PDA

View Full Version : Economics question


Hydrae
03-03-2008, 07:53 PM
I am hoping to gain some insight from some of the more experienced member of this forum. While I have been working to gain more economics knowledge I am still far from understanding a lot of things.

My question is why would we not raise import tariffs to help offset the loss of jobs overseas? What I mean is, if you increase the tax on the items as they come into the country you would help offset some of the reason for moving the jobs offshore in the first place. Would this not then encourage more manufacturing type jobs to stay here in the country? Yes this would mean products would become more expensive but if it means we buy American more than we buy Chinese, this is a good thing, right?

Where am I wrong with this line of thinking? Given that this is not a topic I hear discussed I feel like I must have missed something somewhere along the line.

Thanks for the input!

banyon
03-03-2008, 07:57 PM
Both Parties advocate unregulated free trade now.


Blindly.

banyon
03-03-2008, 08:55 PM
Not sure where else this should go, but seems timely.


The New Republic
The Audacity of Data by Noam Scheiber
Barack Obama's surprisingly non-ideological policy shop.
Post Date Wednesday, March 12, 2008

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a

As a young economics professor in the late 1970s, Richard Thaler began noticing small but nagging ways in which ordinary people defied the predictions of economic theory. A friend confided that he mowed his lawn to save $10, but winced at the suggestion that he mow someone else's to make $10. A colleague confessed that he'd never go out and buy a $50 bottle of wine for a family meal, but that he'd recently opened up a $50 bottle at dinner because it happened to be lying around. The textbooks assumed people would behave identically when equal amounts of money were at stake. But here they were doing completely different things depending on the context.

By the late '80s, Thaler had begun recording these observations in a column for a leading academic journal. The column laid the groundwork for a book, called The Winner's Curse, published in 1994. And the book widely signaled the arrival of a previously obscure sub-field known as behavioral economics. Behaviorists like Thaler believed that the perfectly rational, utterly selfinterested maximizers of economists' imaginations had little in common with actual human beings, who frequently err when making simple calculations, who have trouble with self-control, who often act out of altruism or spite.

But what's really interesting is how Thaler and his fellow behaviorists responded to this fairly critical insight. Though rational self-interest was the central tenet of neoclassical (i.e., modern) economics, they didn't take a wrecking ball to the field and replace it with some equally sweeping theory of human behavior. Instead, they labored to bring economics closer in line with how the world actually works, one small adjustment at a time. "'Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly,'" Thaler wrote in the introduction to The Winner's Curse, quoting the philosopher Thomas Kuhn. "I hope to accomplish that first step--awareness of anomaly. Perhaps at that point we can start to see the development of the new, improved version of economic theory."

As it happens, Thaler is revered by the leading wonks on Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Though he has no formal role, Thaler presides as a kind of in-house intellectual guru, consulting regularly with Obama's top economic adviser, a fellow University of Chicago professor named Austan Goolsbee. "My main role has been to harass Austan, who has an office down the hall from mine, " Thaler recently told me. "I give him as much grief as possible." You can find subtle evidence of this influence across numerous Obama proposals. For example, one key behavioral finding is that people often fail to set aside money for retirement even when their employers offer generous 401(k) plans. If, on the other hand, you automatically enroll workers in 401(k)s but allow them to opt out, most stick with it. Obama's savings plan exploits this so-called "status quo" bias.

And, yet, it's not just the details of Obama's policies that suggest a behavioral approach. In some respects, the sensibility behind the behaviorist critique of economics is one shared by all the Obama wonks, whether they're domestic policy nerds or grizzled foreign policy hands. Despite Obama's reputation for grandiose rhetoric and utopian hope-mongering, the Obamanauts aren't radicals--far from it. They're pragmatists--people who, when an existing paradigm clashes with reality, opt to tweak that paradigm rather than replace it wholesale. As Thaler puts it, "Physics with friction is not as beautiful. But you need it to get rockets off the ground." It might as well be the motto for Obama's entire policy shop.

Logical
03-03-2008, 09:57 PM
I am hoping to gain some insight from some of the more experienced member of this forum. While I have been working to gain more economics knowledge I am still far from understanding a lot of things.

My question is why would we not raise import tariffs to help offset the loss of jobs overseas? What I mean is, if you increase the tax on the items as they come into the country you would help offset some of the reason for moving the jobs offshore in the first place. Would this not then encourage more manufacturing type jobs to stay here in the country? Yes this would mean products would become more expensive but if it means we buy American more than we buy Chinese, this is a good thing, right?

Where am I wrong with this line of thinking? Given that this is not a topic I hear discussed I feel like I must have missed something somewhere along the line.

Thanks for the input!You are not wrong, but such a policy would start a trade war and in the end everyone loses such a battle..

