My Ron Paul moment

[doncoo]

I finally got to meet Ron Paul this past weekend at the GOP foreign policy debate in Spartanburg, SC.

What a genuine man. After he spoke in the morning, he took over 450 pictures with supporters.

Then after the debate he came to the pizza place where we gathered to watch, and signed hundreds upon hundreds of books, signs, t-shirts etc...

He engaged every single person he met. He wrote a dedication in my book for my father - it's a Christmas present so don't anyone say anything. Then he asked me some questions about my dad and we chatted. Just a remarkably humble and intelligent man.

America doesn't deserve Ron Paul.

[swamprat]

The American public votes with its head in its tail. To think that New Gingrich is reportedly at the top of the Republican heap right now is enough to make me want to vomit profusely. This guy is globalist trash and is the anthesis of the fumbuly values that these nitwits purport to embrace. He divorced his wife while she was sick with cancer and played slap and tickle on the side. Now, he tells us that he did it because he was working hard for America. He belongs in a psych ward, not the white house, but if these morons actually vote for this guy, we are getting what I don't deserve. I won't vote for that trash.

That said, I like Ron Paul although I think that he has a huge blind spot on the trade issue. I don't believe in doing business with countries that enslave their workers as a matter of principle. Of course, for some goods, yo simply can't buy American, but we need to encourage American manufacturing.

[BrentP]

That said, I like Ron Paul although I think that he has a huge blind spot on the trade issue. I don't believe in doing business with countries that enslave their workers as a matter of principle. Of course, for some goods, yo simply can't buy American, but we need to encourage American manufacturing.

The problem is that once you go down the protectionist road, once you play the game, the globalists have their in. You can bet that *ANY* trade rules are going to benefit, work towards the goals of the power elite, the globalists. To play up the 'slave wages' is to give the power to create managed trade which has always been used to hurt the american middle class.

Slave wages are not productive. Henry Ford figured this out in the early 20th century and faced the wrath of those who's families have much of the influence over government today. Henry Ford gave up their model because it didn't work for what he cared about, productivity. Of course the power elite don't care about productivity they care about domination and controlling everyone's lives as if they were livestock.

China and others only work because of managed trade, because of the globalists defining the currencies, taxes, trade rules, etc and so forth in the favor of manufacturing there. Eliminate this and it makes no sense to go to China. Back the dollar with gold. How is china going to maintain their peg? The whole globalist system falls apart by eliminating their tools.

Plus without the globalists a lot of those countries become not so safe for investment. The US becomes safe. With the globalists it's safer to build a factory in China than in the USA. (carbon taxes and all sorts of other nonsense).

[swamprat]

The problem is that once you go down the protectionist road, once you play the game, the globalists have their in. You can bet that *ANY* trade rules are going to benefit, work towards the goals of the power elite, the globalists. To play up the 'slave wages' is to give the power to create managed trade which has always been used to hurt the american middle class.

Slave wages are not productive. Henry Ford figured this out in the early 20th century and faced the wrath of those who's families have much of the influence over government today. Henry Ford gave up their model because it didn't work for what he cared about, productivity. Of course the power elite don't care about productivity they care about domination and controlling everyone's lives as if they were livestock.

China and others only work because of managed trade, because of the globalists defining the currencies, taxes, trade rules, etc and so forth in the favor of manufacturing there. Eliminate this and it makes no sense to go to China. Back the dollar with gold. How is china going to maintain their peg? The whole globalist system falls apart by eliminating their tools.

Plus without the globalists a lot of those countries become not so safe for investment. The US becomes safe. With the globalists it's safer to build a factory in China than in the USA. (carbon taxes and all sorts of other nonsense).

Disagree. Until about 1913, the government existed on tariffs and not income taxes. During that time, the government was small. Tariffs are not managed trade. Managed trade as practiced has consistently been lowering trade tariffs and barriers over the last 35-40 years. Managed trade agreements give countries like the United States fewer options in determining their economic futures, instead leaving that to world trade commissions and things like that.

If our liberalizing trade policies were so good, how come over 110,000 factories have closed since 1972 in search of cheaper labor? We run a $600 billion trade deficit annually. Simply reducing pollution regulations and permitting requirements is not going to close that gap, although it may help somewhat. Because of our higher labor rates, factories are simply not going to return.

When Henry Ford, whom I respect, paid the $5.00 per day wage, the US was still very much protectionist. There were also very few auto manufacturers overseas that competed with the Ford product.

