Econ 101 for Presidential Candidates (and VN) - CATO

[n_huffhines]

Ramblings of a false libertarian.

 

[red butler]

Ramblings of a false libertarian.

How can you call anyone a false libertarian? In this thread alone, you've been critical of Murray Rothbard. If there was no Rothbard, I'm not sure there's a modern libertarian philosophy.

The bottom line is these trade agreements were written by globalist entities for globalist entities - bribing governmental officials along the way. They find a country with resources and lax environmental laws, then strip mine it of raw materials. They find a country in poverty with lax labor laws and set up manufacturing. They find a country with low tax rates and establish a headquarters to avoid sharing their gains. Then they market products to countries with wealth, all the while the wealthy countries lose what made them wealthy in the first place because they can't compete.

The trade laws may have intentionally or unintentionally created this environment. I don't know. But the end result is the majority of the people are exploited, while the fat cats keep getting fatter.

 

[n_huffhines]

How can you call anyone a false libertarian? In this thread alone, you've been critical of Murray Rothbard. If there was no Rothbard, I'm not sure there's a modern libertarian philosophy.

In what way did I criticize Rothbard?

The bottom line is these trade agreements were written by globalist entities for globalist entities - bribing governmental officials along the way. They find a country with resources and lax environmental laws, then strip mine it of raw materials. They find a country in poverty with lax labor laws and set up manufacturing. They find a country with low tax rates and establish a headquarters to avoid sharing their gains. Then they market products to countries with wealth, all the while the wealthy countries lose what made them wealthy in the first place because they can't compete.

Rothbard is an anarchist moreso than a libertarian and again, I am not arguing for agreements...I'm just arguing for free trade, which Rothbard supported.

 

[n_huffhines]

Why Donald Trump's Trade Policies Would Cost Jobs

 

[LouderVol]

This is not an accurate representation of this conversation. I've given plenty of answers, steeped in sound economic theory and with historical backup.



Well, we built this country on slaverya common exaggeration , we discriminated against women for 2 centuries, women got the right to vote right at the great depressionwe were careless with the environment, in the 50s and 60s when our economy was booming, now that it has slowed down we are getting responsiblewe had terrible employment practices, depends on what you mean but I will give you this onewe treated immigrants terribly, still do? etc. As we got wealthier, these terrible practices fell by the wayside.



To improve our lives. How is this still a question? I've answered it already.

us getting wealthier had nothing to do with those changes and had nothing to do with a free(r) market (unless you get literal with slaves).

to your last point how does me having more money today than yesterday improve someone's life? As AM pointed out my money isn't going to the poor worker, its going to some mega corporation who we have given a license to do whatever they want. have any of these third world nations doing our manufacturing seen a marked improvement in lifestyle? The global trend is up, but these countries should be standing out above that. as far as i have seen they are not.

and in your list of bad things, employment and environmental issues were caused by freer corporations than we have today. what is a free market going to do with that same chance again?

 

[n_huffhines]

us getting wealthier had nothing to do with those changes and had nothing to do with a free(r) market (unless you get literal with slaves).

How does it have nothing to do with it? More wealth led to better education, better communication, better standards of living, better technology, etc. We couldn't even afford to care about the environment in 1900. But we got wealthier and we got better at reducing our burden on the environment. We were manufacturing more and more and the air and water was getting cleaner and cleaner every decade. You can't just say "it had nothing to do with it" without backing it up, especially when history flies in the face of your argument.

to your last point how does me having more money today than yesterday improve someone's life? As AM pointed out my money isn't going to the poor worker, its going to some mega corporation who we have given a license to do whatever they want. have any of these third world nations doing our manufacturing seen a marked improvement in lifestyle? The global trend is up, but these countries should be standing out above that. as far as i have seen they are not.

Do you subscribe to Reagan's trickle down theory? It's kind of the same idea.

Why do you act like every dollar goes to the mega-corporations? That's not how I operate. Why are you giving them all your money (in your example)?

and in your list of bad things, employment and environmental issues were caused by freer corporations than we have today. what is a free market going to do with that same chance again?

Employment and environmental practices were what they were because we were poor, not because the market was free. Countries that can't afford labor standards don't really have them. Once an economy progresses and evolves, workers have morenegotiating power. The government then makes rules and says "see what we did, we did this. business didn't want it, but we did this." When really business was already starting to do it and their lobbyists helped government write the regulations to create barriers to entry in their industry. Hooray for croneyism.