Amnorix
03-03-2008, 10:17 PM
There are several things to consider:

1. let's take a hypothetical product such as kids clothing made in, let's say, China. You want to save some seamstress jobs in Wherever, USA, so we create/increase tariffs on kids clothes. Because the tariff acts as a tax on the imported product, the price of any foreign produced kids clothes is increased. Jobs in Wherever USA are saved. Meanwhile, jobs in a foreign country are lost (but who cares, that's China's problem, not ours). However, the price of all kids clothes in the USA is increased by, hypothetically, $0.50 per article of clothing. So every shirt, pant, t-shirt and set of socks for every set of american parents is now 50 cents more. Stuff that WOULD have been cheaper, is now more expensive than it would be.

2. China, of course, is unthrilled that we've decided to raise tariffs on kids clothes. After all, they have a potential 20 million seamstresses that could churn this stuff out much cheaper than us, but instead, we're artifically increasing the price of their goods. So, of course, they decide to slap on or increase a tariff on all USA made vehicles. Obviously, .50 cents on kids clothes works out to, let's say, a 10% tariff on average. So they put on a 10% tariff on USA vehicles. So that works out to about $2,000 per USA-made car. Suddenly, Volkswagon, Honda and Toyota cars are looking alot cheaper than Fords and Chevys over there. That costs the USA a bunch of jobs, but who cares, that's America's problem! (say the Chinese).

So you've saved some seamstress jobs and lost some manufacturing jobs relating to motor vehicles. You've reduced the net efficiencies in the world (China is better at making low-skilled items because they have tons of low-skilled labor), and you've artifically increased the price of kids clothes in the USA and the price of vehicles in China.

Who has won? Who has lost? Why? What is best for the most people? What industries do you have high tariffs on, and which ones are low? Why? How do you convince foreign countries to keep low tariffs on USA made goods if you have high tariffs on the stuff they want to sell to us.

Ad infinitum.

Discuss.

Hydrae
03-03-2008, 11:26 PM
There are several things to consider:

1. let's take a hypothetical product such as kids clothing made in, let's say, China. You want to save some seamstress jobs in Wherever, USA, so we create/increase tariffs on kids clothes. Because the tariff acts as a tax on the imported product, the price of any foreign produced kids clothes is increased. Jobs in Wherever USA are saved. Meanwhile, jobs in a foreign country are lost (but who cares, that's China's problem, not ours). However, the price of all kids clothes in the USA is increased by, hypothetically, $0.50 per article of clothing. So every shirt, pant, t-shirt and set of socks for every set of american parents is now 50 cents more. Stuff that WOULD have been cheaper, is now more expensive than it would be.

2. China, of course, is unthrilled that we've decided to raise tariffs on kids clothes. After all, they have a potential 20 million seamstresses that could churn this stuff out much cheaper than us, but instead, we're artifically increasing the price of their goods. So, of course, they decide to slap on or increase a tariff on all USA made vehicles. Obviously, .50 cents on kids clothes works out to, let's say, a 10% tariff on average. So they put on a 10% tariff on USA vehicles. So that works out to about $2,000 per USA-made car. Suddenly, Volkswagon, Honda and Toyota cars are looking alot cheaper than Fords and Chevys over there. That costs the USA a bunch of jobs, but who cares, that's America's problem! (say the Chinese).

So you've saved some seamstress jobs and lost some manufacturing jobs relating to motor vehicles. You've reduced the net efficiencies in the world (China is better at making low-skilled items because they have tons of low-skilled labor), and you've artifically increased the price of kids clothes in the USA and the price of vehicles in China.

Who has won? Who has lost? Why? What is best for the most people? What industries do you have high tariffs on, and which ones are low? Why? How do you convince foreign countries to keep low tariffs on USA made goods if you have high tariffs on the stuff they want to sell to us.

Ad infinitum.

Discuss.

Good thing most "US made" cars aren't made in the US any more then, huh? ;)

(Hmmm, charge a tariff on those cars made in Mexico and Canada also to try to drive those jobs back here too?)

The one question you pose that I can answer would be which industries to put the tariffs on. Simply put, the jobs you want to keep "in house." Those that pay the best for the citizens who will do those jobs and keep the average earnings for your people the highest.

For that matter, would this not help with the current trade imbalance issues we face? It would certainly slow the imports but, as you noted, I don't know how it would affect our own exports. But I am under the belief that importing more than you are exporting is not a good thing. So how do you correct this issue?

Rain Man
03-03-2008, 11:44 PM
There are several things to consider:
...
Who has won? Who has lost? Why? What is best for the most people? What industries do you have high tariffs on, and which ones are low? Why? How do you convince foreign countries to keep low tariffs on USA made goods if you have high tariffs on the stuff they want to sell to us.

Ad infinitum.

Discuss.

But the beautiful thing is that the increases don't make any difference because the government now has more money and they then lower our taxes to offset the tariff increases.

Right?

Right?

Taco John
03-04-2008, 03:42 AM
Both Parties advocate unregulated free trade now.