As a country, we need every available trade tool in our arsenal to deal with countries who pay their workers slave wages, allow companies to grossly pollute their lakes, rivers and streams without cost, and oppress their workers.

I am all for free trade in the sense that we should be free to erect barriers against countries that do not respect worker's rights. Western european nations and Japan do not fall into that category.

There are countries that we need to import precious metals and certain agricultural products that cannot be grown here. Those goods should enter in barrier free.

The rest, I say, get rid of the income tax and start taxing the living crap out of goods made by slaves. Its fair, honest and humane.

[doncoo]

Not sure I get the whole slave wage argument. Can someone live on the American minimum wage? No. Do we not have low wage, child labor in the U.S.? Yes.

Growing up in Florida I mowed lawns twice a week in the summer in 100 degree heat with 100% humidity for $2/lawn. Why did those people hire me and other kids to mow their lawns and not a professional lawn service? Because they could pay me "slave wages"!

Whether you exploit a labor force or not is not a fuzzy matter. You either do or you don't. You don't get to say: we don't exploit it as much or as a matter of principle. You either do or you don't and the truth is that everybody does.

The economics are clear: production costs of all kinds are too high here so the smart businessman goes somewhere else. But even that can be a good thing if the gov't would get out of the way.

Sending manufacturing offshore, produces a cheaper product here, which increases sales which creates jobs here. As sales go up you need to increase productivity which affects the whole company from salesmen to accounting to shipping to engineering to this and that. Manufacturing is but the one piece of the production process.

Having said that, if gov't regulations and taxations weren't what they are then we could bring manufacturing back to the U.S. which would get other countries competing with us again and everybody wins.

[swamprat]

Not sure I get the whole slave wage argument. Can someone live on the American minimum wage? No. Do we not have low wage, child labor in the U.S.? Yes.

Growing up in Florida I mowed lawns twice a week in the summer in 100 degree heat with 100% humidity for $2/lawn. Why did those people hire me and other kids to mow their lawns and not a professional lawn service? Because they could pay me "slave wages"!

Whether you exploit a labor force or not is not a fuzzy matter. You either do or you don't. You don't get to say: we don't exploit it as much or as a matter of principle. You either do or you don't and the truth is that everybody does.

The economics are clear: production costs of all kinds are too high here so the smart businessman goes somewhere else. But even that can be a good thing if the gov't would get out of the way.

Sending manufacturing offshore, produces a cheaper product here, which increases sales which creates jobs here. As sales go up you need to increase productivity which affects the whole company from salesmen to accounting to shipping to engineering to this and that. Manufacturing is but the one piece of the production process.

Having said that, if gov't regulations and taxations weren't what they are then we could bring manufacturing back to the U.S. which would get other countries competing with us again and everybody wins.

Oh, please. Libertarians who love to talk about economics love to talk about supply and demand when it comes to manufactured goods never talk about it when it comes to labor. Kids and Teenagers willing to break a sweat in the 100 degree heat for a couple of bucks was not going to put professional lawn services out of business.

Over a billion of the worlds workers willing to work for 30 cents an hour will put America out of business and already is.There is also a huge difference between making minimum wage here in the US and living in China or some other country on 30-40 cents an hour. Even factoring differences in teh cost of living, they are living much, much worse.

You get rid of basic worker protections that exist here, (and that libertarian inclined people seem to dislike but also benefit from), in time, we will get closer to the average Chinese worker.

The numbers on job creation by imports are smoke and mirrors. Let's take a real world example. A country increases its imports of Hondas, Mazdas or Toyotas. U.S. sales go down (all things being equal) and yes, new dealerships open up. Sales jobs are created for Toyota dealers and lost for GM/Ford/ Chrysler dealers. The factory jobs are lost and everyone loses eventually. Sure, if a bubble is forming in the economy, there may be increases for everyone, but that usually doesn't last.... Here we are.

Loss of factories from production in the US does not benefit the average American, although it may make economic numbers look good (lower inflation, greater corporate profits, fattened 401ks (?)). Just how does saving 50 cents on a hammer or a broom create jobs?

I am sorry to personalize this with the term "libertarian" but that is the only thing that I vehemently disagree with the libertarian line. I don't think that the free trade/libertarian line takes into account an imperfect world.

The founding fathers of this once-great country did. The Constitution specifically authorized excise taxes, duties and imposts on foreign made trash. Keep it out.

[doncoo]

Oh, please. Libertarians who love to talk about economics love to talk about supply and demand when it comes to manufactured goods never talk about it when it comes to labor. Kids and Teenagers willing to break a sweat in the 100 degree heat for a couple of bucks was not going to put professional lawn services out of business.

