2 Economy Questions Are Too Many for the MBA President

  • Bob Fertik's picture
    Bob Fertik
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

George Bush put on his most expensive suit (paid for by you and me) to discuss "the economy" with New York's elite, including war criminals like Henry Kissinger.

In October 2000, Bush gave away his game when he told many of the same people, "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

Bush's speech today was beyond pathetic. Hopefully Jon Stewart will capture Bush's disgusting sneers, stupid jokes, repeated references to his dominatrix mother, and straight-out pissiness.

Naturally, Bush demanded permanent tax cuts for "his base," the richest people in America. But when it came to the rest of America - the 99% of us who have to pay skyrocketing prices for health care, gasoline, and food while home equity and jobs disappear - Bush had nothing to say.

And when it came time for Q&A, two softball questions were too many for him. Answering the first question on protectionism, Bush veered off into a rant about Iraq. And when rightwinger Paul Gigot of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal asked him about rising prices, Bush ranted about trade before announcing, "I'm going to duck the rest of your question."

Whatever happened to the "MBA President"? Oh yeah, just ask his Harvard professor Yoshi Tsurumi.

Tsurumi said he remembers Bush because every teacher remembers their best and worst students, and Bush was in the latter group.

"Lazy. He didn't come to my class prepared," Tsurumi said. "He did very badly."

Tsurumi concedes that he disapproves of Bush's politics. He wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper, the Scarsdale Inquirer, that derided the president's claims to "compassionate conservatism."

"Somehow I found him totally devoid of compassion, social responsibility, and good study discipline," Tsurumi said. "What I remember most about him was all the kind of flippant statements that he made inside of classroom as well as outside."

Exactly the kinds of statements he made today.

And with that, the "MBA President" hugged his favorite war criminal and rushed out, even as the U.S. economy teeters on the verge of a Depression.

Update 1: Defending a massive bailout of Bear Stearns - which exists for the sole purpose of being smarter investors than the rest of us so they can make lots of money - Bush actually said:

"It was strong action by the Fed and they did so because some financial institutions that borrowed money to buy securities in the housing industry must now repair their balance sheets before they can make further loans."

Um George, what about our balance sheets? Cn we all hz bailout plz?

Comments

I caught a little of this at

  • JCarroll's picture
    JCarroll
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I caught a little of this at the very end and I'm sure I heard him say, "our energy policy hasn't been very smart." LOL

Democrats are hilarious

  • rixross's picture
    rixross
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I think its funny democrats try to say the rich dont bare enough of the tax burden when the top 1% pays 34% of this countries income tax, while earning 17% of the income.

Maybe the problem isn't how much the rich pay, but the simple fact that spending is spiraling out of control (which we can blame the dems and republicans for)

Libertarians are Welfare Whores.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

(So are Conservatives).

ONE EXAMPLE:

1-Wars are fought, in large part, to defend a Nation's Treasure.

2-People should pay for that defense in proportion to the treasure they need defending.

3-This requires a Proportionate Tax which Libertarians and Conservatives fight against. American Liberals however believe in paying for services rendered, and therefore support such Taxes.

This is not the place for bullshit.

It is also not the place for OPINION.

If you wish to take great care to see the forest for the trees when you argue here, I would be happy to chat without recourse to any emotional bias I have toward "love thy neighbor".

Jim

Who said I wanted to fight wars?

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Your crazy man, you keep attacking me instead of what I say. You clearly have nothing constructive to say.

No, I am countering Libertarianism, as FALSE.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

You keep presenting the argument that:

Libertarianism is true because Communism is false.

Yes, Communism is both false and wrong.

Wait its not a place for opinion??

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Actually its a forum, I'm pretty sure it is a place for opinion.

And, I'm pretty sure EVERYTHING you have been saying is opinion.

You've misunderstood.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Let me be clear:

When we are dealing with the RELATIONSHIP between entities we are in a realm which may be either true or false.