Blindly.



No they don't. They advocate managed trade by world organizations under the guise of free trade. Free trade means you get to trade directly with someone overseas without having to worry about the US government taxing you for it. The idea is that you, as an individual, will only then trade with countries in which you are able to bring home the most amount of profit (thus increasing our economy).

In internationally managed trade (under the guise of free trade), you are only able to freely trade with "approved" countries and at rates established by the international managers. The idea is to "spread the wealth" so that the US doesn't dominate.

I love to watch you criticize progressivism in action. It gives me great delight because it shows me that you don't even know what progressivism actually is, you just like the sound of the word or something. Maybe there's hope for you afterall.

Taco John
03-04-2008, 03:45 AM
Who has won? Who has lost? Why? What is best for the most people? What industries do you have high tariffs on, and which ones are low? Why? How do you convince foreign countries to keep low tariffs on USA made goods if you have high tariffs on the stuff they want to sell to us.




A great post on why economic interventionism is the devil's playground.

Taco John
03-04-2008, 03:48 AM
Two books worth reading:

Economics for Real People (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Real-People-Gene-Callahan/dp/0945466412/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204624064&sr=8-1)

And...

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204624064&sr=8-2)

Amnorix
03-04-2008, 07:30 AM
Good thing most "US made" cars aren't made in the US any more then, huh? ;)

(Hmmm, charge a tariff on those cars made in Mexico and Canada also to try to drive those jobs back here too?)

The one question you pose that I can answer would be which industries to put the tariffs on. Simply put, the jobs you want to keep "in house." Those that pay the best for the citizens who will do those jobs and keep the average earnings for your people the highest.

For that matter, would this not help with the current trade imbalance issues we face? It would certainly slow the imports but, as you noted, I don't know how it would affect our own exports. But I am under the belief that importing more than you are exporting is not a good thing. So how do you correct this issue?

My examples were, obviously, tremendous simplifications. Yes, US cars are made overseas oftentimes, and alot of "US Made" goods have components made in foreign countries. And the SAME IS TRUE of foreign made goods (sometimes they have ocmponents made here).

Ultimately, on a macroeconomic level, lower tariffs are a good thing worldwide as this is not a zero sum game. If India or China can make shirts that get sold at Wal-Mart for half the price as US made shirts, that's generally a net win for both Chinese producers and American consumers. Because the Chinese producers have more money, they can ALSO buy more goods, some of which will be American products.

So, generally, other than protecting STRATEGIC core industries, technologies, etc., you won't find me in favor of tariffs.

Amnorix
03-04-2008, 07:33 AM
No they don't. They advocate managed trade by world organizations under the guise of free trade. Free trade means you get to trade directly with someone overseas without having to worry about the US government taxing you for it. The idea is that you, as an individual, will only then trade with countries in which you are able to bring home the most amount of profit (thus increasing our economy).

In internationally managed trade (under the guise of free trade), you are only able to freely trade with "approved" countries and at rates established by the international managers. The idea is to "spread the wealth" so that the US doesn't dominate.


Can you provide some detail on this, because unless I'm unaware of something, you're either twisting the way this works in some very odd fashion, or you're at your tinfoil hat best.

The IMF and World Bank etc. have little to do with free trade. And I'm unaware of any "international managers" who determine who trades with whom and under what rates. I'm glad to learn if I'm ignorant, but I'd be very surprised indeed to learn that such a thing exists. Educate me if you will.

Amnorix
03-04-2008, 07:36 AM
Two books worth reading:

Economics for Real People (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Real-People-Gene-Callahan/dp/0945466412/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204624064&sr=8-1)

And...

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204624064&sr=8-2)


I caution others that both of these books are Austrian/Misean school of thought, which is in the minority among economic thinking. That isn't to say they're wrong or bad, but just that they present one side of view (and a minority one) regarding a host of economic theories.

patteeu
03-04-2008, 07:54 AM
No they don't. They advocate managed trade by world organizations under the guise of free trade. Free trade means you get to trade directly with someone overseas without having to worry about the US government taxing you for it. The idea is that you, as an individual, will only then trade with countries in which you are able to bring home the most amount of profit (thus increasing our economy).

In internationally managed trade (under the guise of free trade), you are only able to freely trade with "approved" countries and at rates established by the international managers. The idea is to "spread the wealth" so that the US doesn't dominate.

I love to watch you criticize progressivism in action. It gives me great delight because it shows me that you don't even know what progressivism actually is, you just like the sound of the word or something. Maybe there's hope for you afterall.

The problem is that even if the US allowed completely free trade (and I don't know how they'd do that given the implications of tax policy and such, but we'll ignore that), other countries wouldn't. It's a prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma). The "internationally managed trade" that you deride is a way for both sides to lower their trade barriers to reduce trade friction (i.e. to more closely simulate free trade) without taking on all the risk that the other side will give them the shaft.

banyon
03-04-2008, 08:30 AM
No they don't. They advocate managed trade by world organizations under the guise of free trade. Free trade means you get to trade directly with someone overseas without having to worry about the US government taxing you for it. The idea is that you, as an individual, will only then trade with countries in which you are able to bring home the most amount of profit (thus increasing our economy).

