Ronald Reagan

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What do you know about the American working class? Tell me how they have benefitted. Enlighten me.

Look at per capita incomes... look at the computer age. Working in factories is a much more efficient job now. Productivity of the American worker is the highest in the world, and THAT rather than wages determines where jobs are located.

You are spewing old rhetoric that died out with Perot, and thankfully so.

What I don't understand is, given the American worker's high productivity, wouldn't we have the comparative advantage over other countries in industry over the long run? Once infrastructure is set up, wouldn't our efficient practices produce better products?

[Caligastia]

I have to say thumbs down to Ronnie...

[Imran Siddiqui]

*Points out to Immy that Ronnie was one of the biggest protectionists in recent history.*

That is easy to say compared to Clinton and the present. But compared to the 70s (Nixon, Ford, Carter), Ronny was a virtual Adam Smith.

I'm more in favor of Capitalism in the form somewhat like the "Asian Tigers", omething like patriotic Capitalism. Promote competition within the nation. I'm not just talking about steel, I'm talking about textiles and other industries as well. I don't believe in a service based economy.

Then you don't believe in economic growth and progress. The final stage of economic progress is a predominatly service based economy. Industrial based economies are industrializing countries... like the US before WW2.

Yes, promote competition inside the state, but for true capitalism, trade is the engine of growth, and domestic trade isn't enough. There is a reason no one votes for Pat Buchanan.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What I don't understand is, given the American worker's high productivity, wouldn't we have the comparative advantage over other countries in industry over the long run? Once infrastructure is set up, wouldn't our efficient practices produce better products?

Productivity isn't same for every industry across the board! And some industries, like steel, the productivity of the worker might not be that important with increased mechanization (which would have led to a loss of jobs for all those steel workers in the US eventually anyway). And protectionist tariffs dissaude improving technology. Look at Detroit in the late 70s and early 80s. Tariffs prevented the car makers from improving efficiency, and quickly Japanese cars took over because of their more efficient techniques, which led to more productivity.

Industry isn't one block, different states are better or worse in different industries, and more or less productive in some industries. Every country has their own comparative advantage in some industry.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Then you don't believe in economic growth and progress. The final stage of economic progress is a predominatly service based economy.

I don't think that that will hold true. Its just a thoery right now, and I believe that it will be proven wrong. I think that a country without basic industry takes away its foundations. In a time of crises, that country is at the mercy of others. I aslos think that industrialized countries can retain their industry. There will always be a demand for steel and textiles. Why couldn't we make them here? Why do we have to become 'post industrial'. If third world countries had to comply to the same standards of American industry, American industry would have the comparative advantage.

There is a reason no one votes for Pat Buchanan.

The reason for this is that in the American system, there is no incentive to vote for the third part unless it has an overwhelming amout of support. (Republican in 1860) If we had a European type system, I bet that Buchanan would get far more votes, probably like Le Pen in France.

[Mr. President]

Anyone that chummy with Jerry Falwell and the like can't be good for America.

[nationalist]

[SIZE=1]
Industry isn't one block, different states are better or worse in different industries, and more or less productive in some industries. Every country has their own comparative advantage in some industry.

The basis of my argument centers around the fact thatmost of our products come from third world companies whose advantage comes from exploitation. I think that this is wrong for many reasons. Why wouldn't the U.S. have an advantage in textiles over ,say Nicauragua, if we played by the same rules? We have better technology and more efficient practices.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think that that will hold true. Its just a thoery right now, and I believe that it will be proven wrong. I think that a country without basic industry takes away its foundations. In a time of crises, that country is at the mercy of others. I aslos think that industrialized countries can retain their industry. There will always be a demand for steel and textiles. Why couldn't we make them here? Why do we have to become 'post industrial'. If third world countries had to comply to the same standards of American industry, American industry would have the comparative advantage.

Yes, just like evolution is a theory

There has been no capitalist state on earth that has deviated from that path.

Every country has been at the mercy of others in its past. No nation has all they need to be self-sufficient. Trade is required for worldwide prosperity and growth.

Why should we make steel and textiles here when other states can make more of it and cheaper. The consumer would pay higher prices because of less output and worse quality because we feel we have to produce everything.

And no... if 3rd world nations had to comply to American standards, there would STILL be industries where they have comparative advantage. There would be certain industries where they could create better than us.

Remember, after WW2, Korea was a '3rd world country' and they seemed to develop a very quick comparative advantage in technology.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The basis of my argument centers around the fact thatmost of our products come from third world companies whose advantage comes from exploitation.

Europeans could say the same things about American industry. After all, we 'exploit' our workers more than they do across the pond.

[nationalist]

There has been no capitalist state on earth that has deviated from that path.