Over a billion of the worlds workers willing to work for 30 cents an hour will put America out of business and already is.There is also a huge difference between making minimum wage here in the US and living in China or some other country on 30-40 cents an hour. Even factoring differences in teh cost of living, they are living much, much worse.

You get rid of basic worker protections that exist here, (and that libertarian inclined people seem to dislike but also benefit from), in time, we will get closer to the average Chinese worker.

The numbers on job creation by imports are smoke and mirrors. Let's take a real world example. A country increases its imports of Hondas, Mazdas or Toyotas. U.S. sales go down (all things being equal) and yes, new dealerships open up. Sales jobs are created for Toyota dealers and lost for GM/Ford/ Chrysler dealers. The factory jobs are lost and everyone loses eventually. Sure, if a bubble is forming in the economy, there may be increases for everyone, but that usually doesn't last.... Here we are.

Loss of factories from production in the US does not benefit the average American, although it may make economic numbers look good (lower inflation, greater corporate profits, fattened 401ks (?)). Just how does saving 50 cents on a hammer or a broom create jobs?

I am sorry to personalize this with the term "libertarian" but that is the only thing that I vehemently disagree with the libertarian line. I don't think that the free trade/libertarian line takes into account an imperfect world.

The founding fathers of this once-great country did. The Constitution specifically authorized excise taxes, duties and imposts on foreign made trash. Keep it out.

I'm not a Libertarian and honestly couldn't tell you the first thing about them. I am however, an economist, and can tell you that free trade is not only the only just trade policy it's the only sustainable one as well. And when I say free I mean free of any and all gov. intervention.

It's not perfect - there is NO perfect solution - but it is the one that uses the scarce resources we have the most efficiently. Why would you advocate wasting scarce resources? Who does that benefit, because if you advocate gov. tarriffs and trade restrictions somebody's gonna get shafted while somebody else makes out. Who are you or the gov't to pick the winners and losers?

Also, my statements about productivity here increasing when jobs are exported is correct. Google the issue and read up on it. There are also some very good videos on YouTube where businesses owners talk about it. Your auto example is a bit incoherent for me to follow and doesn't seem to come to any valid conclusions.

And if wages in the U.S. got to be 30 cents/hr then that means that, that is what labor is valued at. Again, why do you advocate wasting money? Who does that benefit?

You should also remember that the founding fathers were all businessmen who knew that import tarriffs would benefit them, not the economy. If the imports you say they were concerned about were "trash" then why were they concerned about it? If it was "foreign made trash" why did Americans want to buy it rather than American made goods?

I think you need only look around to get an idea of what happens when the gov't interferes in every single industry in the economy.

[BrentP]

Disagree. Until about 1913, the government existed on tariffs and not income taxes. During that time, the government was small. Tariffs are not managed trade. Managed trade as practiced has consistently been lowering trade tariffs and barriers over the last 35-40 years. Managed trade agreements give countries like the United States fewer options in determining their economic futures, instead leaving that to world trade commissions and things like that.

If our liberalizing trade policies were so good, how come over 110,000 factories have closed since 1972 in search of cheaper labor? We run a $600 billion trade deficit annually. Simply reducing pollution regulations and permitting requirements is not going to close that gap, although it may help somewhat. Because of our higher labor rates, factories are simply not going to return.

When Henry Ford, whom I respect, paid the $5.00 per day wage, the US was still very much protectionist. There were also very few auto manufacturers overseas that competed with the Ford product.

As a country, we need every available trade tool in our arsenal to deal with countries who pay their workers slave wages, allow companies to grossly pollute their lakes, rivers and streams without cost, and oppress their workers.

I am all for free trade in the sense that we should be free to erect barriers against countries that do not respect worker's rights. Western european nations and Japan do not fall into that category.

There are countries that we need to import precious metals and certain agricultural products that cannot be grown here. Those goods should enter in barrier free.

The rest, I say, get rid of the income tax and start taxing the living crap out of goods made by slaves. Its fair, honest and humane.

What has happened in the last few decades is not free trade by any sort. First rule, what the political office holders call something is what it is NOT. Do not put down real free trade because of a bunch of politicians doing whatever the globalist think tanks say.

Tariffs have always been selective and designed to benefit some americans at the cost to other americans. It is how insiders can seek favor from the government. Once you accept the premise that an economy has to be managed by government for one reason or another you've accepted the fundamental premise by which the income tax, the bankster bailouts, and everything else stems.