My or your "opinion" about this does not nullify the above. I place these discussions in the category of NON OPINION. In other words, there is hope of reaching consensus about a truth.

An example of an opinion, where there is never any hope of reaching consensus would be the following:

-I saw pictures of mutilated kids in Iraq and it made me sad.

-Other folks on the net just made fun of it.

Mind you, we are not talking about folks who also thought it was sad but thought on balance it was the best thing. These were fellow Americans who are fundamentally different than I and I show respect by NOT bothering to try to change them.

Ok?

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

So give me an example of a relationship between entities that you were talking about.

The "we" and the we.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Here you and I could disagree about whether we should give a rats ass about the homeless.

We could disagree or not about a host of issues, but...

...when you write a well posed sentence we have something we can work through. Sure we are human and may get hung up somewhere inappropriately, but there is hope for consensus.

In this case I began by asking you yourself to do a thought experiment about whether a guy who buys Chinese Wrenches for cheap at Kmart COULD be worse off via trade with China.

I think you could find examples which would say YES. You would then add a BUT. We could then discuss the BUT what is the impact on AVERAGE. Etc.

---------------

Another example was with respect to Wealth and Taxes. Here I am broadening the discussion past the emotional Right/Left idea "it's mine/be good to your neighbor" to an analysis of what is yours, what are you paying for, etc.

Of course, at some point we work down to numbers:

-To find the point where services ARE paid for.

-Where estimations ARE worked out for when one goes too far with Anti Monopoly Laws, the Progressive Income Tax, Time Limited Patent Laws, etc.

At this point we have created a new conversation in America. One that proceeds from first principles, and recognizes when further discussion should be avoided (time is precious and I know I'm not going to convince someone that torn up kids is sad if pictures do not).

Anyway, I have to get offline now. Please understand that I have been carrying this ball for a couple of years now against rabid Right Wingers, Nazis, etc. It is difficult to penetrate business as usual and I'm sure I do it imperfectly.

Jim

All I'm asking

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

You keep saying I take from the winners and give to the losers but how? You have not elaborated

See other comment just posted but...

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

...in short:

=Anti Monopoly Laws
=Time Limited Patent Laws
=etc.

Gotta run,

Jim

What I said was this

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

"I think its funny democrats try to say the rich dont bare enough of the tax burden when the top 1% pays 34% of this countries income tax, while earning 17% of the income.

Maybe the problem isn't how much the rich pay, but the simple fact that spending is spiraling out of control (which we can blame the dems and republicans for)"

And I have yet to hear you say anything in reply to that except bring up so long rant about libertianism (which I never even brought up). Just explain to me how that statement is wrong. And you cant because its FACT.

I've explained this MANY times now.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

YOU RIXROSS TAKE CASH FROM WINNERS AND GIVE IT TO LOSERS IN MASSIVE QUANTITIES.

You do this regardless if you've given it thought before or not.

I am trying to HELP you understand why what you already do is neither immoral, harmful to the economy, or communistic.

I am happy to have you point out where I error but you must actually begin to accept what you already do.

In short:

-They are paying for services rendered (military, etc.) Do you really now want me to work through the numbers? I am laying out quite a bit for you and you seem to be only angry at me for doing so.

-It only harms the economy IF you cut into incomes so far that folks are dissuaded from the labors they are presently engaged in. Since we are seeing the lowest percentage of National Income going to wages since the Depression, I am proposing that there is room to cut income at the top WITHOUT it affecting those folks desire to continue in their labors. I say this because those same folks (and their predecessors) labored at those same jobs for far less before. I would add, that an Economic Boom awaits when you return capital to hungry entrepreneurs, pre soldiers, proto scientists, etc.

Like I said

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

How do I take from the winners and give to the losers?

rixross1

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Maybe I missed where you asked "how do I take from the winners and give to the losers?". Even if I did, I've spent a great deal of time answering this directly.

I'll try again:

A group of people work their entire lives to capture a market.

