Here is Some Free Trade

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would agree, but America would have invested in better technology if the cost of their labor was not so high. Also I am not sure but there were probably some subsidies to boost the technology.

[/quote]

there are only a few reasons why “america” would not invest in new technology for a given industry

Subsidies provide all the protection they need and new technology is not required to compete.

the industry is not competitive compared to other industries that will provide to be better investments.

There is no shortage of capital investment, industries just have to compete for it. When the gov’t makes arbitray investments on behalf of investers it more than likely make the wrong decision. Gov’t investment decisions are made by politicians for political purposes, and rarely with the overall health of the nation in mind.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think the government could have negotiated with the Union and the Steel Companies to make concessions, in exchange for subsidies to upgrade technology. The way Reagan did it had devastating effects on the Steel Valley.

[/quote]

The problem is there is always an industry to save. If save all the old industries there are virtually no resourses for new, more efficient (profitable) industries to be built.

There is absolutely no moral ground to take my money and use it to buy new equipment for someone else. There is also no moral argument to justify telling me who I can buy desired goods and services from. I want to buy Chinese steel who has the right to tell me I can’t?

[quote]dhickey wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So Mexico subsidizes the American consumer?

Holy crap! I think I hear Henry Hazlitt happily weeping in his grave.

Maybe you do get it a little bit.

‘Economics in One Lesson’ should be required reading in high school.[/quote]

I wish I had read it sooner.

Free to Choose - Milton and Rose Friedman

What it Means to be Libertarian - Charles Murray

Are also very good and should be accessable for anyone that can read at a highschool level. I am a big Charles Murray fan. He is very easy to read.

I am now reading “For a New Liberty – The Libertarian Manifesto” by Murray N. Rothbard.

He is known as Mr. Libertarian because he is one of the original founders of the movement. He truly forces one to take a radical look at the immorality of the State and call into question every single one of its offenses.

It has really helped me to wade through the political fog machine.

I have been meaning to read something by Rothbard. My problem is that I spend most of my time in the car during the week, so I have to find books on CD. I do read but I have several to get through before ordering any more.

If your into the hole morality thing, you might want to give Ayn Rand a read. If you haven’t already. I would say she is better to get on CD.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I think the government could have negotiated with the Union and the Steel Companies to make concessions, in exchange for subsidies to upgrade technology. The way Reagan did it had devastating effects on the Steel Valley.

The problem is there is always an industry to save. If save all the old industries there are virtually no resourses for new, more efficient (profitable) industries to be built.

There is absolutely no moral ground to take my money and use it to buy new equipment for someone else. There is also no moral argument to justify telling me who I can buy desired goods and services from. I want to buy Chinese steel who has the right to tell me I can’t?
[/quote]

You and I disagree on subsidies. They are an attempt to motivate an industry in a direction. Should not be necessary but, most countries do that. Industry seems motivated by the bottom line; Government should be motivated on what is best of the people
Speaking specifically about the health of the steel industry, it has affected the health of this country. We have a valley that was called the steel valley, now it is poor. I think the aim of government is to serve the people, not cater to some Idea of some political theory. The steel industry could have survived the 80s and would be a prosperous asset to America. There is no Industry that is big enough to fill the shoes of steel.
You and I agree on thing the way they should be, and I give you credit, you do not want to fuck the poor while someone else holds them down. But this is reality; we are not a Libertarian society. We are some bastardization of a democratic, republic, fascist, communistic society

[quote]dhickey wrote:
If your into the hole morality thing, you might want to give Ayn Rand a read. If you haven’t already. I would say she is better to get on CD. [/quote]

The Mises Institute carries many Books in audio format – some of which are free for download in MP3.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=85

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
If your into the hole morality thing, you might want to give Ayn Rand a read. If you haven’t already. I would say she is better to get on CD.

The Mises Institute carries many Books in audio format – some of which are free for download in MP3.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=85[/quote]

Thanks,

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You and I disagree on subsidies. They are an attempt to motivate an industry in a direction. Should not be necessary but, most countries do that. Industry seems motivated by the bottom line; Government should be motivated on what is best of the people
Speaking specifically about the health of the steel industry, it has affected the health of this country. We have a valley that was called the steel valley, now it is poor. I think the aim of government is to serve the people, not cater to some Idea of some political theory. The steel industry could have survived the 80s and would be a prosperous asset to America. There is no Industry that is big enough to fill the shoes of steel.
You and I agree on thing the way they should be, and I give you credit, you do not want to fuck the poor while someone else holds them down. But this is reality; we are not a Libertarian society. We are some bastardization of a democratic, republic, fascist, communistic society

[/quote]
Just a couple of points. If companies are truly driven by the bottom line they must be effient in a free economy. If they are subsidized they become lazy and and can opperate without being inovative or making stategic investments. It is absolutly the same as welfare.

The health of the steel industry has not effected the health of the nation as a hole. Unemployment rates have hit all time lows since then. Stock markets have all time highs since then. If the steel industry cannot compete internationally, that is a sign the resourses (capital and labor) are better spent on an industry we have a better compartive advantage in.

The free market is the most efficeint economic stratagy possible. In a free market each of us casts a vote every single time we make, or do not make, a purchase. The market reacts instantaneously to billions of transactions a day. No planned economy or bearucatic entity can even come close to the efficiency of the free market. All they can do is cloud and distort market signals and reduce efficiency.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
If your into the hole morality thing, you might want to give Ayn Rand a read. If you haven’t already. I would say she is better to get on CD.

The Mises Institute carries many Books in audio format – some of which are free for download in MP3.