How do you argue that a tariff on foreign cars to product domestic automakers is ok but regulations on cars that favor existing domestic automakers isn't? What if I want to get into the car business but US suppliers don't want to sell me parts because the big three would get upset with them? Now I have to pay tariffs to get parts from overseas suppliers which prices my car out of the market.

The government cannot have the power to shape the economy or it *WILL* abuse it for the benefit of those close to it and those in the government itself.

Oh, please. Libertarians who love to talk about economics love to talk about supply and demand when it comes to manufactured goods never talk about it when it comes to labor. Kids and Teenagers willing to break a sweat in the 100 degree heat for a couple of bucks was not going to put professional lawn services out of business.

Over a billion of the worlds workers willing to work for 30 cents an hour will put America out of business and already is.There is also a huge difference between making minimum wage here in the US and living in China or some other country on 30-40 cents an hour. Even factoring differences in teh cost of living, they are living much, much worse.

You get rid of basic worker protections that exist here, (and that libertarian inclined people seem to dislike but also benefit from), in time, we will get closer to the average Chinese worker.

China is the model for the world and managed trade is one of the tools to get there. It is the power over the economy given to governments that has allowed it to come this far. Ever notice how wealthy China is exempt from any and all international treaties on the environment? That they won't even put in the cheap stuff that does most of the work? There's a reason for that. It's on purpose. Those who influence government wish to destroy the US economy. To knock the american worker down several pegs. They do this with government's power over the economy.

If this were straight up free trade there would be no reason to go to China. But the whole system is rigged in favor of making things in China so that's where they are made. The rise of China is the direct result of the political environment that favors it while disfavoring the USA.

Worker protections are the same thing, it's how politics works. It's a question of power. Government instead of dealing with companies that violate people's rights make new laws that gives government more power. Government failure to do its job is rewarded with more power and the laws on labor are no different.

Government and all that it does will never be a tool of long term prosperity for the american worker. At best the american worker will do a little better for a short while because at that moment it serves the interests of those in government to do something in their favor. Long term the american worker will always suffer under the power of government.

We've got tons of regulation. Overall, what's happening? What the globalists want. Not what is best for us.

I'd rather take my chances in more or less fair competition than in a government managed system where the deck is always stacked against us. Where barriers are put in our way of having our own businesses too.

[swamprat]

It is early and I don't have time to get into a polemical discussion, but this article explains how specific people would get hit by nothing other than removing a shoe tariff. I want to buy athletic shoes that are made in the USA. If New Balalnce is forced to close their now operating plant because it makes no sense to operate here whereas before the removal of the tariff, they could hang on, how is that "free."

http://www.chron.com/business/articl...ce-2081136.php

I just don't buy free trade arguments. At one time I believe that free trade made our industries more competitive, but there has to be some equalizing tax so that American workers don't get the shaft.

Look, the Chinese and the Koreans and everyone else are doing it and we cling to the idea of removing the last of our tariffs as if it will somehow enhance our standard of living.

Our standard of living has dropped like a rock in the last 40 years. The only thing that keeps us in our houses and keeps us buying cars is cheap and available credit. If this wasn't available (through fed printing money whcih I'm against, btw), it would have been "game over" 15 years ago.

[doncoo]

It is early and I don't have time to get into a polemical discussion, but this article explains how specific people would get hit by nothing other than removing a shoe tariff. I want to buy athletic shoes that are made in the USA. If New Balalnce is forced to close their now operating plant because it makes no sense to operate here whereas before the removal of the tariff, they could hang on, how is that "free."

http://www.chron.com/business/articl...ce-2081136.php

I just don't buy free trade arguments. At one time I believe that free trade made our industries more competitive, but there has to be some equalizing tax so that American workers don't get the shaft.

Look, the Chinese and the Koreans and everyone else are doing it and we cling to the idea of removing the last of our tariffs as if it will somehow enhance our standard of living.

Our standard of living has dropped like a rock in the last 40 years. The only thing that keeps us in our houses and keeps us buying cars is cheap and available credit. If this wasn't available (through fed printing money whcih I'm against, btw), it would have been "game over" 15 years ago.

Nothing polemic about it. The economic principles of free trade, both domestically and internationlly, have been borne out over the millenium. The current economic environment is yet more evidence that gov't intervention in trade of any kind is destructive.

You talk about American workers getting the shaft? How about American consumers getting the shaft when they are forced to buy more expensive goods here because some business is forced to use overpriced American parts? You're only looking at one side of the argument. So as prices go up, quantity demanded goes down and now those American workers get laid off and hence shafted!