They are rising to the heavens and you stop them from racking in the cash via Anti Monopoly Laws. Instead ensuring that cash goes to others.

etc.

-I even give the reasons why this CAN be (but is not necessarily) both moral, ethical, and pro growth.

Jim

Anti Monopoly Laws

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

You mean Anti-Trust Legislation? Libertians are completely against such legislation.

Nope.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

As I stated above, you live within its warm womb.

Unless you are ready to accept true Monopoly including over technology and give some serious introspection to whether you would support idealism over abject poverty for yourself.

Note that the loophole of "but it would not lead to that it will lead to a wondrous economy" is not available to you.

There are always two lines of argument about these issues. One is about efficiency, which I am not arguing about here.

The other is about ethics, and in particular the brashness of Libertarianism. For that to be valid, it would have to come EVEN if the assumptions you make led to horrors for you and yours. I can't answer that of course. You need to do that introspection yourself. If the brashness comes simply from a belief that your assumptions always lead to swell times, then there is nothing holier than thou in them and that should be reflected in how you address the guy who DOES in fact exist. Who did lose his job.

What about the ethics that

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

What about the ethics that you are proposing? That nobody truly owns the wealth that they work hard for- and that they must be forced to give to a government. There are such things as private charities- and people would be able to give even mroe of their wealth to such things if they were able to keep more of it- and weren't robbed by the government. You can't tell me that we are paying for "services rendered"- when we had no option in wanting to take the service or not. Why aren't I allowed to opt-out of social security if I feel I don't need it? Our military is out occupying nations overseas- this is not national defense and not what I want their services for.

You argue with the idea that if people were to be free they would only self-cannibalize themselves and lead to abject poverty.

That is not my argument.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

On War:

Join the friggen club ;) BUT in the entire History of this vast complex civilization/Nation there have been times when defense was needed. Most notably, against the Nazis. We are tied to defense NOW because we are tied to valid defense at SOME point. Allowing opting out on a case by case bases amongst civilians, works as well as allowing opting out amongst our Military. Allowing folks to pick and choose what orders to follow.
--------------------------

On Social Security:

This is Insurance. It allows folks to live with risk, yet find the solace needed to continue at raising kids for our Defense, doing Science, etc.

You are a part of that group, part of that shared risk. If there is no need of a Nation. No need for Defense. No need for the "group". No need for consensus, then yes, it would be more than reasonable for you to opt out.

And as an Anarchist it would be self consistent (though I've never actually met one of them walking the walk).
--------------------------

Finally:

Once again, I am arguing what I am arguing because of what I am arguing against here. If I was arguing against a Communist or a Socialist who wished to cut the Mobs throat by cutting the Monarchs throat then I would be pointing out the strength of Market forces.

And of course you own what you earn after paying for sevices rendered.

What you don't seem to

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

What you don't seem to realize is that it is not possible for people to capture a market in an un-ethical way unless through government intervention. The Anti-trust laws of today do nothing except HARM consumer interests. Look at the anti-trust case against microsoft brought by netscape(note that nearly all anti-trust legistlation is brought by competitors who are doing worse). Microsoft offered internet explorer for FREE- and netscape complained that this gave them an unfair advantage. Were consumers harmed by microsoft? Infact- as we see with Mozilla Firefox's success- Netscape's problem was not that internet explorer was free- but rather that their product was INFERIOR. Also- everyone was free to purchase and install netscape products- but the majority chose not to.

Nope.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Microsoft sucks.

They would be far more productive if they were hungry again.

Innovation comes from a few brilliant souls and is carried by a mass of humanity.

Those whose skill set best uses people as tools easily gather cash unto themselves and thereby withdraw it from those who innovate.

But let's agree that there are always two issues here:

1) Ethics.
2) Efficiency.

To simplify here I am speaking of number 2.

What you are selling is businessman speak.

They are NOT very important players but have made themselves to be. Money Clumps via innovation, sweat, AND the inertia of Wealth.