How many advanced industrialized countries have their been before the present day? This is a theory, and I for one am not convinced that a service economy is stable enough to last.

Why should we make steel and textiles here when other states can make more of it and cheaper. The consumer would pay higher prices because of less output and worse quality because we feel we have to produce everything.

Why would American products necessarily have to be of lower quality or more expensive? How much more expensive would Nikes be if they were made in the U.S.?

And no... if 3rd world nations had to comply to American standards, there would STILL be industries where they have comparative advantage. There would be certain industries where they could create better than us.

If that would be the case, then we should trade for that product. However, I don't think that their advantage would be as great on a level playing field as it would be in current situations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How many advanced industrialized countries have their been before the present day? This is a theory, and I for one am not convinced that a service economy is stable enough to last.

Wonderful, have you advanced your theory with Nobel Prize winning economists?

Why would American products necessarily have to be of lower quality or more expensive? How much more expensive would Nikes be if they were made in the U.S.?

If Nikes were made in the US... a $100 shoe would be easily $300, I'm convinced... or to keep the same price, much lower quality.

If that would be the case, then we should trade for that product. However, I don't think that their advantage would be as great on a level playing field as it would be in current situations.

There has never been a level playing field and there never will be until there is a one world government. We have less pro-labor and environment legislation that the Europeans. Our taxes are much less. So are we stealing jobs from Europe, and think it should stop?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Wonderful, have you advanced your theory with Nobel Prize winning economists?

LOL. I know that my theories wouldn't fly with Nobel Prize winning economists. I'm just observing and making predictions. I get some advice from my roomate who has a degree in International Trade theory, but thats all. Maybe he should be typing these replies.

If Nikes were made in the US... a $100 shoe would be easily $300, I'm convinced... or to keep the same price, much lower quality.

I think that they could be the same quality for the same price. Compare how much it costs to make the shoe with how much the shoe sells for. Nike would make less of a profit. Even if they raised prices of their shoes, the average wage would raise from the higher quality jobs, making them more affordable. Introduce price ceilings to prevent Nike from raising shoe prices higher than the average rise in wages. Higher relative wages would allow for more sales. Nike would still profit.

We have less pro-labor and environment legislation that the Europeans. Our taxes are much less. So are we stealing jobs from Europe, and think it should stop?

Do their labor laws apply to the guest workers?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that they could be the same quality for the same price.

They'd disagree.

Even if they raised prices of their shoes, the average wage would raise from the higher quality jobs, making them more affordable.

The wage would only rise for the workers of Nike, not the economy as a whole. Perhaps there could be some spillover (through more purchases), but not that much.

Introduce price ceilings to prevent Nike from raising shoe prices higher than the average rise in wages.

And you are for capitalism

Nike would still profit.

They'd profit more having their jobs in other countries and sending it over... The goals of capitalism is to make more profit.

Do their labor laws apply to the guest workers?

Guest workers to where?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They'd disagree.

I know they would. Admitting otherwise would jeopordize products.

The wage would only rise for the workers of Nike, not the economy as a whole. Perhaps there could be some spillover (through more purchases), but not that much.

I'm not talking about just Nike in a vaccuum, but say the textile industry as a whole. Large group of people with higher wages. Prices would rise, but so would wages. Make sure that prices don't rise more quickly than wages

you are for capitalism

Yes, but I'm for the working class and the country first. I believe in competition, but I also believe that a company should consider (or in reality forced to consider) more than just profit.

They'd profit more having their jobs in other countries and sending it over... The goals of capitalism is to make more profit.

I know that Nike would benefit more from having oversea production, but would the country as a whole? I don't think so. Ths is where our fundamental difference over the importance of certain aspects of capitalism comes into play.

guest workers to where?

The Turkish guest workers that they have come into their countries to work for lower wages and benefits. For example, German standards apply to German citizens, but do they apply for Turks who are Turkish citizens but work in Germany?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not talking about just Nike in a vaccuum, but say the textile industry as a whole. Large group of people with higher wages. Prices would rise, but so would wages. Make sure that prices don't rise more quickly than wages

How do you force them to stay?

And it would have the effect of keeping the poor nations poor. Sweatshops, for all their ills, help countries grow economically.

I know that Nike would benefit more from having oversea production, but would the country as a whole? I don't think so. Ths is where our fundamental difference over the importance of certain aspects of capitalism comes into play.

Nike isn't beholden to one country. And yes Americans (consumers) would benefit from other countries growing economically.

The Turkish guest workers that they have come into their countries to work for lower wages and benefits. For example, German standards apply to German citizens, but do they apply for Turks who are Turkish citizens but work in Germany?

Yes, I believe they do.