When the Dollar Bill Comes Due

[Kidlicious]

LoA,

It's not a contradiction if it's not in the same context.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

It's not a contradiction if it's not in the same context.

?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


?

First of all you asked me a loaded question - "Why am I against comsumers?" And I'm not universally for or against trade management, or as you call it "protectionism."

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ok. let me lay it out.

You can be FOR domestic producers, FOR domestic workers, and FOR protectionism.

You can be FOR the consumer.

Do you see how the consumer and the domestic workers are on opposite sides of the coin?

So when you say that higher imports hurt the consumer, I agree. BUt you are disagreeing with yourself, because you said earlier in the thread about protectionism that you were FOR tariffs, which hurt the consumer also. So which one is it. Are you FOR the consumer, or FOR the domestic worker. its one or the other.

then you say that Unions are against imports because it erodes their negociating power at the table. And I tell the unions that more imports means that their real wages go up. Just like you, the unions want it both ways, and you cant get it both ways. because higher union wages leads to higher prices, which erodes real wages; a vicious cycle.

and btw, any 'trade management' (is that the newest euphemism? what happened to 'fair trade.' that **** made me laugh) will do the things I described. Either you help the consumer or you help the domestic worker. YOU CANNOT DO BOTH.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
ok. let me lay it out.

You can be FOR domestic producers, FOR domestic workers, and FOR protectionism.

You can be FOR the consumer.

Do you see how the consumer and the domestic workers are on opposite sides of the coin?

So when you say that higher imports hurt the consumer, I agree. BUt you are disagreeing with yourself, because you said earlier in the thread about protectionism that you were FOR tariffs, which hurt the consumer also. So which one is it. Are you FOR the consumer, or FOR the domestic worker. its one or the other.

then you say that Unions are against imports because it erodes their negociating power at the table. And I tell the unions that more imports means that their real wages go up. Just like you, the unions want it both ways, and you cant get it both ways. because higher union wages leads to higher prices, which erodes real wages; a vicious cycle.

and btw, any 'trade management' (is that the newest euphemism? what happened to 'fair trade.' that **** made me laugh) will do the things I described. Either you help the consumer or you help the domestic worker. YOU CANNOT DO BOTH.

Why are the consumer and domestic worker different entities?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Why are the consumer and domestic worker different entities?

because the number of jobs that are being outsourced and creating structural unemployment, as a ratio to the job market as a whole, is incredibly small.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Do you see how the consumer and the domestic workers are on opposite sides of the coin?

No they aren't.

So when you say that higher imports hurt the consumer, I agree. BUt you are disagreeing with yourself, because you said earlier in the thread about protectionism that you were FOR tariffs, which hurt the consumer also. So which one is it. Are you FOR the consumer, or FOR the domestic worker. its one or the other.

Higher import prices can both hurt and help the consumer because the consumer is a worker. The question is, what is the net effect.

then you say that Unions are against imports because it erodes their negociating power at the table. And I tell the unions that more imports means that their real wages go up. Just like you, the unions want it both ways, and you cant get it both ways. because higher union wages leads to higher prices, which erodes real wages; a vicious cycle.

I disagree that their real wages go up. That certainly has not happened. For example, it's tough to get a manufacturing job that pays more than the same job did 30 years ago.

and btw, any 'trade management' (is that the newest euphemism? what happened to 'fair trade.' that **** made me laugh) will do the things I described. Either you help the consumer or you help the domestic worker. YOU CANNOT DO BOTH.

Nonsense.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No they aren't.

sorry bro, in that case i cant help you. youre on your own.

Higher import prices can both hurt and help the consumer because the consumer is a worker. The question is, what is the net effect.

positive, in both the short and the long run. as i said earlier, the number of jobs threatended as a ratio to the job market is very small, therefore there are net gains for the consumer.

I disagree that their real wages go up. That certainly has not happened. For example, it's tough to get a manufacturing job that pays more than the same job did 30 years ago.

again, you are only looking at one side of the coin. Real wages is equal to W/P, where W is wages, and P are prices. real wages go up if W increases or if P decreases. you dont need a job that pays more to have higher real wages, just have more imports and lower prices.

and yes you are right, many manufacturing jobs are experiencing lower real wages, because all the factories are closing. but in an economy, there are winners and losers, and in an open market, there are more winners then losers. people in the services sector gain, and since that makes up over 2/3rd of our population, its easy to see why real wages go up as imports increase.

and again, you can either have HIGHER wages for the manufacturing workers, and to dothat you need to keep out imports, and screw the other 66% of the workforce. its one or the other, the consumer or the worker.

[Kidlicious]

You're my hard luck case LoA. I shall not give up. But for now it's time for lunch.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

You're my hard luck case LoA. I shall not give up. But for now it's time for lunch.

aight, later. enjoy that juciy sandwhich, provided to you by the free market and the invisible hand

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


aight, later. enjoy that juciy sandwhich, provided to you by the free market and the invisible hand

Reminds of a Simpson's episode when Bart was saying grace and he said, "Dear God, We bought all of this ourselves so thanks for nothing."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
but in an economy, there are winners and losers, and in an open market, there are more winners then losers. people in the services sector gain, and since that makes up over 2/3rd of our population, its easy to see why real wages go up as imports increase.

See the logic behind free trade is that it eliminates contrainsts the system. The problem with people who believe in it as dogma is that they fail to realize that trade barriers are not the only contraints.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i have no idea what you are saying.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
i have no idea what you are saying.

Making someone free to trade does not mean they will trade.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i agree. whats your point?