 

[LouderVol]

How does it have nothing to do with it? More wealth led to better education, better communication, better standards of living, better technology, etc. We couldn't even afford to care about the environment in 1900. But we got wealthier and we got better at reducing our burden on the environment. We were manufacturing more and more and the air and water was getting cleaner and cleaner every decade. You can't just say "it had nothing to do with it" without backing it up, especially when history flies in the face of your argument.

how do I prove a negative? slavery ended with the government enforcing its rules not industry. Northern industry still bought southern cotton. southern cotton needed to be cheap because they couldn't sell their cotton directly. once the war ended and slavery was abolished cotton prices jumped and within two decades or so we had lost our corner on the market. a lot of the women's rights movement came because the men were treating them like crap and again the push came largely from your church groups and grass routes at the very poor level. sure there were rich big name women sponsoring it but the real push was on the household front. Environmental issues? Too poor to care about dumping toxic sludge into drinking water? please name an example where an industry has made major strides on their own. again I can't prove a negative.

Do you subscribe to Reagan's trickle down theory? It's kind of the same idea.

Why do you act like every dollar goes to the mega-corporations? That's not how I operate. Why are you giving them all your money (in your example)?

Nike shoes being sold for 70 bucks a pair, workers making 2 bucks a day. how many pairs a day? no way the worker is seeing a significant enough number to say the corporation isn't getting the vast vast majority of the money. so yeah its not 100% but 95% is still not good enough to brag over.

Employment and environmental practices were what they were because we were poor, not because the market was free. Countries that can't afford labor standards don't really have them. Once an economy progresses and evolves, workers have morenegotiating power. The government then makes rules and says "see what we did, we did this. business didn't want it, but we did this." When really business was already starting to do it and their lobbyists helped government write the regulations to create barriers to entry in their industry. Hooray for croneyism.

i agree the government jumps on afterwards (not for more regulation) but its not like industries are making the move first before their hands are forced. the only reason it made sense at the time for negotiating wages was because they could still make money. now that industries are leaving where is the negotiating power? where are these industries going to? nations where they can dump. if the free market is about this stuff why does industry go to where these aren't the case? they are taking advantage and possibly starting a cyclical pattern. the free market is allowing this exploitation.

 

[n_huffhines]

i agree the government jumps on afterwards (not for more regulation) but its not like industries are making the move first before their hands are forced. the only reason it made sense at the time for negotiating wages was because they could still make money. now that industries are leaving where is the negotiating power? where are these industries going to? nations where they can dump. if the free market is about this stuff why does industry go to where these aren't the case? they are taking advantage and possibly starting a cyclical pattern. the free market is allowing this exploitation.

What do you mean? Do you not have negotiating power at your job? I do. Everybody I know does, to some extent. Who is working in a sweat shop that you know?

Again, we are manufacturing more than ever. We really aren't losing that many jobs to foreign countries and we rely on those countries to make cheap components for our own manufacturing jobs. We mostly lose jobs to automation.

The economy isn't supposed to look like it did 30 years ago. If it did, we wouldn't be enjoying our current standard of living. The people who are no longer making phones are now working wireless phone customer service. Do you remember when you used to call customer service from a national corporation and you could basically expect to be on the phone for over an hour. That's not the case anymore because the economy has evolved and we have more service employees, relative to manufacturing.

We are making more with less, new jobs are created, and the consumer benefits.

 

[red butler]

What do you mean? Do you not have negotiating power at your job? I do. Everybody I know does, to some extent. Who is working in a sweat shop that you know?

Again, we are manufacturing more than ever. We really aren't losing that many jobs to foreign countries and we rely on those countries to make cheap components for our own manufacturing jobs. We mostly lose jobs to automation.

The economy isn't supposed to look like it did 30 years ago. If it did, we wouldn't be enjoying our current standard of living. The people who are no longer making phones are now working wireless phone customer service. Do you remember when you used to call customer service from a national corporation and you could basically expect to be on the phone for over an hour. That's not the case anymore because the economy has evolved and we have more service employees, relative to manufacturing.

We are making more with less, new jobs are created, and the consumer benefits.

Every time I call customer service, I get to try to communicate with someone in India named "Bob"

 

[LouderVol]

What do you mean? Do you not have negotiating power at your job? I do. Everybody I know does, to some extent. Who is working in a sweat shop that you know?

Again, we are manufacturing more than ever. We really aren't losing that many jobs to foreign countries and we rely on those countries to make cheap components for our own manufacturing jobs. We mostly lose jobs to automation.

The economy isn't supposed to look like it did 30 years ago. If it did, we wouldn't be enjoying our current standard of living. The people who are no longer making phones are now working wireless phone customer service. Do you remember when you used to call customer service from a national corporation and you could basically expect to be on the phone for over an hour. That's not the case anymore because the economy has evolved and we have more service employees, relative to manufacturing.