This doesn't make any sense. What does free trade have to do with a nation's internal taxation on profits? Are you saying the world organizations should have more power so they can also disrupt sovereign countries' tax policies as well?

In internationally managed trade (under the guise of free trade), you are only able to freely trade with "approved" countries and at rates established by the international managers. The idea is to "spread the wealth" so that the US doesn't dominate.

This seems like an obtuse criticism as well. All of the parties to the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, (soon FTAA), and the EU did so voluntarily. They weren't forced into entry. And it doesn't prevent you from trading with anyone as you suggest, it actually just affects your ability to trade with those intra-treaty on certain terms.

I love to watch you criticize progressivism in action. It gives me great delight because it shows me that you don't even know what progressivism actually is, you just like the sound of the word or something. Maybe there's hope for you afterall.

I'm not sure what gave you the idea that "I don't even know what progressivism actually is" as i've defined it on numerous occasions here and you have never objected to my characterizations of it in the past. It sounds like maybe you've been reading some sketchy anti-globilization stuff on the web (Alex jones, etc.). Most progressives are anti-globalization too, but for apparently reasons opposite to yours. Progressives typically feel that the lack of international oversight governing this 'free trade" that is customary in national economies often means that the quality of environment and working conditions is made to suffer terribly, which mostly inures to the benefit of large, trans-national corporations operating without much accountability to anyone.

FD
03-04-2008, 09:12 AM
But the beautiful thing is that the increases don't make any difference because the government now has more money and they then lower our taxes to offset the tariff increases.

Right?

Right?

Tariffs dont bring in much revenue, they are either very low (ideally) or so high that they shift goods away from your country. No developed nations rely on tariffs for tax revenue and they make up a trivial part of our governments current revenue. Any corresponding reduction in domestic taxes would be trivial as well, certainly compared to the hit to Americans' pocketbooks because they are paying more for the goods they buy.

In fact, tariffs are something of a hidden tax on US consumers, when you buy goods at the store, part of the price you are paying reflects the fact that there are tariffs on those goods. A shockingly high (thousands of dollars a year) amount of the typical US consumers spending reflects the fact that we still have import tariffs.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 09:46 AM
Can you provide some detail on this, because unless I'm unaware of something, you're either twisting the way this works in some very odd fashion, or you're at your tinfoil hat best.

The IMF and World Bank etc. have little to do with free trade. And I'm unaware of any "international managers" who determine who trades with whom and under what rates. I'm glad to learn if I'm ignorant, but I'd be very surprised indeed to learn that such a thing exists. Educate me if you will.

Then you obviously have never read the Nafta agreement. It's loaded with subsidies, protectionism, has tax credits to take you business out of the country etc. etc. etc. It's winds up redistributing American wealth whether or not by design or not. You should actually read it. I've put up several links on it here, the actual govt link and articles on these aspects. You can find them in the search. And it's Gatt and WTO that has to do with these trade "arrangements". Lol the whole idea of a govt "arrangement" is contradictory to the idea of something being "free."

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 09:47 AM
The problem is that even if the US allowed completely free trade (and I don't know how they'd do that given the implications of tax policy and such, but we'll ignore that), other countries wouldn't. It's a prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma). The "internationally managed trade" that you deride is a way for both sides to lower their trade barriers to reduce trade friction (i.e. to more closely simulate free trade) without taking on all the risk that the other side will give them the shaft.
It's not reducing trade friction though. It's increased.

Hydrae
03-04-2008, 10:09 AM
Good discussion, thanks all!

So, tariffs would be a bad idea because the goods would cost the consumer more in the end. Dante feels that any increase in tariffs would do little to nothing to do as Rainman wanted (as did I but wanted to wait to bring it into the discussion) and lower our individual taxes. That is unfortunate as that was one effect I was hoping for.

I suppose those that complain about our jobs going overseas really have no leg to stand on then. It is simply the nature of the beast and Americans just have to find new avenues of employment.

Amnorix
03-04-2008, 10:34 AM
Good discussion, thanks all!

So, tariffs would be a bad idea because the goods would cost the consumer more in the end. Dante feels that any increase in tariffs would do little to nothing to do as Rainman wanted (as did I but wanted to wait to bring it into the discussion) and lower our individual taxes. That is unfortunate as that was one effect I was hoping for.

I suppose those that complain about our jobs going overseas really have no leg to stand on then. It is simply the nature of the beast and Americans just have to find new avenues of employment.

