How would you balance the US budget?

[Arrian]

Commie.

Oh, it sounds nice to say that we can enact laws that will:

a) keep highly-paid manufacturing jobs here in the US
b) prevent or cut down on "slave labor" in the 3rd world.

Until, of course, you think about it some more and review the history of protectionism.

You use phrases like "hard working Americans" - are Indians not hard-working? Of course they are. So what you mean to say is "Americans."

The idea that you can insulate American workers from global capitalism is a pipe dream.

The idea that you can prevent "slave labor" in other countries is even nuttier. All your tarrifs would do is put some of those "slaves" out of work.

So, in the end, "fair trade" laws aren't about fair trade. They're about trying to benifit 1st world workers and to hell with the 3rd world. They won't work, but even if they did, I call bull**** on the name. It's not about fairness. It's about us vs them.

All I said was to put a tariff on products equal to the difference in wages that go into that product.

Ponder for a moment the governmental bureacracy necessary to set those tarrifs. Even leaving aside the trade war issue (which one shouldn't), that in and of itself is a mess. Seriously, you have to figure out what the workers in Burma made to create a t-shirt sold at target... sneakers made in China... etc. Product by product. Think about that!

Of course, gone will be the cheap products at Walmart, etc. that we're used to.

If you call not encouraging companies to continually leave their homelands in order to go to the cheapest possible wage in the world a "Trade War" (thus giving those countries that legalize slave-labor no incentive to change their ways), I would have to say it would be the most just "War" America could fight.

First off, "not encouraging" in this instance means massive protectionism - effectively huge subsidies. What you mean to say is "encouraging them to stay" not "not encouraging them to leave." There's a key difference.

Second, do you even know what I mean by a trade war? I mean that when we put tarrifs up, others will reciprocate in kind. We sell things to the 3rd world, ya know. Meanwhile, other industrialized countries would not enact this law and kick the holy hell out of us because they would still be trading freely with the developing world.

-Arrian

[Elok]

But we have all the BOMBS, Arrian! That makes us the winners!

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Arrian
Commie.

Oh, it sounds nice to say that we can enact laws that will:

a) keep highly-paid manufacturing jobs here in the US
b) prevent or cut down on "slave labor" in the 3rd world.

Until, of course, you think about it some more and review the history of protectionism.

You keep saying protectionism. You keep missing my point. I am not at all saying to protect an industry at any cost. All I said was to "wage adjust" product and services.

If Japan, Korea or whoever can produce a car that, after the price is adjusted for wage inequities, sells in America so be it.

Originally posted by Arrian
You use phrases like "hard working Americans" - are Indians not hard-working? Of course they are. So what you mean to say is "Americans."

I never said Indians weren't hard working. I just said we shouldn't give up all of our industrial base, which on top of the employment ramifications is a national security issue, because they live in a country that allows people to be paid a fraction of our minimum wage.

Originally posted by Arrian
The idea that you can insulate American workers from global capitalism is a pipe dream.

Unchecked capitalism isn't a good thing. We learned that in this country. That's why we have child labor laws, outlawed slavery, formed unions, enacted a minimum wage, 40 hour work week, etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Arrian
The idea that you can prevent "slave labor" in other countries is even nuttier.

Never said the US could or should try and prevent it. I said we shouldn't encourage and support it. Especially to the detrement of our own economy, workers and national security.

Originally posted by Arrian
So, in the end, "fair trade" laws aren't about fair trade. They're about trying to benifit 1st world workers and to hell with the 3rd world. They won't work, but even if they did, I call bull**** on the name. It's not about fairness. It's about us vs them.

Well of all I didn't use the term "fair trade", I used the term "fair wage" And again the major purpose isn't to help 3rd world workers, it's to help Amercian workers, American industry and American national security.

When I elect an American President or American Government I am not electing a United Nations government. I want the American government to look after American interests. As long as there are national borders I suspect most countries will and should look after their own interests.

Originally posted by Arrian
Ponder for a moment the governmental bureacracy necessary to set those tarrifs. Even leaving aside the trade war issue (which one shouldn't), that in and of itself is a mess. Seriously, you have to figure out what the workers in Burma made to create a t-shirt sold at target... sneakers made in China... etc. Product by product. Think about that!

I doubt it would be that hard. It seems to me we can pretty much get that type of info or at least get a good estimate. The supposed burueacracy could easily be funded by the tariffs it collects and the windfall in taxes from higher paid citizens and lower unemployment.

Originally posted by Arrian
Of course, gone will be the cheap products at Walmart, etc. that we're used to.

Gone also will be the days when people have to take 2nd and 3rd jobs to tryr and put food on the table and pay their mortgage. I'll buy less T-shirts.

Originally posted by Arrian
First off, "not encouraging" in this instance means massive protectionism - effectively huge subsidies. What you mean to say is "encouraging them to stay" not "not encouraging them to leave." There's a key difference.

Companies can go wherever they want. They just won't be rewarded to go somewhere where the only competitive advantage is a labor structure that would be illegal and in many cases criminal in the United States. We did outlaw slavery.

If there is some other competitive advantage, so be it.