We are making more with less, new jobs are created, and the consumer benefits.

with fewer (ratio not pure number) consumers available.

and the phone calls still take too dang long for what ends up being a 5 minute conversation. but believe me I know the government is no better in this department. and I am guess you think the "Tony from Philadelphia" is actually from Philadelphia because they routed a number through their server/switch board there.

when a corporation gets up and leaves how do the employees have negotiating power? they don't. in the building literally next door Vonage used to have a service center, they moved out to the burbs. the workers fought it and guess what? Vonage left for the burbs even though they had to replace 90% of its workforce from that office which they wanted to keep, even offered something like a 20% raise. AJC article is no longer linked or I would have something to show you.

 

[n_huffhines]

Every time I call customer service, I get to try to communicate with someone in India named "Bob"

IDK what companies you are dealing with, but that probably accounts for about 10% of my customer service calls. I called DirecTV yesterday. American. I called Google today. American.

My company has an American and Filipino call floor so that there is 24 hour service. Without the Filipinos, that wouldn't be possible. We also have an online chat feature, if that's your thing.

30 years ago, my company wouldn't even have existed and now there are 50 American jobs that have been created by the same kind of technological advances that destroyed old jobs.

 

[n_huffhines]

Every time I call customer service, I get to try to communicate with someone in India named "Bob"

Also, still wondering what made you think I was being critical of Rothbard?

 

[red butler]

Also, still wondering what made you think I was being critical of Rothbard?

I thought you were being sarcastic in post #13. After re-reading, I may have misinterpreted your position. If you were being literal, I apologize.

 

[AM64]

I thought you were being sarcastic in post #13. After re-reading, I may have misinterpreted your position. If you were being literal, I apologize.

Huff was right about that. You really don't need a treaty to trade freely - you just do it - openly, honestly, and freely. When you put "free trade" and "treaty" together, you can pretty well bet that you really aren't talking about trading freely, and that's what makes this discussion so difficult. Nobody is quite sure which "free trade" we're talking about.

 

[Quaint88]

What do you mean? Do you not have negotiating power at your job? I do. Everybody I know does, to some extent. Who is working in a sweat shop that you know?

Again, we are manufacturing more than ever. We really aren't losing that many jobs to foreign countries and we rely on those countries to make cheap components for our own manufacturing jobs. We mostly lose jobs to automation.

The economy isn't supposed to look like it did 30 years ago. If it did, we wouldn't be enjoying our current standard of living. The people who are no longer making phones are now working wireless phone customer service. Do you remember when you used to call customer service from a national corporation and you could basically expect to be on the phone for over an hour. That's not the case anymore because the economy has evolved and we have more service employees, relative to manufacturing.

We are making more with less, new jobs are created, and the consumer benefits.

Do you see this as an improvement?

 

[AM64]

Do you see this as an improvement?

Huff put up a little supply and demand chart for me on another thread; it claims to show that the effect of robotics overrules the cost of human labor from a cost standpoint. I happen to believe that there is no free lunch, you can't get something from nothing, etc. In that vein I don't see that it's possible to either manufacture abroad or replace the human worker with a robot and maintain a sufficient level of employment to provide the consumers necessary to buy those products built by robots or foreign labor.

Think about it; if you create enough other jobs to maintain/sustain robotics and off-shored jobs then how do you also justify the capital cost of the robotics and the labor/shipping/infrastructure improvements necessary for off shore manufacturing? Yes, there are reductions in manufacturing cost and they are partially passed to the consumer, but as an example, most cars (in an industry heavily into robotics) still cost more than they did a few years ago.

I think the reality is that you don't maintain the workforce levels, and the fictitious unemployment figures cover it up. What you are left with is those people in the workforce are taxed for welfare going to displaced workers and a tremendous upward spiral in debt because it really isn't possible to tax workers to maintain a flawed economic system. The debt is the killer and we (the government and industry) pretend that you can just ignore it and kick it on down the road. The real problem with that is f=ma - the bigger they are the harder they fall. Physics covers that, and thermodynamics covers the "can't get something from nothing" part, and economists just ignore reality.

 

[n_huffhines]

Do you see this as an improvement?

For consumers? Yes. For the workers? In terms of what? Job satisfaction? They both seem like boring jobs.

I do know I'd rather have smart phones and fast internet and work in customer service than work in a factory and pay a buttload for long distance phone calls.

Progress is good.

 

[Quaint88]

For consumers? Yes. For the workers? In terms of what? Job satisfaction? They both seem like boring jobs.

I do know I'd rather have smart phones and fast internet and work in customer service than work in a factory and pay a buttload for long distance phone calls.

Progress is good.

I'm thinking about it from the workers' perspective. I've worked in a factory and in customer service and I contend that a factory job is better than a customer service job in almost any measurable way (safety being the big exception). Better pay and benefits as well as not having to kiss the asses of the general public, which has a way of making one feel lower than any physical labor could.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm thinking about it from the workers' perspective. I've worked in a factory and in customer service and I contend that a factory job is better than a customer service job in almost any measurable way (safety being the big exception). Better pay and benefits as well as not having to kiss the asses of the general public, which has a way of making one feel lower than any physical labor could.

Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying we should put up barriers to trade and make everything more expensive so that some people can have the job they'd prefer?

 

[Quaint88]

Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying we should put up barriers to trade and make everything more expensive so that some people can have the job they'd prefer?

When there's a difference in pay and benefits, it's not just a preference. We're trading better jobs for worse jobs and trying to spin it as part of progress is my point. Going from manufacturing to customer service is not progress, especially considering that the growth of the Internet and the advent of IP telephony means that even those jobs aren't safe unless the service has to be done by a person at the customer's physical location.

I don't pretend to know what we should do to reverse the trend, or if it can even be done at this point (seems unlikely), but can we at least not mistake moving from manufacturing to service as progress? It's a problem when workers go from making $15-$20 an hour with benefits to making $8-$10 an hour with no benefits. It's good that the jobs are being replaced with something, but this is a step down for American workers.

 

[n_huffhines]

When there's a difference in pay and benefits, it's not just a preference. We're trading better jobs for worse jobs and trying to spin it as part of progress is my point. Going from manufacturing to customer service is not progress, especially considering that the growth of the Internet and the advent of IP telephony means that even those jobs aren't safe unless the service has to be done by a person at the customer's physical location.

You are looking at it from the perspective of a small fraction of the population rather than the population as a whole. It's progress because everybody benefits while it only comes at a cost to a few.

For the most part, everybody enjoys a better standard of living today than they did 30 years ago. Most people have better jobs today. Some don't have better jobs than they used to, but nothing will ever prevent that from happening. We just gotta worry about doing what's best for everybody involved, not a few people who can't evolve with the economy.

 

[AM64]

When there's a difference in pay and benefits, it's not just a preference. We're trading better jobs for worse jobs and trying to spin it as part of progress is my point. Going from manufacturing to customer service is not progress, especially considering that the growth of the Internet and the advent of IP telephony means that even those jobs aren't safe unless the service has to be done by a person at the customer's physical location.

I don't pretend to know what we should do to reverse the trend, or if it can even be done at this point (seems unlikely), but can we at least not mistake moving from manufacturing to service as progress? It's a problem when workers go from making $15-$20 an hour with benefits to making $8-$10 an hour with no benefits. It's good that the jobs are being replaced with something, but this is a step down for American workers.

I really don't think you can get through to Huff on this. He is so brainwashed that things are all better now that he can't even fathom your argument. Manufacturing is taking raw materials and making something useful and marketable of them - adding value. That added value has to offset the labor and overhead expense.

Service, however necessary, is overhead, and you can't build an economy out of overhead. It's really hard to see how that is so difficult for people like Huff to grasp. As a nation, we are coasting and accumulating debt - that's not sustainable.

 

[n_huffhines]

I really don't think you can get through to Huff on this. He is so brainwashed that things are all better now that he can't even fathom your argument.

So who brainwashed all the economists?

I "fathom" his argument, which is why I'm able to refute it. You really have no basis for your opinions. It's just a line of reasoning that is politically popular, but not based in sound reasoning.

Manufacturing is taking raw materials and making something useful and marketable of them - adding value. That added value has to offset the labor and overhead expense.

Manufacturing is also taking manufactured parts and then adding value...which is what half of our imports are...half of our imports end up going through American manufacturing processes...think about that...think about how important imports are to American industry and then tell me it's a good idea to raise those prices. Literally everything we make here becomes more costly with protectinism.

Service, however necessary, is overhead, and you can't build an economy out of overhead. It's really hard to see how that is so difficult for people like Huff to grasp. As a nation, we are coasting and accumulating debt - that's not sustainable.

What does this even mean? in every kind of economy, businesses are faced with overhead costs. You literally can't have a business without some form of overhead, so you actually have to build an economy out of overhead. Again, we are not just a service economy....our manufacturing output is bigger than ever. Fathom that.

Our national debt has nothing to do with trade policy. You are rambling again.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

....
Employment and environmental practices were what they were because we were poor, not because the market was free
...

Pause while we go to a commercial break. The refs are gonna huddle on this one...
.
.
yep
.
there it is
The BS flag has been thrown.
Huff is going to have to prove the veracity of this or face a 15 point loss of e-cred and wear an Asshat Clown Face to the end of the thread for making shiet up on the fly.

 

[n_huffhines]

Pause while we go to a commercial break. The refs are gonna huddle on this one...
.
.
yep
.
there it is
The BS flag has been thrown.
Huff is going to have to prove the veracity of this or face a 15 point loss of e-cred and wear an Asshat Clown Face to the end of the thread for making shiet up on the fly.

I didn't make it up, I already supported it with an example of air and water getting cleaner long before the EPA and clean air and water acts.

This supports the employment practices claim: