Fixing the Ghetto

[Sloth]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think Fair Trade is the way to go

[/quote]

What’s more fair than free trade? It’s voluntary. Trade that involves the muscle of a third party, acting on behalf of some segment of the population, to change the ground rules for the benefit of one side of the exchange, is non-fair trade.

If the US can’t hack it and remain competitive, I’d look to the burden of our government. We start trying to play games with trade (even moreso), so will others. And the consumer will end up digging deeper into their pocket for crappy overpriced domestic goods.

[pittbulll]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think Fair Trade is the way to go

What’s more fair than free trade? It’s voluntary. Trade that involves the muscle of a third party, acting on behalf of some segment of the population, to change the ground rules for the benefit of one side of the exchange, is non-fair trade.

If the US can’t hack it and remain competitive, I’d look to the burden of our government. We start trying to play games with trade (even moreso), so will others. And the consumer will end up digging deeper into their pocket for crappy overpriced domestic goods.[/quote]

Making sure everybody has to play by the same rules, example if I buy protein powder made in America. America is supposed to make sure protein powder is what I get. But if I buy it made in China, I will probably get a Melamine concoction. If I buy a car that it?s workers do not provide Medical Ins. For their workers because if is furnished by the Government, then because American Car companies would get a Tax Break that Japanese car companies would not.

[msd0060]

The Wire is my favorite TV show ever and I’ve seen all the seasons via netflix.

That’s all I have to add.

Omar is a bad mother fucker… thats another thing I can add. Oh, and he’s gay, so that completes his gray-ness. Black hardass, but is gay.

[dhickey]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”

explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.

Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.

See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin

Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?

Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?

You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.

Look up the theories listed above for an overview.

simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?

show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.

You’re missing the point. You said, “explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty.” The above theories try to explain this for you.

The short version: Trade is good for a country and should be promoted. However, because consumer surplus is spread widely throughout a country, and generally the “losers” to increased trade are a specific group, income (what you can buy with your money) redistribution can greatly affect that group.

Have you looked up the theories yet?

I always argue FOR free trade. These theories try to explain some of the effects. In the real world, there are always winners and losers to any policy decision. To say, “free trade doesn’t affect income distribution” (and with that, by definition, poverty), is simply incorrect. The benefits of free trade are greater than than costs. But there are costs. [/quote]

I understand the theory. It make perfect sense but is too narrow to provide any economic benefit. ie weighing the cost of free trade against the cost of protectionism. Protectionism also effects income distribution in the same way free trade would, but in a much larger scale.

If you protect american steel, you put people out of work in industies that rely on cheap steel to compete with other imported finished products using steel. What industry do you think hires more people? Bulk steel production, or all finished goods using steel? This is why gov’t can’t be left with the power to protect select industries. It does far more harm than good. Even the immediate, stage one, effects are not positive.

[dhickey]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”

explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.

Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.

See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin

Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?

Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?

You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.

Look up the theories listed above for an overview.

simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?

show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.

You’re missing the point. You said, “explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty.” The above theories try to explain this for you.

The short version: Trade is good for a country and should be promoted. However, because consumer surplus is spread widely throughout a country, and generally the “losers” to increased trade are a specific group, income (what you can buy with your money) redistribution can greatly affect that group.

Have you looked up the theories yet?

I always argue FOR free trade. These theories try to explain some of the effects. In the real world, there are always winners and losers to any policy decision. To say, “free trade doesn’t affect income distribution” (and with that, by definition, poverty), is simply incorrect. The benefits of free trade are greater than than costs. But there are costs.

I disagree, the losers are the labor market that is undercut by, the manufacturer shopping in a labor market that cheaper than the previous. China was reportedly subsidizing certain markets to guarantee that they came in the cheapest. On the short side the consumer is getting a product fractionally below what a product would cost in a fair market; the manufacturing company is making a considerable profit margin. It is not taxes, its labor

I think it is fair the Manufacturers shop for the cheapest labor; I also think it fair the American Government levels the playing field with taxes
[/quote]

You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. If I traded you one orange for your two oranges, would this not be favorable for me?

Gov’t has no way of leveling the playing field unless they tax every single good and service that comes across the boarder. This would certainly level the playing field if all american industries only did business in america, but we know this is definately not the case.

If I tax foreign steel to point that american steel is competitive what have I done to american finished good that use steel? They would be competitive domestically if we are also taxing all imported finished products that use steel. The will not compete internationally because of the high costs of materials.

I have yet to see one import tax or tariff that would have positive net effect. I guess maybe a finished consumer good that would in no way be used by business competing on the world market. This would only have a net harmful effect on the consumer. Then if you did this for all consumer goods we would all be worse off.

[vroom]

Fixing the ghetto?

How many of us can actually speak the language of people living in shitty sections of various inner cities?

You don’t fix an “us vs them” situation by sitting on the outside being a “them” trying to impose your view of the world.

Hell, I remember dating a young woman many years back, and she was amazed at some aspect of my measly middle class life. She never believed it existed. She thought all the happy loving well-adjusted families on television were just entertainment, and that they didn’t really exist.

The police are often hated, assumed to be abusing power, as power often invites. At the very least they interfere in our life from time to time whether or not there may be cause.

The people who actually succeed are far and few between, those that do packing up and disappearing as fast as possible. Crammed in shit hole housing, with annoying neighbors, big attitudes, drugs, prostitution, violence and whatever the hell else all around.

You want to fix all that? Give people an alternative and then protect them from those that won’t let them escape.

[vroom]

As for the benefits of free trade, from the point of view of economic theory there is no doubt at all.

However, large economic shifts, as we are living through now, cause a lot of turmoil and ruin a lot of dreams.

Changes, such as establishing free trade, does not have to be done so quickly that companies do not have time to adjust and generate jobs in new areas. There is an inertia… the economy is not as simple as an economic model.

I’m tired of listening to ivory tower economic theory and just glossing over the human effect of such massive changes.

I guess as long as you and/or your family still hold a good job, the rest of the world can go fuck itself, right?

[pittbulll]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”

explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.

Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.

See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin

Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?

Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?

You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.

Look up the theories listed above for an overview.

simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?

show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.

You’re missing the point. You said, “explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty.” The above theories try to explain this for you.

The short version: Trade is good for a country and should be promoted. However, because consumer surplus is spread widely throughout a country, and generally the “losers” to increased trade are a specific group, income (what you can buy with your money) redistribution can greatly affect that group.

Have you looked up the theories yet?

I always argue FOR free trade. These theories try to explain some of the effects. In the real world, there are always winners and losers to any policy decision. To say, “free trade doesn’t affect income distribution” (and with that, by definition, poverty), is simply incorrect. The benefits of free trade are greater than than costs. But there are costs.

I disagree, the losers are the labor market that is undercut by, the manufacturer shopping in a labor market that cheaper than the previous. China was reportedly subsidizing certain markets to guarantee that they came in the cheapest. On the short side the consumer is getting a product fractionally below what a product would cost in a fair market; the manufacturing company is making a considerable profit margin. It is not taxes, its labor

I think it is fair the Manufacturers shop for the cheapest labor; I also think it fair the American Government levels the playing field with taxes

You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. If I traded you one orange for your two oranges, would this not be favorable for me?

Gov’t has no way of leveling the playing field unless they tax every single good and service that comes across the boarder. This would certainly level the playing field if all american industries only did business in america, but we know this is definately not the case.

If I tax foreign steel to point that american steel is competitive what have I done to american finished good that use steel? They would be competitive domestically if we are also taxing all imported finished products that use steel. The will not compete internationally because of the high costs of materials.

I have yet to see one import tax or tariff that would have positive net effect. I guess maybe a finished consumer good that would in no way be used by business competing on the world market. This would only have a net harmful effect on the consumer. Then if you did this for all consumer goods we would all be worse off.[/quote]

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

[dhickey]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

[/quote]

if you are talking about individuals…it depends.

if you are talking about some group of people that participate in various industries…those with no trade restrictions.