Originally posted by Arrian
Second, do you even know what I mean by a trade war? I mean that when we put tarrifs up, others will reciprocate in kind. We sell things to the 3rd world, ya know.

Just take a look at the US trade deficit. Then look at what countries it is with. I doubt it could get much worse

Originally posted by Arrian
Meanwhile, other industrialized countries would not enact this law and kick the holy hell out of us because they would still be trading freely with the developing world.

-Arrian

Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. Maybe other industrialized countries don't mind losing their manufacturing base and standard of living for some utopian globalism principle or maybe they would see the light too.

[Arrian]

You keep saying protectionism. You keep missing my point. I am not at all saying to protect an industry at any cost. All I said was to "wage adjust" product and services.

And I'm saying you are making a distinction where there isn't a meaningful one. The result of your law will be to jack up prices on imports from 3rd world countries. Protectionism.

Unchecked capitalism isn't a good thing. We learned that in this country. That's why we have child labor laws, outlawed slavery, formed unions, enacted a minimum wage, 40 hour work week, etc. etc. etc.

Agreed. And the developing world is now going through a similar process. They'll get there. Some hamfisted attempt by us to force them to get there faster will only backfire, IMO.

Well of all I didn't use the term "fair trade", I used the term "fair wage" And again the major purpose isn't to help 3rd world workers, it's to help Amercian workers, American industry and American national security.

When I elect an American President or American Government I am not electing a United Nations government. I want the American government to look after American interests. As long as there are national borders I suspect most countries will and should look after their own interests.

I too want the US government to look after US interests. I was simply pointing out that your use of the word "fair" was... well, skewed. Your proposal is about benifitting Americans - not about being fair to all. You concede that. Fine by me.

Companies can go wherever they want. They just won't be rewarded to go somewhere where the only competitive advantage is a labor structure that would be illegal and in many cases criminal in the United States. We did outlaw slavery.

If there is some other competitive advantage, so be it.

How do you think conditions will improve in 3rd world countries, if we refuse to trade with them? Again, you invoke the noble ideal of "not encouraging slavery" or somesuch, whilst proposing a policy that will totally screw the poor workers of whateveristan. As discussed above, this policy has nothing to do with empathy for these "slaves" and everything to do with trying to protect Americans' wealth (though I don't think it would work).

Gone also will be the days when people have to take 2nd and 3rd jobs to tryr and put food on the table and pay their mortgage. I'll buy less T-shirts.

1. I doubt it will help the economy as you think it will.
2. It will effect a LOT more than just t-shirts, Dude.

Just take a look at the US trade deficit. Then look at what countries it is with. I doubt it could get much worse

I bet it could, but I'll concede this is a potentially valid point. The US trade deficit is ugly.

Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. Maybe other industrialized countries don't mind losing their manufacturing base and standard of living for some utopian globalism principle or maybe they would see the light too.

This presumes the impact of this policy would actually be benificial to the 1st world country that followed it. Again, I find it interesting that you critique the current policy as being "for some utopian globalism principle" whilst arguing for your policy by invoking the spectre of slavery. You're trying to credit your proposal as being high-minded whilst simultaneously mocking the supposedly high-minded status quo. WTF?

-Arrian

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
You keep saying protectionism. You keep missing my point. I am not at all saying to protect an industry at any cost. All I said was to "wage adjust" product and services.

That sounds like a tariff, which is part of protectionism. You already admit that the whole point is to protect "our" industries.

If Japan, Korea or whoever can produce a car that, after the price is adjusted for wage inequities, sells in America so be it.

If Hyundai paid their workers the same as they do at General Motors, what would be the incentive of buying such a car? Hyundai and GM both have roughly the same technical capabilities, so neither of the two stands out as being particularly objectively "better" than the other.

What would happen is that Hyundai would go out of business (at least in our market) and Hyundai would have to lay off a bunch of Korean employees. It seems like it'd be in Korea's best economic interest to try and keep wages relatively low to stay competitive; if they didn't, they'd be sunk.

I never said Indians weren't hard working. I just said we shouldn't give up all of our industrial base, which on top of the employment ramifications is a national security issue, because they live in a country that allows people to be paid a fraction of our minimum wage.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that our entire industrial base is subject to export. You're right, there's a compelling argument about "keeping" some industries located in the U.S. for strategic purposes, but that doesn't mean that the doll head factory is going to produce anything of relative military value should the U.S. experience the kind of "total war" that existed in 1942.

Unchecked capitalism isn't a good thing. We learned that in this country. That's why we have child labor laws, outlawed slavery, formed unions, enacted a minimum wage, 40 hour work week, etc. etc. etc.

We have those laws today because "unchecked capitalism" (in a lot of cases, the state intervened in favor of some of the larger companies to the detriment to our economy, so I wouldn't argue that it was completely unchecked) was allowed to flourish before we had the kind of more restrictive labor laws that we do now. You cited Japan and Korea earlier, but look at where they came from following World War II: Japan and Korea both had flexible labor and wage laws, thus allowing those countries to be competitive in their export-based businesses, eventually building up economic power. Remember, in 1960, Korea had the per capita GNP equal to that of some of the poorest states in Africa.

Never said the US could or should try and prevent it. I said we shouldn't encourage and support it. Especially to the detrement of our own economy, workers and national security.

If protectionism supposedly benefits the workers (I would contend that it does not, especially if you look at the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff passed by President Hoover) and what it actually does is hurt most of our citizens by creating an artificially high price on many goods. How many informed U.S. citizens, outside of farmers, support agricultural subsidies to the tune of $300 billion?

Well of all I didn't use the term "fair trade", I used the term "fair wage" And again the major purpose isn't to help 3rd world workers, it's to help Amercian workers, American industry and American national security.

I don't agree that paying an employee in a third world country the same wage as a U.S. worker is necessarily fair nor good for their own countries; if each country had labor laws as restrictive as our own/W. Europe, there'd be no incentive to develop any sort of industrial base in those countries. Plus, consider already that the wages paid in many third world "sweatshops" is in fact much better than the wages (or equivalent) they'd be earning in traditional forms of subsistence agriculture, etc.

I doubt it would be that hard. It seems to me we can pretty much get that type of info or at least get a good estimate. The supposed burueacracy could easily be funded by the tariffs it collects and the windfall in taxes from higher paid citizens and lower unemployment.

It sounds like that would create an inflationary spiral, because the workers that get paid more would have to pay more for their goods since they aren't able to buy them from countries that have cheaper sources of labor.

Gone also will be the days when people have to take 2nd and 3rd jobs to tryr and put food on the table and pay their mortgage. I'll buy less T-shirts.

I believe this has more to do with being a good steward of your money rather than the pressing needs of a modern economy. If we need some sort of education reform, it should certainly be in the handling of one's money; French poetry will simply have to wait.

Companies can go wherever they want. They just won't be rewarded to go somewhere where the only competitive advantage is a labor structure that would be illegal and in many cases criminal in the United States. We did outlaw slavery.

Simply because something is legal or illegal in the United States, does that necessarily make it the best practice? Is it a practice that makes sense for a country that has no industrial base and literally cannot afford to tell us to "sod off"? (OK, maybe they won't say "sod off" since most sweatshops these days aren't in Liverpool, but I digress...)

Just take a look at the US trade deficit. Then look at what countries it is with. I doubt it could get much worse

I'm curious: why do you believe that a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing?

Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. Maybe other industrialized countries don't mind losing their manufacturing base and standard of living for some utopian globalism principle or maybe they would see the light too.

I heard something about this a while ago, and you'll have to forgive me if I'm off the mark on this one, but I heard that the average person at the poverty line today has a greater standard of living (and purchasing power) than the average middle class family did during the 1960s. It may be entirely subjective, but it's certainly something to think about...

[Arrian]

I forgot to mention something:

$10/hr here =! $10/hr in a 3rd world country. The cost of living is wildly different. Hell, the cost of living varies quite a bit between US states.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Why should businesses be penalized for making a product more cheaply? I thought that was the _idea_ behind capitalism - rewarding the folks who innovate with cheaper ways to do the same thing, or better ways to do the same thing (whichever).

Why does it matter if people are paid $0.45 an hour to make shirts? The people who benefit from this are the folks who SHOP at wal-mart and buy clothes for $100 a year, instead of $800+ at Sears. So what if Heirs Of Sam Walton + Co make some money for making this work - I say good for them, they deserve the money they made, because they dropped the price honest working Americans pay for quality products by a significant factor. That's the most American thing i've seen... Either we figure out a way to do it better/cheaper over here, or we do something else. That's called "comparitive advantage" and regardless of a certain other poster's opinions, is still relevant in the modern day ...

[Whoha]

We'll be a service economy

[Aeson]

Why does it matter if people are paid $0.45 an hour to make shirts?

Try it for a living and see if you can figure out an answer?

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Aeson


Try it for a living and see if you can figure out an answer?

I can think of about 300,000,000 in sub-Saharan Africa that would be thrilled to have an income of $5/day.

Less than 10% of Nigerians live on more than $2 a day. Less than 30% live on more than $1 a day.

Low wages in undeveloped countries is just a fact of life and it's part of development. If you stand in the way with restrictive labor laws and all kinds of crazy regulations, you end up like Zimbabwe.

[Aeson]

Try it for a living and see if you can figure out an answer then rmsharpe

[LordShiva]

Teh Brits have even more fluff in their budget

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Arrian


As opposed to the apparently harmless fools who say things like "deficits don't matter?"

Pet projects are fine when they're military interventions, right?

Step one is to get from where we are now (huge deficits) to running a surplus, and that means both cuts in spending and tax increases (modest ones, IMO - back to where we were before Chimpy showed up). edit: and we all know that those levels of taxation were so awful that the economy was terrible pre-2000 and has been great since. Oh, wait...

-Arrian

Arrian pwned DanS

[Eli]

I would demand tribute from other countries.

[Kidlicious]

I'll never figure out why people are so content with the trade deficit even while wages are low and unemployment is high in the US, but when we are in a recession everyone is so insistent that we balance the budget. People just keep repeating the same old crap no matter how bad it works.