That last point is what separates a brash Libertarian view from a Scientific view of the matter.

Further, those with skills across a broad range of disciplines get to see who is actually doing the innovation and labor. American in general are sick of the hero worship going toward that just one skill set you allude to.

Is it just me

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

or does nothing you say really make sense? You type whole paragraphs but your not saying anything. Money clumps? How?

Businessmen speak? Ok how is it wrong?

And the people they use as tools? Well since slavery is illegal, people have to VOLUNTARILY agree to work for a certain wage. Would you rather these people be unemployeed?

Yes it is you.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

So money does not clump?

Having money makes it easy to make more money WITHOUT the need for the kind of innovation or labor required when starting with less money....ON AVERAGE.

So savings of wealth can

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

So savings of wealth can lead to new avenues to create more wealth. Is there something wrong with this? If it was continuously difficult to accumlate wealth- everyone would be poor.

I think you don't want me to be a communist....

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

...AND you like the truth to be simple. It may be complex.

That is all I am saying but it is critical as you can see the fervor against it here.

I did not say that when I build one Lathe and use it to build another Lathe and use that to build another, and then ask some folks if they want to man those lathes to make some widgets to sell, that it is a bad thing.

I said that:

Wealth makes it easier to get more Wealth WITHOUT the same labor and innovation that is needed at the start. ON AVERAGE.

I am saying that the truth is complex.

I am saying that if you lean Libertarian then you have an even TOUGHER time because we must guard against Communism, advance the Free Market, WHILE conceding to complex truths.

This fracturing of souls into parties should not be over areas where we can reach consensus.

Jim

P.S. I have to take off, so have a good one and know that we probably agree on quite a bit.

Well my question is- why is

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Well my question is- why is it a problem for wealth to make it easier to gain more wealth without the same labor and innovation that is needed to start? This is a large incentive for people to work hard to gain some wealth and save since they know it will be easier in the long-run. I don't see how this is a negative.

It is a negative...

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

... because we end up with a far shittier economy that we would with upstarts who DO innovate and do so powerfully.

But minimally it should at least be understood that getting a bit of money is an accomplishment while getting lots more MAY not be. That is a truth and should be appreciated.

Yes microsoft hasn't been

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Yes microsoft hasn't been keeping up now- that's why companies like Google and Apple have been taking up their market share through INNOVATION.

You seem to be on some notion that you can only gain cash if you use others as tools? Not at all- wealth is created through trade and cooperation. No one is forced to purchase a new product on the market- they decide to do that on their own.

I don't see how any of your viewpoints are scientific- and not just your own personal viewpoints on how things work. We can have a real discussion if you slowdown the number of assumptions you make every sentence.

Sigh...

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

We agree on conversation at least ;)

Using others as tools is not wrong. It can however lead to laziness.

A business starts when someone conceives a way to make a profit IF they can convince others to work for a low enough wage. Again, that is not wrong.

It is also however, not a skill set to be placed on a pedestal, and for two reasons: Other skill sets are interesting, and it can lead to laziness at the top and the withdraw of capital from those who would innovate and labor more tirelessly if they gleaned more for their labor.

I think the miss-communication here is with your assumption that the Market works to create the "best" economy. Notwithstanding the debate we would have as to the definition of "best" and for whom, there is another point.

I am NOT saying here that I am proving that the majority can impose their will via the voting booth to improve the Economy just as those who have money today can impose their will via their ability to outlast labor in disputes.

What I am saying, is that we can follow the thread of where a Free-For-All Market does NOT do best for the Economy.

That complexity places the Democratic Party on self consistent footings and more.

It also requires the replacement of blanket Libertarianism with something more sophisticated.

Jim

If you do not keep innovating

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

You will lose your market share. That happens all the time, which is why companies constantly fail. They make money one year, then other companies improve upon their processes and beat them in the free market. The people who truly make money are those who constantly innovate and bring value to the consumer.