If we are talking about net benefit, the only beneficial application of trade restrictions would be with those that hostile. This decision would be tacticle not stratigic.

[dhickey]

[quote]vroom wrote:
As for the benefits of free trade, from the point of view of economic theory there is no doubt at all.

However, large economic shifts, as we are living through now, cause a lot of turmoil and ruin a lot of dreams.
[/quote]
what causes more turmoil, arbitrary trade restrictions or free market comparitive advantage?

Changes, such as establishing free trade, does not have to be done so quickly that companies do not have time to adjust and generate jobs in new areas. There is an inertia… the economy is not as simple as an economic model.

quite true. but what direction should we be heading, arbitrary trade restrictions or supply and demand? If investors can accurately predict comparative advantage we all win. If political winds cast uncertainty on investment speculation, most lose.

I’m tired of listening to ivory tower economic theory and just glossing over the human effect of such massive changes.

Economics does not define solutions. It weighs the human effects of differnt policies. Economics will tell you that for every job save in y industry you will lose x in another industry. Unfortunatly, it up to policitians to decide what jobs to save and which to sacrifice.

[quote]
I guess as long as you and/or your family still hold a good job, the rest of the world can go fuck itself, right?[/quote]

Nope. My children don’t hold jobs yet. There is no way for me to predict what industry they will chose to work in. My only option is to root for the overall success of the country we live in. Politicians, on the other hand, have very specific agendas. Their success rides on the favors done for special interests that keep them in office.

[Mr_Chen]

Vroom dated a young woman many years back. From the ghettooo.

Didn’t Elvis sing a song about this?

[nopal_juventus]

That was Guess Who. Or Lenny Kravitz if you were born in the 80s.

[vroom]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
what causes more turmoil, arbitrary trade restrictions or free market comparitive advantage?[/quote]

I know it was subtle, so you probably missed it, but I’m in favor of free trade and recognize the economic benefits. However, I’m talking about the fact that we have to realize that fast changes are damaging to economies and lifestyles.

quite true. but what direction should we be heading, arbitrary trade restrictions or supply and demand? If investors can accurately predict comparative advantage we all win. If political winds cast uncertainty on investment speculation, most lose.

Come on. Let’s get beyond the love of economic theory and into the real world a bit. Supply and demand work very well in situation where the market is able to accurately reflect all of the various costs.

For example, if one country has no environmental restrictions, allowing mercury and lead to be dumped in the rivers, and another doesn’t… it’s not a level playing field. The costs of the pollution are “hidden” and will be borne by both parties just as the wins from free trade will be borne by both parties.

The people with higher wages, presumably the country with environmental protections, will see jobs and wages artificially skewed due to the differences in regulations.

Economics does not define solutions. It weighs the human effects of differnt policies. Economics will tell you that for every job save in y industry you will lose x in another industry. Unfortunatly, it up to policitians to decide what jobs to save and which to sacrifice.

Again, it really isn’t as simple or as precise as people like to pretend it is. It gives you a suggestion, if you assume nothing will change, and often many unexpected changes do happen. The old ceteris paribus assumption can be a real bitch sometimes.

Nope. My children don’t hold jobs yet. There is no way for me to predict what industry they will chose to work in. My only option is to root for the overall success of the country we live in. Politicians, on the other hand, have very specific agendas. Their success rides on the favors done for special interests that keep them in office.

I really didn’t intend that statement in a personal way, but in that so many around here seem to consider only their own issues – discounting those of others.

Anyway, as you alluded before, there will be some industries that are good to work in, no matter which policies are followed. In that sense, we can all relax.

[pittbulll]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

if you are talking about individuals…it depends.

if you are talking about some group of people that participate in various industries…those with no trade restrictions.

If we are talking about net benefit, the only beneficial application of trade restrictions would be with those that hostile. This decision would be tacticle not stratigic.[/quote]

"You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. "

What more are we getting, other than a huge hole in our manufacturing base and a boat load of tainted products. China is walking away with a lot of American dollars, is that what you are talking about?

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

Free trade is next. As the head of the longshoreman’s union says in season two, “You know what the problem is Brucie? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.”

explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty. building shit has nothing to do with poverty.

Free trade has substantial effects on the income distribution within each trading nation, so that in practice the benefits of trade are often distributed very unevenly.

See Samuelson and Ronald Jones’ “specific factors model”
See also Heckscher-Ohlin

Who gives a shit about income? All I care about is what my income can buy. Would you take a 25% pay cut if it also meant a corrisponding 50% drop in cost of living?

Obviously those who lose their income are the one’s who care, does this need to be explained?

You asked a simple question, I gave some corresponding theories that answer that question. You (should) know as well as I that there are winners and losers with trade. Overall countries are better off, but segments within those countries suffer.

Look up the theories listed above for an overview.

simple cost benefit. why would we let politicians pick their favorite industries to protect? Why not let the market (people)decide?

show me an industry that you think should be protected, and i’ll show you two that will be harmed becuase of it.

You’re missing the point. You said, “explain to me how free trade has anything to do with poverty.” The above theories try to explain this for you.

The short version: Trade is good for a country and should be promoted. However, because consumer surplus is spread widely throughout a country, and generally the “losers” to increased trade are a specific group, income (what you can buy with your money) redistribution can greatly affect that group.

Have you looked up the theories yet?

I always argue FOR free trade. These theories try to explain some of the effects. In the real world, there are always winners and losers to any policy decision. To say, “free trade doesn’t affect income distribution” (and with that, by definition, poverty), is simply incorrect. The benefits of free trade are greater than than costs. But there are costs.

I understand the theory. It make perfect sense but is too narrow to provide any economic benefit. ie weighing the cost of free trade against the cost of protectionism. Protectionism also effects income distribution in the same way free trade would, but in a much larger scale.

If you protect american steel, you put people out of work in industies that rely on cheap steel to compete with other imported finished products using steel. What industry do you think hires more people? Bulk steel production, or all finished goods using steel? This is why gov’t can’t be left with the power to protect select industries. It does far more harm than good. Even the immediate, stage one, effects are not positive.[/quote]

The theories are about the best we got right now, if you can design a better one, please do so, you’ll probably win a Nobel.

Again, I am arguing FOR free trade (I’m not sure how many times I can say this). But trade affects segments of an economy. It affects income and poverty. period. So long as you’re not denying this, we are in agreement.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]vroom wrote:
As for the benefits of free trade, from the point of view of economic theory there is no doubt at all.

However, large economic shifts, as we are living through now, cause a lot of turmoil and ruin a lot of dreams.

Changes, such as establishing free trade, does not have to be done so quickly that companies do not have time to adjust and generate jobs in new areas. There is an inertia… the economy is not as simple as an economic model.

I’m tired of listening to ivory tower economic theory and just glossing over the human effect of such massive changes.

I guess as long as you and/or your family still hold a good job, the rest of the world can go fuck itself, right?[/quote]

Well worded.

[dhickey]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

if you are talking about individuals…it depends.

if you are talking about some group of people that participate in various industries…those with no trade restrictions.

If we are talking about net benefit, the only beneficial application of trade restrictions would be with those that hostile. This decision would be tacticle not stratigic.

"You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. "

What more are we getting, other than a huge hole in our manufacturing base and a boat load of tainted products. China is walking away with a lot of American dollars, is that what you are talking about?[/quote]

All you have to do is try just a little bit. What can they do with American dollars? Those dollars have to be spent in America eventually. It would be silly not to get as much in return for them. So we get a bunch of goods that we wouldn’t have had for the same amount domestically. They then have to spend or invest those dollars here, creating jobs in areas we are actually competitive in.

We need manufacturing jobs like we need wagon and buggy manufactures. The specific job matter little. What matters is that we get as much for our dollar and that jobs are created overall.