Something most Americans don't understand about capitalism -- it's a highly destructive and stress-creating system. "Destructive" in the sense that companies that are uncompetittive are ruthlessly driven under and die, and stressful because those that own or work at such companies, and their families, are under siege and then eventually must find some other means to support their family.

Now, that is a GOOD thing in many, MANY ways. It redeploys capital and talent from unsuccessful businesses to more successful businesses. It's efficient. But it IS stressful.

jAZ
03-04-2008, 11:13 AM
There are several things to consider:

1. let's take a hypothetical product such as kids clothing made in, let's say, China. You want to save some seamstress jobs in Wherever, USA, so we create/increase tariffs on kids clothes. Because the tariff acts as a tax on the imported product, the price of any foreign produced kids clothes is increased. Jobs in Wherever USA are saved. Meanwhile, jobs in a foreign country are lost (but who cares, that's China's problem, not ours). However, the price of all kids clothes in the USA is increased by, hypothetically, $0.50 per article of clothing. So every shirt, pant, t-shirt and set of socks for every set of american parents is now 50 cents more. Stuff that WOULD have been cheaper, is now more expensive than it would be.

2. China, of course, is unthrilled that we've decided to raise tariffs on kids clothes. After all, they have a potential 20 million seamstresses that could churn this stuff out much cheaper than us, but instead, we're artifically increasing the price of their goods. So, of course, they decide to slap on or increase a tariff on all USA made vehicles. Obviously, .50 cents on kids clothes works out to, let's say, a 10% tariff on average. So they put on a 10% tariff on USA vehicles. So that works out to about $2,000 per USA-made car. Suddenly, Volkswagon, Honda and Toyota cars are looking alot cheaper than Fords and Chevys over there. That costs the USA a bunch of jobs, but who cares, that's America's problem! (say the Chinese).

So you've saved some seamstress jobs and lost some manufacturing jobs relating to motor vehicles. You've reduced the net efficiencies in the world (China is better at making low-skilled items because they have tons of low-skilled labor), and you've artifically increased the price of kids clothes in the USA and the price of vehicles in China.

Who has won? Who has lost? Why? What is best for the most people? What industries do you have high tariffs on, and which ones are low? Why? How do you convince foreign countries to keep low tariffs on USA made goods if you have high tariffs on the stuff they want to sell to us.

Ad infinitum.

Discuss.

To be clear, not even Hillary or Obama is pushing tarriffs. They are pushing labor and environmental standards.

jAZ
03-04-2008, 11:14 AM
I suppose those that complain about our jobs going overseas really have no leg to stand on then. It is simply the nature of the beast and Americans just have to find new avenues of employment.
I'm not sure that's the full picture.

patteeu
03-04-2008, 11:30 AM
It's not reducing trade friction though. It's increased.

My understanding is that trade has increased substantially under NAFTA and that that increase is greater than changes in trade with other trading partners. While it's impossible (at least from my position) to completely separate the amount of increase that would have been expected absent NAFTA from that which is the result of NAFTA, the overall increase tends to support the idea that trade friction is reduced.

xbarretx
03-04-2008, 11:38 AM
my quick answer is b/c it affects the supply and demand curve in an adverse way thus making overall everyone pay more in the end. Tariffs only help if there morbidly high as to force a company to either not move there company our of the country or stop selling all together. regardless with higher prices their will be a lesser supply and thus via the supply and demand curve will have a leftward shift resulting in lesser qty and higher costs abroad. its all about the equilibrium point my friend.

the same goes for import quotas. its a case of do we want disgustingly high prices and low supply and less US jobs per competitive COST advantages or do we want lower prices, more supply, and more US jobs b/c companies can save by manufacturing it here an not importing.

banyon
03-04-2008, 01:14 PM
Then you obviously have never read the Nafta agreement. It's loaded with subsidies, protectionism, has tax credits to take you business out of the country etc. etc. etc. It's winds up redistributing American wealth whether or not by design or not. You should actually read it. I've put up several links on it here, the actual govt link and articles on these aspects. You can find them in the search. And it's Gatt and WTO that has to do with these trade "arrangements". Lol the whole idea of a govt "arrangement" is contradictory to the idea of something being "free."

I've challenged this claim multiple times for anywhere in the text of the NAFTA agreement that provides for these sort of "subsidies". Unsurprisingly, there's never been a response.

He're's the text again:

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=78


Of course there aren't any subsidies. Where would the money come from? The NAFTA Secretariat's budget is miniscule, it would never be able to support any country with revenues or subsidies. I see this is a desparate stab by the pro-corporatists to try to argue that somehow NAFTA, though damaging, is only damaging because it isn't "free enough", despite any foundation for such a claim.