Again...false.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

This is the reality:

Companies HOLD market share for large stretches of time off of the inertia of past accomplishments.

---The vast majority of Americans know this and rectify it by regulating dead wood companies via the voting booth

BECAUSE

---There is no time to micro manage them via your free-for-all-market concept while that same majority is engaged in raising kids for our Nation's defense, creating the Science needed for our Nation's advancement, etc.

You continue to make gross arguments that are a given. Great if we are trying to convince a Communist, but otherwise, simply gross.

Well if we look at results-

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Well if we look at results- countries associated with more economic freedom nearly always have more economic growth. China is a big example because after its socialistic failures- it began to become more free-market- and hence the living standards of all chinese increased. But for some reason- there are people that wish to put China's success on exactly what held them back- socialism.

The reasoning for the free-market is based on studies and results that show that more government intervention and the restriction of freedom has a negative effect on growth and the wealth of all people. It is this intervention that puts more money into the hands of the few- more freedom in the markets is the only way this DOESN'T happen- not the other way around.

You are arguing about gross matters.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I am not.

I'm off.

Jim

You seem to be arguing the

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

You seem to be arguing the point that- "Don't say the free-market is the solution- the world is more complicated than that". But pure results are what they are- and freedom has always led to more prosperity. Denying this just so you don't feel like you are "too extreme' in a certain belief doesn't seem like a benefit to anyone.

You are entertaining zero details.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

You simply BELIEVE that:

There IS a force in the Universe which REQUIRES competitive action to lead to greater prosperity than cooperative action at ALL times.

That is a whopper. It remains part of the dead faith of Libertarianism.

Now if you are claiming a pragmatic truth.

Or some weighted average truth.

Well, then we have a sophisticated debate on our hands and THAT is a good thing.

-------------

On the point of freedom, well that slices both ways, and folks are free to regulate.

But what of the ethics?

Well I have already introduced just how tied at the hip we are due to our need for defense. Which by the way also defines (in part) why there is an "us" and a "them" with respect to trade. Our Nation is living and thriving amongst a host of culturally implicit and legally explicit contracts.

Requiring, a priori, that the majority accept the minorities decision to get near slaves to do the labor under the guise of "Liberty" is just too much. There are just too many ties for that word to be accurate. But YES, if you are willing to cut ALL those ties and then propose your version of "free trade" then you are being self consistent. And that too is a good thing.

BINGO

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

you got it

The Libertarian said...

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

...something to the effect of:

NO, I CAN'T THINK OF ONE INSTANCE WHERE A GUY BUYING CHEAP WRENCHES FROM CHINA WOULD BE WORSE OFF BECAUSE OF TRADE WITH CHINA.

But I can't find the post so I'll respond here.

I'm shocked you gave this so little thought. Then again your religion of Libertarianism (and any political label can become a religion) perhaps forces you to immediately reject any thinking through.

I'll answer as a lowly DEMOCRAT:

WHEN THAT MAN NO LONGER HAS A DECENT JOB BECAUSE OF TRAD WITH CHINA

And once again, yes I'm open to then moving the discussion along to what happens on AVERAGE and whether then trade is good or bad by one measure or another.

Jim

lol

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

obviously there a few special interests can be hurt in the short-term by free trade, but the country as a whole benefits. The man that lost his job in the wrench manfacturing industry can get another job. Then when he the wrenches he buys are cheaper, he has more money left over and is effectively richer.

I am sure you will counter by saying that it is hard for some people to find another job. But by that argument you would be saying that we should never eliminate jobs in any sector, regardless of how inefficent they have become. Imagine if we never shifted our economy from being almost strictly farm based to industrial based? There is no way we could be enjoying the incredible standard of living we now have. Remember that this country used be made up of mostly farmers, now only 3% of our country produces enough to feed all of us.

Surely it was economically painful for some of these farmers in the short run, but they found other jobs and are now better off for it.