[dhickey]

[quote]vroom wrote:
dhickey wrote:
what causes more turmoil, arbitrary trade restrictions or free market comparitive advantage?

I know it was subtle, so you probably missed it, but I’m in favor of free trade and recognize the economic benefits. However, I’m talking about the fact that we have to realize that fast changes are damaging to economies and lifestyles.
[/quote]
Umm…yeah. You know what else is actively damaging our economies and lifestyles? Arbitrary policy. Policy that makes little economic clouds market signals. Not good for speculation or investment. The further we move from a free market, the more painful the transition back will be when it all comes tumbling down. Why continue policy that has damaged the overall progess and quality of life of this nation?

There is alway cost for any action. The trick is recognizing that long term benefit may require short term discomfort.

Come on. Let’s get beyond the love of economic theory and into the real world a bit. Supply and demand work very well in situation where the market is able to accurately reflect all of the various costs.

For example, if one country has no environmental restrictions, allowing mercury and lead to be dumped in the rivers, and another doesn’t… it’s not a level playing field. The costs of the pollution are “hidden” and will be borne by both parties just as the wins from free trade will be borne by both parties.

The people with higher wages, presumably the country with environmental protections, will see jobs and wages artificially skewed due to the differences in regulations.

Quite true. We handicap ourselves with silly regulation. What’s incredible is that the free market prospers in spite of this. I am not sure how you propose we fix this. I say get rid of regulation that provides us little benefit. Adding protectionism on top of silly regulation only makes matters worse, not better.

Again, it really isn’t as simple or as precise as people like to pretend it is. It gives you a suggestion, if you assume nothing will change, and often many unexpected changes do happen. The old ceteris paribus assumption can be a real bitch sometimes.

Explain to me how politicians can make better decisions based on complexities that economics cannot define? Economics is the best we have. I say it is very simple and works well. You say it doesn’t work as well as you would like but make no attempt to define a better solution.

Nope. My children don’t hold jobs yet. There is no way for me to predict what industry they will chose to work in. My only option is to root for the overall success of the country we live in. Politicians, on the other hand, have very specific agendas. Their success rides on the favors done for special interests that keep them in office.

I really didn’t intend that statement in a personal way, but in that so many around here seem to consider only their own issues – discounting those of others.

So. A free market economy is the best solution for country as a whole. What else can you ask for? Should we lower the standard of living for everyone just so that we all the same, or should we raise the standard of living for everyone, knowing that some will be better off than others?

[quote]
Anyway, as you alluded before, there will be some industries that are good to work in, no matter which policies are followed. In that sense, we can all relax.[/quote]
But some (most these days) policy does much more harm than good. Why would we want that? Maybe if you are a politician with favors to collect on?

[dhickey]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The theories are about the best we got right now, if you can design a better one, please do so, you’ll probably win a Nobel.
[/quote]
What theories? That protectionism is good? Hardly. I don’t need to create a theory. Adam Smith and the Austrians have given us the best we have. Until we can get remotely close to that, there is little chance of improving on it.

Again, I am arguing FOR free trade (I’m not sure how many times I can say this). But trade affects segments of an economy. It affects income and poverty. period. So long as you’re not denying this, we are in agreement.

Yep, and free trade will always be better for the country as a whole than protectionism.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
The theories are about the best we got right now, if you can design a better one, please do so, you’ll probably win a Nobel.

What theories? That protectionism is good? Hardly. I don’t need to create a theory. Adam Smith and the Austrians have given us the best we have. Until we can get remotely close to that, there is little chance of improving on it.[/quote]

Are you trying to be thick on purpose? The theories I referenced above.

Again, I am arguing FOR free trade (I’m not sure how many times I can say this). But trade affects segments of an economy. It affects income and poverty. period. So long as you’re not denying this, we are in agreement.

Yep, and free trade will always be better for the country as a whole than protectionism.

I seriously wonder if you read what others post before you type sometimes. What in the world do you think I have been saying?