There is absolutely no better way to employ scarce resources then letting the free market price them, which reflects their value and letting consumers decide if it's worth their money. That's it, period, end of discussion. Any other form of economics will lead the economy right to where it is today: high unemployment, inflation, $15 trillion in debt, low domestic productivity.

No economy ever was, is or will be forever prosperous. There will be natural swings. That's the nature of people and markets, but any sort of gov't central planning like there is in the U.S. - and there was in the former communist states - will skew market prices and signals, cause the kind of mal-investment we have now and take years to correct. And as the gov't continues to do the same sorts of things that caused the problem in the first place, including trade restrictions, the problem will be prolonged. There are always unintended consequences to gov't regulations and taxation that cause economic problems. Then the gov't comes in and - having created the problem in the first place - implements more regulations to address the problem, which of course also has unintended consequences for which they implement more regulations. Get the picture?

This isn't opinion, it's basic economic principles and historical political facts.

One of my favorites is Obamacare. They want to mandate that insurance companies insure people with pre-existing conditions. In such a scenario, the health insurance company is no longer an insurance company but simply a financier. Insurance deals with risk and probabilities not certainty.

But if they do that then someone will not pay for health insurance until they get sick, and since the insurance company is forced to insure them even though they are already sick, then the gov't is mandating everyone buy insurance immediately.

Just one stupid-idea + unintended consequence on top of another.

And Brent is correct: the gov't is always wrong!

[Mithrandir]

I do not remember source of the quote:

The difference, for a USA buyer, between buy a ton of steel:

Case 1) from the UK @ $20/ton

and

Case 2) from the USA @ $30/ton

In the first case the USA gets the steel and the UK gets $20.

In the second case the USA gets the steel and the money.

While it may not best the best price for the consumer, for the long term it is better for the US economy.

In theory, free trade would benefit the economy (and people) as a whole. Free trade can be brutal though if people can not change jobs quickly to meet the changing needs of the economy. (ie buggy whip makers finding another job when buggy whips are no longer needed.)

Oh, please. Libertarians who love to talk about economics love to talk about supply and demand when it comes to manufactured goods never talk about it when it comes to labor. Kids and Teenagers willing to break a sweat in the 100 degree heat for a couple of bucks was not going to put professional lawn services out of business.

Over a billion of the worlds workers willing to work for 30 cents an hour will put America out of business and already is.There is also a huge difference between making minimum wage here in the US and living in China or some other country on 30-40 cents an hour. Even factoring differences in teh cost of living, they are living much, much worse.

You get rid of basic worker protections that exist here, (and that libertarian inclined people seem to dislike but also benefit from), in time, we will get closer to the average Chinese worker.

The numbers on job creation by imports are smoke and mirrors. Let's take a real world example. A country increases its imports of Hondas, Mazdas or Toyotas. U.S. sales go down (all things being equal) and yes, new dealerships open up. Sales jobs are created for Toyota dealers and lost for GM/Ford/ Chrysler dealers. The factory jobs are lost and everyone loses eventually. Sure, if a bubble is forming in the economy, there may be increases for everyone, but that usually doesn't last.... Here we are.

Loss of factories from production in the US does not benefit the average American, although it may make economic numbers look good (lower inflation, greater corporate profits, fattened 401ks (?)). Just how does saving 50 cents on a hammer or a broom create jobs?

I am sorry to personalize this with the term "libertarian" but that is the only thing that I vehemently disagree with the libertarian line. I don't think that the free trade/libertarian line takes into account an imperfect world.

The founding fathers of this once-great country did. The Constitution specifically authorized excise taxes, duties and imposts on foreign made trash. Keep it out.

[swamprat]

I do not remember source of the quote:

The difference, for a USA buyer, between buy a ton of steel:

Case 1) from the UK @ $20/ton

and

Case 2) from the USA @ $30/ton

In the first case the USA gets the steel and the UK gets $20.

In the second case the USA gets the steel and the money.

While it may not best the best price for the consumer, for the long term it is better for the US economy.

In theory, free trade would benefit the economy (and people) as a whole. Free trade can be brutal though if people can not change jobs quickly to meet the changing needs of the economy. (ie buggy whip makers finding another job when buggy whips are no longer needed.)

That's more along my line of thinking. America First!

I am tired of this country being a guinea pig for economic theories.

[dBrong]

That's more along my line of thinking. America First!

I am tired of this country being a guinea pig for economic theories.