Serious NAFTA discussions usually belabor the point that it doesn't do away with subsidies completely enough, as the US has substantial agricultural subsidies built in. The EU does provide subsidies for member states after ten years, perhaps that is where you are getting confused.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 01:25 PM
My understanding is that trade has increased substantially under NAFTA and that that increase is greater than changes in trade with other trading partners. While it's impossible (at least from my position) to completely separate the amount of increase that would have been expected absent NAFTA from that which is the result of NAFTA, the overall increase tends to support the idea that trade friction is reduced.
Another meaningless govt statistic. Statistics never tell the whole story.
I could give a rats ass of increased trade if it's managed and manipulated by govt to serve special interest groups, while it impoverishes the rest of us.

And no, an overall increase in this kind of trade is not logically connected to less friction. Less fricton for who?
Fact is true free-trade lessens friction such as war including trade wars. Yet, we have more war going on.

It is not popular with the people in America and some other places...so it's created more friction. It's not surprising since real free trade stems from the people deciding and making mutually advantageous exchanges they feel satisified with without govt setting things up making them buy from a certain place.

You support BIG govt and imperialism apparently with post.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/protectionism.html

banyon
03-04-2008, 01:31 PM
And no, an overall increase in trade is not logically connected to less friction. Less fricton for who?
Fact is true free-trade lessens war including trade wars. Yet, we have more war going on. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/protectionism.html

Not World Wars, or wars between major trading partners (otherwise we'd likely be in Saudi Arabia).

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 01:31 PM
Free Trade Follies- Mises (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=249&sortorder=articledate)

Never trust a government-to-government trade deal. They were rare in the 19th century when trade was largely free, but in our century of trade wars and real wars, they are more common than ever. Government-to-government trade deals ultimately subvert free trade, for their purpose is to reward favored business, prevent territorial competition for low-tax environments, and squeeze small business out of the international economy.

So much for less friction. Read the whole thing. You might lean something.

xbarretx
03-04-2008, 01:36 PM
Free Trade Follies- Mises (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=249&sortorder=articledate)



So much for less friction. Read the whole thing. You might lean something.

Buc, what’s your take on my response to the threads question? I tried to keep the politics out of it

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 01:40 PM
Good discussion, thanks all!

So, tariffs would be a bad idea because the goods would cost the consumer more in the end. Dante feels that any increase in tariffs would do little to nothing to do as Rainman wanted (as did I but wanted to wait to bring it into the discussion) and lower our individual taxes. That is unfortunate as that was one effect I was hoping for.

I suppose those that complain about our jobs going overseas really have no leg to stand on then. It is simply the nature of the beast and Americans just have to find new avenues of employment.

I'm not opposed to tariffs altogether. Afterall, when trade was largely free in a true sense in the 19th century, tariffs are what funded our federal govt. I am not for tariffs that are deliberately targeted to protect an inefficient industry of our own by making it too expensive to buy from.

If not done in a protectionist way, but more to fund our govt by having others pay, they gain access to one of the biggest most profitable markets, and the tax burdens we have now would be lighter allowing us to be even more competitive, and productive or consumers if so chosen. So that's another way as opposed to no tariffs at all.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 01:41 PM
Buc, what’s your take on my response to the threads question? I tried to keep the politics out of it

I just stopped in for a few quickies. So I didn't read the whole thread. I will take a look at it later.

xbarretx
03-04-2008, 01:43 PM
I just stopped in for a few quickies. So I didn't read the whole thread. I will take a look at it later.

:toast: fair enough

Hydrae
03-04-2008, 03:08 PM
Two books worth reading:

Economics for Real People (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Real-People-Gene-Callahan/dp/0945466412/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204624064&sr=8-1)

And...

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204624064&sr=8-2)

I caution others that both of these books are Austrian/Misean school of thought, which is in the minority among economic thinking. That isn't to say they're wrong or bad, but just that they present one side of view (and a minority one) regarding a host of economic theories.

Would you have any recommendations from the other school(s) of thought then? I am interested in learning more on this subject.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 03:10 PM
my quick answer is b/c it affects the supply and demand curve in an adverse way thus making overall everyone pay more in the end. Tariffs only help if there morbidly high as to force a company to either not move there company our of the country or stop selling all together. regardless with higher prices their will be a lesser supply and thus via the supply and demand curve will have a leftward shift resulting in lesser qty and higher costs abroad. its all about the equilibrium point my friend.

the same goes for import quotas. its a case of do we want disgustingly high prices and low supply and less US jobs per competitive COST advantages or do we want lower prices, more supply, and more US jobs b/c companies can save by manufacturing it here an not importing.

Okay. I am back. I don't think I completely understand all your points to be honest. I don't disagree with the general theme of supply and demand but I don't see that's actually the case on this subject. It's more how s&d are being impacted by policy instead of the market.

For one manufacturing jobs were leaving this country before these trade arrangements. They left, imo, due to too much govt involvement in the economic sector whereby it was no longer a profitable environment for them to stay here. It wasn't as rapid under these conditions as the so called "free trade" we have now where the govt subsidizes industry to leave.

