from Clinton to Obama with your free trade agreements or illegal immigration while telling them they must vote democrat because the only other choice is those evil republicans.


At least with those evil conservative pro business republicans you know you are getting fucked, they don't try to pass it of as love like you phony corporate bought and paid for liberal democrats.

There is no robust middle class, there is a dwindling middle class.

 

[MongGrel]

Just to quote another on here.

"They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." ~Ronald Reagan

 

[Matt1970]

We import because it is more efficient to do so. Do you want to pay more for products that are American made? Why? Is that more or less efficient for an economy?

Cause it keeps the money and jobs here.

 

[Matt1970]

Just to quote another on here.

"They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." ~Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan was referring to unions battling against an oppressive government in Poland. That's quite a bit different than what our unions battle for over here.

 

[Atreus21]

Those millions of consumers also made more money because their jobs were protected too. Those thousands of people also had money to go buy the products and services of those other consumers. You know considering employees and consumers are the same people, and generally the being an employee has to come first.

But I guess now you like that millions of tax payers get screwed over paying for welfare, so a few thousand shareholders can become rich? But hey, at least your jeans only cost $30 instead of $40, nevermind they will wear out twice as fast and don't fit right and the cashier you bought them from has to be on food stamps.

What you're saying in essence is that people shouldn't be free to buy what they want, from whom they want. If they want cheap jeans that wear out faster instead of expensive jeans that are more durable, too bad. They'll be told what to buy and from whom according to what you consider ethical and in their best interest.

 

[Atreus21]

Between this thread and the Crimea thread, eskimospy has taken a noticeable rightward turn. I'd never dream of him explaining the idea of comparative advantage.

Something's amiss here...

 

[fskimospy]

Between this thread and the Crimea thread, eskimospy has taken a noticeable rightward turn. I'd never dream of him explaining the idea of comparative advantage.

Something's amiss here...

Haha don't worry, I've taken no rightward turn. If you go look at my posts going back years I've always been a big supporter of free trade. I've also always been against countries invading other countries for no legitimate reason, be it Iraq or Crimea.

 

[Zorba]

What you're saying in essence is that people shouldn't be free to buy what they want, from whom they want. If they want cheap jeans that wear out faster instead of expensive jeans that are more durable, too bad. They'll be told what to buy and from whom according to what you consider ethical and in their best interest.

I never said that, you are just being disingenuous. You were claiming that protecting US workers hurt US consumers, disregarding the fact they are the same people.

I believe that America should protect ourselves from countries that can undersell us solely because they have no environmental and labor laws, or illegally manipulate their currency. That doesn't mean I want to control what you buy or from whom, but there should be basic standards required to enter our market, if those standards aren't met you should have to pay an entrance fee.

 

[Atreus21]

Cause it keeps the money and jobs here.

Then should we or anyone import anything at all?

Furthermore, what do you mean by "here"? The United States? In the interest of keeping jobs and money locally, should we also forbid Californians to trade with Oregonians? Should San Diego's locals be forbidden from trade with Los Angeles using the same logic?

Perhaps we should have every household making everything they need, instead of trading with people across the street. That way, they keep their money and they perpetually have a job.

If France tomorrow found a way to make the world's fastest microprocessors for 10% of the cost of what Intel charges, should we protect Intel by essentially banning American consumers from saving money by buying these new CPUs? How is that ethical? It is both more ethical and efficient in this example to allow millions of people to buy a superior product for less money, and make Intel and its employees adapt.

 

[Atreus21]

I never said that, you are just being disingenuous. You were claiming that protecting US workers hurt US consumers, disregarding the fact they are the same people.

They're not the same people. If we protect the jeans industry here from competition, then we have kept the price of their labor arbitrarily high, and the millions of consumers who buy jeans, the vast majority of which are not employed in the jeans industry, now have to waste money on bloated prices all because the local industry doesn't want to adapt to changing market conditions.

I believe that America should protect ourselves from countries that can undersell us solely because they have no environmental and labor laws, or illegally manipulate their currency. That doesn't mean I want to control what you buy or from whom, but there should be basic standards required to enter our market, if those standards aren't met you should have to pay an entrance fee.