Exploitation of labor, paying low wages, never works. Take a look what this has done in the US:

It has encouraged illegal Mexican immigration. While the wages and conditions here are be better than Mexico, the illegals live within our society. Thus us tax payers pay for thier children's schooling, emergency rooms, social services, interpreters, police, and a whole cadre of services. Not to mention they have no drivers licenses, or insurance, and may vote illegally.

The employers of adult workers, who pay low wages (Walmart, Target, etc) can indeed sell products to consumers for less. However those consumers are indirectly paying for the low priced goods - consumers (tax payers) wind up paying for medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, for those lower paid workers.

My industry - computer science - has been overrun by H1-B visa people from India, or the jobs have been exported to India. Us programmers are supposed to compete with India? A 3rd world country where people sh*t in the street? Do you really want fellow Americans to live in squallor?

Yet another negative are the 'under employed' workers. By 'throwing away' experienced, educated, intelligent people, we are destroying human assets. We have built a system of education where we pay to educated people, and then grossly underutilize them - telling them thier 'training' is now obsolete. Makes no sense.

For those who truely see nothing wrong with low wage jobs - take a look at 17th - 18th - 19th century Europe where there was a permanent underclass. We could have people wearing rags, living under bridges, dying of all sorts of nasty illnesses.

A person working for low wages contributes little, has no retirement, has no health insurance, has no life insurance - and depends upon the government to supply all of this. Us tax payers windup paying for a huge government bureaucracy to administrate these programs.

If you look at our current debt crisis much of it is due to entitlement programs that I have mentioned above.

Basically, globalization is taking the capital from a first world country, and investing it in 3rd world countries, so that the corporation can make more profits, retain the earnings, and sell the cheaper product back into the 1st world country. It's that great big sucking sound that Ross Perot spoke about.

[doncoo]

Exploitation of labor, paying low wages, never works. Take a look what this has done in the US:

It has encouraged illegal Mexican immigration. While the wages and conditions here are be better than Mexico, the illegals live within our society. Thus us tax payers pay for thier children's schooling, emergency rooms, social services, interpreters, police, and a whole cadre of services. Not to mention they have no drivers licenses, or insurance, and may vote illegally.

The employers of adult workers, who pay low wages (Walmart, Target, etc) can indeed sell products to consumers for less. However those consumers are indirectly paying for the low priced goods - consumers (tax payers) wind up paying for medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, for those lower paid workers.

My industry - computer science - has been overrun by H1-B visa people from India, or the jobs have been exported to India. Us programmers are supposed to compete with India? A 3rd world country where people sh*t in the street? Do you really want fellow Americans to live in squallor?

Yet another negative are the 'under employed' workers. By 'throwing away' experienced, educated, intelligent people, we are destroying human assets. We have built a system of education where we pay to educated people, and then grossly underutilize them - telling them thier 'training' is now obsolete. Makes no sense.

For those who truely see nothing wrong with low wage jobs - take a look at 17th - 18th - 19th century Europe where there was a permanent underclass. We could have people wearing rags, living under bridges, dying of all sorts of nasty illnesses.

A person working for low wages contributes little, has no retirement, has no health insurance, has no life insurance - and depends upon the government to supply all of this. Us tax payers windup paying for a huge government bureaucracy to administrate these programs.

If you look at our current debt crisis much of it is due to entitlement programs that I have mentioned above.

Basically, globalization is taking the capital from a first world country, and investing it in 3rd world countries, so that the corporation can make more profits, retain the earnings, and sell the cheaper product back into the 1st world country. It's that great big sucking sound that Ross Perot spoke about.

dBrong - all I can say to you is I would suggest reading some basic labor economics books and learn how wages are determined, what they represent, why a businessman would outsource and how those things actually make everyone better off.

Then I would recommend reading a public policy text or two and learn what affect gov't regulations, taxation and the federal reserve have on the economy and wages.

Then I would suggest you stop reading the mainstream media and watching 60 minutes.

Other than that your armchair analysis has far too many misconceptions, fallacies, factual inconsistencies and out right economic contradictions to even begin addressing.

Sounds like the classical "liberal" perspective based on "feelings" and what's "fair".

To be ignorant of econmics is not a crime, but to have a loud and vociferous opinion on the subject while remaining in that state of ignorance is irresponsible and just makes you look ridiculous.

[dBrong]

dBrong - all I can say to you is I would suggest reading some basic labor economics books and learn how wages are determined, what they represent, why a businessman would outsource and how those things actually make everyone better off.