But Nafta is merely a regional mercantilist trade agreement that is set up as a protectionist bloc similar to the EU. Good for the king and his politically connected nobles but bad for the rest of us. It is NOT free trade because it browbeats foreign governments into deals with approved U.S. corporations and create rules that protect the bloc from other competition like Asia and Europe. In fact even Clinton tried to initiate a trade war with countries outside it with US officials threatening tariffs as high as 100%.

Meanwhile, Gatt and WTO were set up to do away with the above schemes so
these two contradict Nafta.

If it were really just supply and demand none of the above would be happening. But it should be about supply and demand as the best way to deal with scarce resources.

What we're being told is all bull-shit.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 03:17 PM
Would you have any recommendations from the other school(s) of thought then? I am interested in learning more on this subject.

The best source imo, particularly since I know you were a Paul supporter, is the Mises Institute website. That's what Paul is: a Misean. They are the true free-traders. You can just type in words related to this subject in the search. That's where I learned my economics. That and classes at FEE ( also Misean pretty much)

Here's a link (http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Mises?hl=en&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&q=Trade%20Wars%20and%20Nafta) from using their search typing in "trade wars and Nafta". Try various combinations. It's actually simple to grasp. It's the govt Keyenesian and Newspeak "trade" crapola that's more complicated and difficult to follow. Truth is for the masses.

If you come across some terms you don't understand type those in their search as well and also use google to get defined. They are critical to understanding this stuff. Any subject has it's own basic terminology.

xbarretx
03-04-2008, 03:33 PM
Okay. I am back. I don't think I completely understand all your points to be honest. I don't disagree with the general theme of supply and demand but I don't see that's actually the case on this subject. It's more how s&d are being impacted by policy instead of the market.

For one manufacturing jobs were leaving this country before these trade arrangements. They left, imo, due to too much govt involvement in the economic sector whereby it was no longer a profitable environment for them to stay here. It wasn't as rapid under these conditions as the so called "free trade" we have now where the govt subsidizes industry to leave.

But Nafta is merely a regional mercantilist trade agreement that is set up as a protectionist bloc similar to the EU. Good for the king and his politically connected nobles but bad for the rest of us. It is NOT free trade because it browbeats foreign governments into deals with approved U.S. corporations and create rules that protect the bloc from other competition like Asia and Europe. In fact even Clinton tried to initiate a trade war with countries outside it with US officials threatening tariffs as high as 100%.

Meanwhile, Gatt and WTO were set up to do away with the above schemes so
these two contradict Nafta.

If it were really just supply and demand none of the above would be happening. But it should be about supply and demand as the best way to deal with scarce resources.

What we're being told is all bull-shit.

the initial question involved tariffs and jobs. i chose to answer it from a s&d point of view. why dont tarrifs help? b/c items become too expensive and they dont save jobs unless there terribly high otherwise its still cheaper via labor costs to not make things in the U.S.. the initial question asked for lamens so i tried to give lamens :) policy can and does have effect on supply and demand ;) ill stick to the lounge i guess :deevee:

patteeu
03-04-2008, 03:41 PM
Free Trade Follies- Mises (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=249&sortorder=articledate)



So much for less friction. Read the whole thing. You might lean something.

In a world where big government is a reality instead of an inconvenient theoretical construct, trade agreements reduce friction. If we didn't have big government on both sides of NAFTA, who in the absence of NAFTA distort trade, there would be no reason to have NAFTA because free trade would be achievable by simply avoiding government agreements instead of making them. In the real world, NAFTA is an attempt to reduce the big government distortions that are already present even though, clearly, they don't remove them completely.

Amnorix
03-04-2008, 03:48 PM
The best source imo, particularly since I know you were a Paul supporter, is the Mises Institute website. That's what Paul is: a Misean. They are the true free-traders. You can just type in words related to this subject in the search. That's where I learned my economics. That and classes at FEE ( also Misean pretty much)

Note that Misean and Austrian School are either exactly the same thing (which I believe is the case) or so close taht it hardly matters, and either way it's the minority view, and therefore doesn't represent the "other school" that Hydrae was asking about.

Amnorix
03-04-2008, 03:57 PM
Would you have any recommendations from the other school(s) of thought then? I am interested in learning more on this subject.


I'm afraid I don't, actually. I have read some books ON or BY economists, but have not read any dedicated economics books.

If you like a dose of history with your economics, then I can highly recommend both Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin's recent books, which I thought were very interesting and readable.

I currently have on my Amazon wish list two books by Thomas Sowell, which I have not yet obtained/read. I can't say I specifically remember adding them to my list, but apparently within the somewhat recent past I thought they would be good "general economics" books to read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465002609/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3U6DVQAOMAHXN&colid=1WGOIE3AU33C9

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465081436/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I13YS5IJXZ7PVQ&colid=1WGOIE3AU33C9

Amnorix
03-04-2008, 04:00 PM
In a world where big government is a reality instead of an inconvenient theoretical construct, trade agreements reduce friction. If we didn't have big government on both sides of NAFTA, who in the absence of NAFTA distort trade, there would be no reason to have NAFTA because free trade would be achievable by simply avoiding government agreements instead of making them. In the real world, NAFTA is an attempt to reduce the big government distortions that are already present even though, clearly, they don't remove them completely.