Nice that Libertarians laugh...

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

...at other people's pain.

But again, what is far more frightening is that you miss a VERY easy question continually, and then assume you have not missed the ones that will follow.

Please your kill me...

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

..with suspense.

Trade is always good because

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Trade is always good because it improves the lives of both people. That man is better off buying the cheap wrench from china- because it forces the American companies that do competition to innovate to provide a more affordable wrench- or be punished in the marketplace.

If you want to restrict trade- what you do is increase the prices for everyone- and make everyone worse off. The reason jobs go overseas is because it is much easier to start a business overseas- and also much less regulation. We also have one of the highest corporate tax rates there is- the only ones higher include countries like the republic of congo, vietnam, Chad, Suriname, Pakistan and other countries that are doing pretty poorly.

Federal reserve actions and this country's policies are the reasons that there are rarely anymore american products left to buy.

First off...

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

...I am not arguing for or against trade with China.

I am arguing against blanket statements (without sufficient thought).

In this case TRADE IS GOOD FOR ALL.

---------

As to your second point, do you know how to even change a tire?

I ask because I hear all these Libertarians Philosophers speaking about shit they don't know a damned thing about.

IF china is willing to work for one penny per year to create ALL our products THEN those with the most wealth right now WIN. There is little left for the rest of us to do.

Too extreme? Of course. But in the extreme there IS damage. Now crank that pay rate up until their is mutual benefit. This means there exists the possibility for DEBATE regardless of a dogmatic religious Libertarian principle being cited like FREE TRADE GOOD FOR ALL ALWAYS.

To your question- yes I know

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

To your question- yes I know how to change a tire- but I don't see how that's relevant to my point of American companies being forced to try to offer the consumer a more affordable product.

Well for some reason you seem to have the idea that in free-trade all wages go down. But that would be false. In a free-market there is no way that everyone in China will be willing to work for one penny a year since there are competing businesses that need more employees and will offer more desirable wages than the company that is offering 1 penny a year. The free-market is dynamic and can't be argued against in a model like yours that assumes something like "If china is willing to work for one penny per year"- because stagnant wages do not happen in free-trade.

FREE-TRADE is good for all- however MANAGED TRADE-which is what happens today with alot of so called "free-trade agreements"(no free-trade agreement needs 10,000+ pages of rules and regulations)- is good for the few. I think you are mis-directing what you have a problem with.

Exactly

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

There are a million reasons to love free trade, and no legitimate reasons not to.

Free trade benefits the consumer, which we all are, and only hurts the people that cannot provide value to the consumer.

Am I right to say that your

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Am I right to say that your argument is essentially that we should not be extreme to any area but always find a middleground? If that's what it is- then I'd have to disagree with you.

There are things in where there should be no middleground- there is no middle ground between choosing to murder, rape, or rob someone- and not doing so. The same applies with liberty- which is what free-trade truly is. The freedom for people to buy and exchange products and services that they want.

No I am not saying that.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

We should work to find the truth and be tolerant to each other in areas which are essentially irrational.

Look at the previous poster. He forgets about the guy who lost his job and moves immediately to Well yeah but FREE TRADE GOOD FOR ALL ALWAYS.

Why not a pause?

Why not entertain the possibility that one has missed "that" so perhaps I've missed something else?

Again, in these discussion we are always speaking of two things:

1) ethics (in your language, Liberty)
2) efficiency (what helps the economy and how does one define "help")

I would like to avoid going back and forth between them because it blurs the issue. We agree we must answer BOTH 1 and 2 but hopefully we can agree we can ease communication by arguing on one at a time.

In this case I am mostly pursuing 2.

----

As to my pissy tire changing crack. It has a purpose. It is wonderfully helpful to live amongst folks with varied skill sets. It is just as helpful to have such skill sets. When I eyeball specific people I see where the innovation and labor is being performed and it is generally (but not always) NOT amongst the employer crowd. Further, the markets response to this has a particularly L----o-----n----g decay time to rectify.