Then I would recommend reading a public policy text or two and learn what affect gov't regulations, taxation and the federal reserve have on the economy and wages.

Then I would suggest you stop reading the mainstream media and watching 60 minutes.

Other than that your armchair analysis has far too many misconceptions, fallacies, factual inconsistencies and out right economic contradictions to even begin addressing.

Sounds like the classical "liberal" perspective based on "feelings" and what's "fair".

To be ignorant of econmics is not a crime, but to have a loud and vociferous opinion on the subject while remaining in that state of ignorance is irresponsible and just makes you look ridiculous.

How can one dialog with you when you don't respond to anything that's said?

To you there is no arguement - you are simply 100% correct and broadcast the same mantra - when I was a boy I walked to school 10 miles, both ways uphill, worked all day for a dollar. Please spare all of us this crap.

[doncoo]

How can one dialog with you when you don't respond to anything that's said?

To you there is no arguement - you are simply 100% correct and broadcast the same mantra - when I was a boy I walked to school 10 miles, both ways uphill, worked all day for a dollar. Please spare all of us this crap.

I don't want to engage you in a debate on economics when it is clear that you do not understand economics. Your comments sound like an episode of 20/20 or 60 minutes. Historical andecdotes, generalizations and subjective conclusions based on nothing. Please spare ME the crap.

Has nothing to do with me thinking I'm correct. Economic principles are what they are. I understand them, and you do not.

If you have the humility to accept this and educate yourself then I'd be glad to engage you again. But until then, I can't teach you basic labor economics and international trade in a forum.

This is something that is always so annoying: ignorance has never kept someone from having an opinion. Ask questions, don't spew nonsense.

I gave you a subject list. Use it. But remember: economics offers only the truth and that truth might hurt your feelings.

[dBrong]

You are a pompass ass! I won't bother to reply to your posts again.

[swamprat]

Exploitation of labor, paying low wages, never works. Take a look what this has done in the US:

It has encouraged illegal Mexican immigration. While the wages and conditions here are be better than Mexico, the illegals live within our society. Thus us tax payers pay for thier children's schooling, emergency rooms, social services, interpreters, police, and a whole cadre of services. Not to mention they have no drivers licenses, or insurance, and may vote illegally.

The employers of adult workers, who pay low wages (Walmart, Target, etc) can indeed sell products to consumers for less. However those consumers are indirectly paying for the low priced goods - consumers (tax payers) wind up paying for medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, for those lower paid workers.

My industry - computer science - has been overrun by H1-B visa people from India, or the jobs have been exported to India. Us programmers are supposed to compete with India? A 3rd world country where people sh*t in the street? Do you really want fellow Americans to live in squallor?

Yet another negative are the 'under employed' workers. By 'throwing away' experienced, educated, intelligent people, we are destroying human assets. We have built a system of education where we pay to educated people, and then grossly underutilize them - telling them thier 'training' is now obsolete. Makes no sense.

For those who truely see nothing wrong with low wage jobs - take a look at 17th - 18th - 19th century Europe where there was a permanent underclass. We could have people wearing rags, living under bridges, dying of all sorts of nasty illnesses.

A person working for low wages contributes little, has no retirement, has no health insurance, has no life insurance - and depends upon the government to supply all of this. Us tax payers windup paying for a huge government bureaucracy to administrate these programs.

If you look at our current debt crisis much of it is due to entitlement programs that I have mentioned above.

Basically, globalization is taking the capital from a first world country, and investing it in 3rd world countries, so that the corporation can make more profits, retain the earnings, and sell the cheaper product back into the 1st world country. It's that great big sucking sound that Ross Perot spoke about.

That is exactly right. Globalization is theft. It is enabled by the dropping of tariffs and the free flow of capital between companies, countries, governments, etc. It does transfer wealth from first world countries to others and leaves everyone poorer, because corporate power is globalized.

You make an interesting point about illegal immigrants. In fact, illegal immigration began during the 1960's when we set up Maquilladora plants across the US Mexican border. When the Mexican workers learned that they could earn $1.25 per hour instead of $.10 per hour, they crossed the border and worked the minimum wage jobs in the border towns. Our thanks go out to LBJ.

As an American, I want to see everyone working and meeting basic needs as defined by food, clothing, shelter (with running water) and access to a job. Removing a minimum wage and forcing us to "compete" with inhabitants of countries to whom our jobs were given away will not do that. You can't compete with slave labor.

Some of the people calling for removal of the minimum wage probably haven't had to do without. I haven't' really, and I DO NOT want to find out what that is like. It scares the hell out of me.

[BrentP]

Our standard of living has dropped like a rock in the last 40 years. The only thing that keeps us in our houses and keeps us buying cars is cheap and available credit. If this wasn't available (through fed printing money whcih I'm against, btw), it would have been "game over" 15 years ago.

It's dropped like a rock with the reduction in free trade and the government crooks consuming more and more of our wealth.

What is called free trade in the media and government is not free trade. It's managed trade. It's always been managed trade. It used to be managed more for the benefit of US workers, now it's being managed more for the benefit of others. That's how management of an economy goes. Sometimes you win in politics, sometimes you lose. American workers are losing the political battles and thus are experiencing a falling standard of living.

Me, I'd rather throw out the political aspect and battle it out in the market.

The only management of trade I would accept is the mirror principle. For instance, China has domestic content laws. Everything sold in China by a US company has to have so much domestic (made in China) content. So I wouldn't oppose a law in the USA that forced every Chinese companies' products to have the identical domestic (US) content. It would go away the moment China removed their law. I could accept that, applied in mirror like fashion explicitly towards a foreign law.

My industry - computer science - has been overrun by H1-B visa people from India, or the jobs have been exported to India. Us programmers are supposed to compete with India? A 3rd world country where people sh*t in the street? Do you really want fellow Americans to live in squallor?

My field has the same issue, H1-B visas. Well who makes that condition? The government does. The government creates the rules, the government manages the flow of people (and yes, letting illegals in is part of that), the government sets up the whole thing and we get screwed. H1-B visa holders are cheaper because the companies have a great deal of power over them through the visa rules. Same with the illegal and their illegal status. Both are tools of control that drive down wages.

If we had open borders for labor do you really think your labor competition from India would take being screwed compensation wise? They'd demand the same wages you get. But the H1-B visa system... slots are limited they have to find willing employers, etc and so forth. So if they want to be in the USA they have to play ball and accept reduced wages. But lets say enough came to flood the labor pool, thus increasing numbers and driving down price. Well less would come as the wages dropped. People just don't up and leave their homes on a whim. It has to be WORTH IT for them. Look at what americans put up with.

Let's continue with all people being free to move about as their own desires and emotions would allow. Who's going to work in the cess-pool countries and cities? They would need to increase compensation there to get people do it. The only reason this sort of exploitation works is because of the government restrictions and rules. It all falls apart when people are free.

If we switch to a free system there will be winners and losers selectively. That's the way it will go. But in the end everything will be in much greater balance and people will be better off as a whole.

That is exactly right. Globalization is theft. It is enabled by the dropping of tariffs and the free flow of capital between companies, countries, governments, etc. It does transfer wealth from first world countries to others and leaves everyone poorer, because corporate power is globalized.

It's just now the wealthy globalist elite changed the management. When the american people accepted management of trade for the benefit of the american people the wealthy elite got the power to screw over the american people by changing how it's managed. That's how they work. They sell people on a principle to get some benefit from it and then turn it around to hurt those people. That's how regulation is used. The mistake americans made was to use government power to try and counter the problems caused by government power. All it did in the end (it worked for a little while) was make the forces that controlled government even more powerful.

What I am getting at is instead of enforcing property rights wrt things like pollution, the EPA was created. An agency that now works to protect the insiders and screw the little guy. Sure the air is cleaner. For now. But we could have had cleaner air without sacrificing small businesses to the harassment of government.

[swamprat]

Brent -

It is more than government taking more of our money in taxes. The federal share of taxes is at a low since 1958. Tax rates for rich individuals are 1/2 of what they were in the 1970s. I just don't buy that income taxes are having much of an impact on employment. We have had 5 tax cuts since Reagan started cutting rates in 1981. We have also have had 5 recessions.

Your proposal for mirror principle based trade policy is a great start which I would take in a second, but how about treating American companies that ship jobs overseas equally harshly. I am not against imports. I drive a Jaguar. What I am against is that our policies let companies manufacture our basic necessities overseas when they were formerly manufactured here. It's immoral and wrong. We have NOT benefitted from this exercise. Look at the price of athletic shoes. When Nike and others started manufacturing them overseas, the prices never came down. The same applies for just about anything else on store shelves today. If there are savings, they are nominal.

The fact is that the economy was a lot healthier in the 1960s and even the 1970's when jobs were relatively plentiful.

Vis a vis the EPA and things like that, I am in complete agreement. I would gut that agency in a nanosecond.