The real world is inconvenient to BEP. Please stop using it in your debates and discussions with her.

:D

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 05:07 PM
In a world where big government is a reality instead of an inconvenient theoretical construct, trade agreements reduce friction. If we didn't have big government on both sides of NAFTA, who in the absence of NAFTA distort trade, there would be no reason to have NAFTA because free trade would be achievable by simply avoiding government agreements instead of making them. In the real world, NAFTA is an attempt to reduce the big government distortions that are already present even though, clearly, they don't remove them completely.

Except your claim that they reduce friction is not happening in reality. There is more friction not less. There's more protection not less. There's been threats of trade wars regardless of it. I agree with it in theory only if it's free trade.

LOL at your claim that it's reducing big govt distortions. It's making more. Now see, it's when you make such arguments that I put you in the NC category....not just because of the war, which you seem to believe. This is big govt conservativism and which runs through too many of your stands. It's not even remotely libertarian. It is left of center in a soft sort of fascism. Nothing more nothing less.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 05:11 PM
And pat you don't have to add to big govt to make something "free." It's the antithesis of the concept. We're better off pre-Nafta, Gatt and WTO.

patteeu
03-04-2008, 05:39 PM
Except your claim that they reduce friction is not happening in reality. There is more friction not less. There's more protection not less. There's been threats of trade wars regardless of it. I agree with it in theory only if it's free trade.

LOL at your claim that it's reducing big govt distortions. It's making more. Now see, it's when you make such arguments that I put you in the NC category....not just because of the war, which you seem to believe. This is big govt conservativism and which runs through too many of your stands. It's not even remotely libertarian. It is left of center in a soft sort of fascism. Nothing more nothing less.

Since all statistics are tools of big government and the only legitimate arguments available to us are your opinions, I see that there is no point in trying to discuss this with you.

What's funny is that I don't disagree with a lot of your blank slate theory, I just recognize that it doesn't translate very cleanly into reality.

patteeu
03-04-2008, 05:46 PM
And pat you don't have to add to big govt to make something "free." It's the antithesis of the concept. We're better off pre-Nafta, Gatt and WTO.

If big government applied a huge tariff (an unmistakeable afront to free trade) to all incoming widgets, which of the following options would more closely simulate "free trade":

a) big government takes no additional action, or

b) big government rebates all tariffs immediately after collecting them

The answer, of course, is (b). Obviously, it would be even better (i.e. more truly free) if they never collected the tariff in the first place, but creating a big government rebate program would clearly lead to trade that simulated "free trade" more closely than taking no action at all.

Hydrae
03-04-2008, 06:55 PM
I'm afraid I don't, actually. I have read some books ON or BY economists, but have not read any dedicated economics books.

If you like a dose of history with your economics, then I can highly recommend both Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin's recent books, which I thought were very interesting and readable.

I currently have on my Amazon wish list two books by Thomas Sowell, which I have not yet obtained/read. I can't say I specifically remember adding them to my list, but apparently within the somewhat recent past I thought they would be good "general economics" books to read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465002609/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3U6DVQAOMAHXN&colid=1WGOIE3AU33C9

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465081436/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I13YS5IJXZ7PVQ&colid=1WGOIE3AU33C9

Thanks, I'll see if I can't find Greenspan's book sometime soon.

BEP, yes I am a Paul supporter through and through but learning both sides of an argument is a better way to understand what you are supporting, IMO. Kind of hard to argue that one side is wrong when you don't really know what that side is saying in the first place. I suspect I will find that Mises/Austrian schools of thought are more to my liking and my expectation of the world but without seeing the other arguments I can't say for sure.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2008, 08:58 PM
BEP, yes I am a Paul supporter through and through but learning both sides of an argument is a better way to understand what you are supporting, IMO. Kind of hard to argue that one side is wrong when you don't really know what that side is saying in the first place. I suspect I will find that Mises/Austrian schools of thought are more to my liking and my expectation of the world but without seeing the other arguments I can't say for sure.
Oh well I used to be on the other side, so I knew some of it already. However the Miseans in making their case, will articulate both the other side's stands too...while it dismantles them. A comparison helps to make the case clearer than in a void.

It will definitely will give you a very fresh take, instead of the left versus right version since it is neither actually. It overlaps a bit of both sides. I think you're in that camp more. I think you will really like it.

Whatever you do stay away from the Club for Growth folks. They're the Doublethink'ers and Newspeak'ers.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 06:51 AM
Whatever you do stay away from the Club for Growth folks. They're the Doublethink'ers and Newspeak'ers.

LMAO :rolleyes: