Class Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?

You can also see it another way.

You say the existing power structure is abused and yet you want to build an even bigger power structure and hope that it will somehow not be abused?

How likely is that?
[/quote]

No, I want free and fair trade. We’ve been moving in that direction for a long time, I think we should continue to do so. But I also think “fair” is important. Farm subsidies in the first world should be removed along with tariffs in the third. I think this would be best for everyone. I don’t want to see one removed and the other not simply b/c American and Europe have got the power.

22

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?

That is what I posted above, isn´t it?

Yes, some people make a buck, but other people pay for it.

Since a very small percentage of people are corn or steel producers the overwhelming majority is worse off.

So, unless there is a “nation” that is somehow separate from its “people”, I see no way how a nation can be better off through the use of subsidies and tariffs.

And, even if there was such a case, is it not inevitable that all other well financed groups will lobby for a part of the pie?

Has that not always been the case?

Your right theoretically, I’ve never argued against that. In practice I think there are examples where tariffs should be kept more as bargaining chips than for the greater good. The greater good is for them to be removed, no doubt. But if you’re an impoverished country who primarily produces “agriculture X,” and there are currently farm subsidies and/or tarriffs against “agriculture X” in the first world, you may wish to keep your tariff against “manufactured Y” as a barganing chip.

Yes, it’s better for those tariffs and subsidies to be removed, but if you remove the tariff on “manufacture Y” but not on “agriculture X” then you’re putting yourself at a greater disadvantage. See what I’m getting at? [/quote]

There are 4 possibilities:

  1. No tariffs. (The best scenario)
  2. Tariffs on “agriculture X”. (which means I sell less)
  3. Tariffs on “manufactured Y”. (which means I can buy less)
  4. Tariffs on BOTH “agriculture X” & “manufactured Y”. (which means I sell less AND can buy less. Classic lose/lose, the worst scenario)

Why do you claim that scenario #4 is worse than #2?

23

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?

That is what I posted above, isn´t it?

Yes, some people make a buck, but other people pay for it.

Since a very small percentage of people are corn or steel producers the overwhelming majority is worse off.

So, unless there is a “nation” that is somehow separate from its “people”, I see no way how a nation can be better off through the use of subsidies and tariffs.

And, even if there was such a case, is it not inevitable that all other well financed groups will lobby for a part of the pie?

Has that not always been the case?

Your right theoretically, I’ve never argued against that. In practice I think there are examples where tariffs should be kept more as bargaining chips than for the greater good. The greater good is for them to be removed, no doubt. But if you’re an impoverished country who primarily produces “agriculture X,” and there are currently farm subsidies and/or tarriffs against “agriculture X” in the first world, you may wish to keep your tariff against “manufactured Y” as a barganing chip.

Yes, it’s better for those tariffs and subsidies to be removed, but if you remove the tariff on “manufacture Y” but not on “agriculture X” then you’re putting yourself at a greater disadvantage. See what I’m getting at? [/quote]

Yes, I do and I believe that it is wrong because now you not only suffer because of their tariffs, now you also suffer from yours!

Law of comparative advantage, find something else your good at.

They cannot play this game forever anyway, as you have seen with your steel industry,

24

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?

You can also see it another way.

You say the existing power structure is abused and yet you want to build an even bigger power structure and hope that it will somehow not be abused?

How likely is that?

No, I want free and fair trade. We’ve been moving in that direction for a long time, I think we should continue to do so. But I also think “fair” is important. Farm subsidies in the first world should be removed along with tariffs in the third. I think this would be best for everyone. I don’t want to see one removed and the other not simply b/c American and Europe have got the power. [/quote]

Well, that is the most despicable aspect of globalization, that we force third world countries to open up for our products and not only close our markets for theirs, but also ruin their agriculture with our heavily subsidized crap that we then subsidize again to dump it on the world market.

Free trade, this is not.

25

Unless you’re an anarchist, why not tarrifs? After all, you have to raise revenue for even a ‘minarchist’ government. Wouldn’t the first concern be to eliminate as much domestic taxation as possible?

26

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

The term livable wage is a crock of shit.

It assumes you only work 40 hour weeks.
If you can’t survive working 40 hours… work MORE. Not too hard to figure out, is it?

Most people work above the minimum wage, the and min wage only HURTS teenagers and other highly unskilled workers by reducing the demand for cheap labor via and artificial price floor.

Thanks for your opinion
[/quote]
…You’re welcome?

27

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Unless you’re an anarchist, why not tarrifs? After all, you have to raise revenue for even a ‘minarchist’ government. Wouldn’t the first concern be to eliminate as much domestic taxation as possible?[/quote]

Because it is difficult to do without pissing other nations off, it can easily politicized and it only applies to imported goods?

A simple VAT should do the same trick without some of the problems associated with tariffs.

28

[quote]cremaster wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?

That is what I posted above, isn´t it?

Yes, some people make a buck, but other people pay for it.

Since a very small percentage of people are corn or steel producers the overwhelming majority is worse off.

So, unless there is a “nation” that is somehow separate from its “people”, I see no way how a nation can be better off through the use of subsidies and tariffs.

And, even if there was such a case, is it not inevitable that all other well financed groups will lobby for a part of the pie?

Has that not always been the case?

Your right theoretically, I’ve never argued against that. In practice I think there are examples where tariffs should be kept more as bargaining chips than for the greater good. The greater good is for them to be removed, no doubt. But if you’re an impoverished country who primarily produces “agriculture X,” and there are currently farm subsidies and/or tarriffs against “agriculture X” in the first world, you may wish to keep your tariff against “manufactured Y” as a barganing chip.

Yes, it’s better for those tariffs and subsidies to be removed, but if you remove the tariff on “manufacture Y” but not on “agriculture X” then you’re putting yourself at a greater disadvantage. See what I’m getting at?

There are 4 possibilities:

  1. No tariffs. (The best scenario)
  2. Tariffs on “agriculture X”. (which means I sell less)
  3. Tariffs on “manufactured Y”. (which means I can buy less)
  4. Tariffs on BOTH “agriculture X” & “manufactured Y”. (which means I sell less AND can buy less. Classic lose/lose, the worst scenario)

Why do you claim that scenario #4 is worse than #2?[/quote]

I think you meant why is Scenario 2 worse than 4, right? Anyway, what I’m getting at is the way things currently work where countries in the first world try to force open the markets of third world countries while keeping theirs closed. I’m arguing that these countries should use what tools they have (which includes their current tariffs) to negotiate for a better deal. In other words, we should promote free and fair trade for all, not only for our benefit. Again Scenario #1 is best, I’m just questioning how we get to scenario 1.

29

[quote]orion wrote:

Well, that is the most despicable aspect of globalization, that we force third world countries to open up for our products and not only close our markets for theirs, but also ruin their agriculture with our heavily subsidized crap that we then subsidize again to dump it on the world market.

Free trade, this is not.

[/quote]

This is what I’ve been getting at the whole time. Think about this and re-read my other posts. The question I’m bringing up is “how do we move to free and fair trade?” I’m not calling the laws of comparative advantage into question. I’m arguing the third world countries should use what tools they have to fight for their piece of the pie, as it were.

The devil is in the details. HOW we move forward is important. That’s all I’m saying.

30

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?

I think you are right to the point that #3 is where your hypothesis goes wrong. Most companies view labor as a commodity to be exploited, If left to the free market you are leaving the labor force vulnerable to unreasonable wages and unreasonable conditions

Do you also doubt gravity?

You might as well.

Think about how many people are paid the minimum wage?

What?

Less than 5%?

How is that possible, given that companies see labor “as a commodity to be exploited”?

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

No one.

Or are you suggesting that there are working people in the US that starve?

Anything beyond that is not an observable fact but a value judgment.

And I am saying that the argument that I put forth indeed does carry the same validity unless you can find a flaw, which would be quite an accomplishment.
[/quote]

Yes

31

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

The term livable wage is a crock of shit.

It assumes you only work 40 hour weeks.
If you can’t survive working 40 hours… work MORE. Not too hard to figure out, is it?

Most people work above the minimum wage, the and min wage only HURTS teenagers and other highly unskilled workers by reducing the demand for cheap labor via and artificial price floor.

Thanks for your opinion

…You’re welcome?

[/quote]

Good Answer

32

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

The term livable wage is a crock of shit.

It assumes you only work 40 hour weeks.
If you can’t survive working 40 hours… work MORE. Not too hard to figure out, is it?

Most people work above the minimum wage, the and min wage only HURTS teenagers and other highly unskilled workers by reducing the demand for cheap labor via and artificial price floor.

Thanks for your opinion

…You’re welcome?

Good Answer
[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment.

33

debate ended up being pro union-con union.

he was extremely vague in describing it and we didn’t get to pick our own sides. I won, obviously.

:wink:

34

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…

Corporations should run BUSINESS, and common citizens should run the government VIA ELECTIONS.

Period.

Corps shouldn’t control our government or our taxes. The common people (IE: the government) shouldn’t have a say in how a corp runs its business.[/quote]

x2, for the most part.

35

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

The term livable wage is a crock of shit.

It assumes you only work 40 hour weeks.
If you can’t survive working 40 hours… work MORE. Not too hard to figure out, is it?

Most people work above the minimum wage, the and min wage only HURTS teenagers and other highly unskilled workers by reducing the demand for cheap labor via and artificial price floor.[/quote]

It also causes inflation making said wage unlivable really quickly.

36

[quote]pat wrote:
It also causes inflation making said wage unlivable really quickly.[/quote]

I thought increasing the money supply caused inflation.

37

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run businesses the best.

[/quote]

Given the events of the past 3 months that have unfolded, this statement is so laughably wrong.

unless you mean “run businesses the best” to mean, be so focused on greed and wealth accumulation that you collapse your own industry.

38

How few businesses do you think there are?

39

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run businesses the best.

Given the events of the past 3 months that have unfolded, this statement is so laughably wrong.

unless you mean “run businesses the best” to mean, be so focused on greed and wealth accumulation that you collapse your own industry.
[/quote]

honda, toyota, etc.

the industry did not collapse. Motor city just did. I would be willing to bet even with mediocre cars, if the union didn’t exist motor city wouldn’t even be in this situation right now.