To some extent I agree. If a country is literally using slaves (as opposed to what many call slave labor by western standards, which by 3rd-world standards enable people to escape grinding poverty), then I can see an argument for penalizing them. I can see an argument made from environmentalism too, or using child labor.

But my principle objection is to imposing penalties on goods that meet those standards you specify above, but that would otherwise force local competitors to compete, adapt, or go out of business. Tariffs as penalties against companies that use despicable methods of production: no problem. Tariffs to protect workers from normal outside competition: problem.

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions in the last response.

 

[Zorba]

Then should we or anyone import anything at all?

Furthermore, what do you mean by "here"? The United States? In the interest of keeping jobs and money locally, should we also forbid Californians to trade with Oregonians? Should San Diego's locals be forbidden from trade with Los Angeles using the same logic?

Perhaps we should have every household making everything they need, instead of trading with people across the street. That way, they keep their money and they perpetually have a job.

If France tomorrow found a way to make the world's fastest microprocessors for 10% of the cost of what Intel charges, should we protect Intel by essentially banning American consumers from saving money by buying these new CPUs? How is that ethical? It is both more ethical and efficient in this example to allow millions of people to buy a superior product for less money, and make Intel and its employees adapt.

Lets say you are a car mechanic, you can buy your parts from NAPA or there is a guy on the rough side of town that can get you anything for half the price, but you have to order a few days ahead of time. You know the reason he is able to undercut NAPA is because he is stealing cars and chopping them up. Do you think it is okay to continue doing business with that guy? Whatever is cheapest right? Society be damned.

Now remember the reason China is able to undercut us so much is the don't have laws that we consider basic and moral here, like child labor, safe work places, environmental.

 

[Zorba]

They're not the same people. If we protect the jeans industry here from competition, then we have kept the price of their labor arbitrarily high, and the millions of consumers who buy jeans, the vast majority of which are not employed in the jeans industry, now have to waste money on bloated prices all because the local industry doesn't want to adapt to changing market conditions.

Except it isn't one industry, it is all of them, so it affects a large percentage of consumers. You have to look at the whole of the economy, not individual sectors.

Tariffs as penalties against companies that use despicable methods of production: no problem. Tariffs to protect workers from normal outside competition: problem.

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions in the last response.

This is basically what I am saying. Establish a baseline of minimum standards to enter our market, and then have a penalty if that is not met. If the outside countries can still beat you, it is time for you to either improve or find a new industry.

For example, I really don't mind free trade with western EU, Canada or Japan (with some others), but "free" trade with 3rd world countries just destroys our industry because they don't care if they destroy their environment or force kids to work 16 hour days.

 

[Genx87]

Cause it keeps the money and jobs here.

While driving up costs. You are a conservative free market guy right? Why do you advocate a non-free market policy?

 

[Atreus21]

Lets say you are a car mechanic, you can buy your parts from NAPA or there is a guy on the rough side of town that can get you anything for half the price, but you have to order a few days ahead of time. You know the reason he is able to undercut NAPA is because he is stealing cars and chopping them up. Do you think it is okay to continue doing business with that guy? Whatever is cheapest right? Society be damned.

Of course not. As we've established in my last reply and your response, trade ought not be allowed that involves stolen goods or those produced by horrible means.

Now remember the reason China is able to undercut us so much is the don't have laws that we consider basic and moral here, like child labor, safe work places, environmental.

Does China use child labor? EDIT: Looks like they have laws against working under the age of 16, but some reports say these are poorly enforced.

I'm not very concerned about safe work places. If someone who is impoverished and starving is offered a job in an unsafe workplace which will nonetheless better his condition, such as a sweatshop, he ought to be allowed to choose between that and continued poverty.

I'm also unsure of the environmental side, especially regarding developing nations.

 

[Genx87]

The problem with requiring western standards of environmental and labor laws is these places are 100 years behind us in building an economy. So the solution of the protectionists will make sure these countries never get out of their plight. Because they would rather bar these people from making anything that is sold into western markets than allowing them to generate enough wealth to catch up to western standards.