If I was an all powerful being I could rectify it faster. (Maxwell's demon exists for Economic systems). Can the equivalent be true? Incorporation is not the only form of unionizing. Can folks, via the voting booth, do better?

Clearly they can and you must agree if you admit that "god" can do it. I mean, even by luck they can every once in a while IF a "god" as described above can.

Hence my admonition against Brash Libertarianism. As a leaning of course. As a truth within a domain of applicabiliity, of course.

Jim

I dont forget about the guy

  • rixross1's picture
    rixross1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I do not forget about the man that loses his job, I realize that times can be tough for some people when their job gets outsourced. The point is that for our economy to advance, ineffecient uses of resources must be reallocated where they are more effecient. If China produces cheaper wrenches than we need to have our workers making something else.

Does it suck for that worker? Yes. But after his temporary distress he will be better off, as will the rest of the country.

Why would you take away our citizens liberty to purchase goods where they choose? Why must they buy America products of poorer quality and higher price (not that it is always like that of course, but surely it is in certain cases)?

Because they are tied to us...

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

...at the hip over matters of defense.

Both with respect to the need for our kid's lives and for our brains -which they can not match- in areas such as Atomic Weaponry, etc.

I did not mean to imply that you were being heartless. I meant to imply that Simple Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Conservatism has not been thought through of late.

E.G. If you are going to say TRADE IS GOOD FOR ALL then when the exceptions are pointed out you need to pause.

Further, I really think you are arguing in generalities. About what might be true.

I'll repeat, as it was not countered by a simple "well that can't happen":

If an outside group (i.e not tied at the hip via defense) is willing to work for a penny a year then trade with them MAY be bad.

And yes, now raise that number to a point where it becomes a grey area and then to a point where we all agree it is mutually beneficial to both sides. However there is debate here and not dogma about FREE TRADE IS ALWAYS GOOD. I've shown where it is bad.

In addition, what of examples in micro economics? We could go through millions of examples where such alliances are bad for one person or another, or bad in some weighted average sense.

Of course he has to forget

  • Theguy's picture
    Theguy
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Of course he has to forget about the guy who lost his job- this theoretical man chose to work at a company that was providing inferior product and was thus put out of business and led to him losing his job. Should we be forced to buy the expensive product and lower our living standards so that the man keeps his job? Egalitarianism like that leads to everyone being poor. But at the same time that doesn't mean we have to crucify him- anyone can still choose to help him through charity or finding him another job. No government intervention is needed to do that.'

But as to your second point...what is it that you choose to rectify exactly? You will have to be more clear because I don't think I understand what you are having a problem with. Someone who has varied skillsets isn't denounced in the market- but rewarded with either various job opportunities- or the ability to start his own business with the skills he has. Incorporation by the way- is a state-sanctioned action and hence not a free-market entity. Special tax breaks and other perks granted by the state are not free-market.

You missed my point.

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I already PRE GRANTED that one could ignore the exceptions for a proposed gain on AVERAGE. I was arguing for a pause when one missed the caveats to a blanket statement like: FREE TRADE IS GOOD.

No you are incorrect about skillsets. Because of the religiosity surrounding certain skillsets others suffer and thereby the economy.

For example, it is trivial to gain an MBA. So too to gain wealth. Not so, producing General Relativity, Battle in Combat, etc.

How is this not just opinion? Well to be sure it is some opinion but not all:

-Folks who could demand more for their labors do NOT because of passion or family.

-This then is extra-market.

-Extra-market forces are all that are left to rectify it. It can be rectified for ethical or efficiency reasons. I'll only address the later. Capital returned to these folks can free them to innovate and/or be more productive EVEN though they themselves do not actively attempt this within the market. I've seen this across the board, from medical researchers, scientists, engineers, families raising sharp (even brilliant) kids, etc.

I'm now dead meat so feel free to feast on me ;)

Gottaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa go.

Jim