Mises Search | Mises Institute [/quote]

Thanks. Just order 12 books on CD. That should last me about 3 months.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
You and I disagree on subsidies. They are an attempt to motivate an industry in a direction. Should not be necessary but, most countries do that. Industry seems motivated by the bottom line; Government should be motivated on what is best of the people
Speaking specifically about the health of the steel industry, it has affected the health of this country. We have a valley that was called the steel valley, now it is poor. I think the aim of government is to serve the people, not cater to some Idea of some political theory. The steel industry could have survived the 80s and would be a prosperous asset to America. There is no Industry that is big enough to fill the shoes of steel.
You and I agree on thing the way they should be, and I give you credit, you do not want to fuck the poor while someone else holds them down. But this is reality; we are not a Libertarian society. We are some bastardization of a democratic, republic, fascist, communistic society

Just a couple of points. If companies are truly driven by the bottom line they must be effient in a free economy. If they are subsidized they become lazy and and can opperate without being inovative or making stategic investments. It is absolutly the same as welfare.

The health of the steel industry has not effected the health of the nation as a hole. Unemployment rates have hit all time lows since then. Stock markets have all time highs since then. If the steel industry cannot compete internationally, that is a sign the resourses (capital and labor) are better spent on an industry we have a better compartive advantage in.

The free market is the most efficeint economic stratagy possible. In a free market each of us casts a vote every single time we make, or do not make, a purchase. The market reacts instantaneously to billions of transactions a day. No planned economy or bearucatic entity can even come close to the efficiency of the free market. All they can do is cloud and distort market signals and reduce efficiency.
[/quote]

A good example of what I am talking about would be air quality standards. Those scrubbers are expensive to run they are expensive to purchase, but are mandatory if you want to make steel in America. You could use something like that to negotiate with the companies. It would be something the companies would have no interest in other than to comply with air quality standards.

It is also some thing that some foreign countries do not require, so you would be just leveling the playing field. If you were to put that section of the country back to work they could decrease income taxes because of the extra tax base that would be recreated and the abolition of what I would call a few welfare states

We have had some record setting economic booms being the dot comm. and the real estate boom. But just think what those booms would have been if we did not have this section of the country that is a stone around our neck

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It would be something the companies would have no interest in other than to comply with air quality standards.
[/quote]

Or to keep from being sued by his neighbors. A few million dollars is cheap compared to the cost of arbitration.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A good example of what I am talking about would be air quality standards. Those scrubbers are expensive to run they are expensive to purchase, but are mandatory if you want to make steel in America. You could use something like that to negotiate with the companies. It would be something the companies would have no interest in other than to comply with air quality standards.
[/quote]
No subsidies. Period. They have no right to take our money give it some industry that can’t compete on the world market. If they want to pull regulation or refine standards, fine. If american companies can sell me steel for the same price as foreign steel, I have the right to buy foreign steel.

[quote]
It is also some thing that some foreign countries do not require, so you would be just leveling the playing field. If you were to put that section of the country back to work they could decrease income taxes because of the extra tax base that would be recreated and the abolition of what I would call a few welfare states
[/quote] In a free market there will never be a shortage of work to do. Resourses will alway be deployed where they are the most efficient.

What exactly is the stone around your neck? How does forcing me to provide welfare for x industry solve get rid of the rock. All it does is put it around the tax payers neck.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
A good example of what I am talking about would be air quality standards. Those scrubbers are expensive to run they are expensive to purchase, but are mandatory if you want to make steel in America. You could use something like that to negotiate with the companies. It would be something the companies would have no interest in other than to comply with air quality standards.

No subsidies. Period. They have no right to take our money give it some industry that can’t compete on the world market. If they want to pull regulation or refine standards, fine. If american companies can sell me steel for the same price as foreign steel, I have the right to buy foreign steel.

It is also some thing that some foreign countries do not require, so you would be just leveling the playing field. If you were to put that section of the country back to work they could decrease income taxes because of the extra tax base that would be recreated and the abolition of what I would call a few welfare states
In a free market there will never be a shortage of work to do. Resourses will alway be deployed where they are the most efficient.

We have had some record setting economic booms being the dot comm. and the real estate boom. But just think what those booms would have been if we did not have this section of the country that is a stone around our neck

What exactly is the stone around your neck? How does forcing me to provide welfare for x industry solve get rid of the rock. All it does is put it around the tax payers neck.

[/quote]

You are acting as we live in a Libertarian society already, and you are putting the market before the people. You must remember we are subsidizing Farming in Minnesota and other locations, Tobacco, Pharmaceuticals and the likes. Why not subsidize something that would benefit the nation rather than a few of the wealthiest and a few stock holders
Where do you get that in a free market there will never be a shortage of work to do. That has to be one of biggest load of hooey any one has tried to pass for fact.
You act as though you really have a say in how your Grand Children�??s money is being spent, I hate to inform you our government is subsidizing things you and I would be pissed about.

I think this is a free market , is this what you have in mind?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Why not subsidize something that would benefit the nation rather than a few of the wealthiest and a few stock holders
[/quote]
It is a necessary consequence that in order to give one group privileges they must be taken from from someone else. Besides this how does government know it is making a proper “investment” that will actually benefit society? They got ethanol wrong! Why should we trust them with our money?

No it isn’t. Why should there be unemployment at all? Everyone has to eat. One can either take a job providing goods and services on the free market and get paid or one can go begging and digging in trash-cans – either way it is work.

The reason there is unemployment at all is because government makes laws telling business owners what they can pay people. An other reason is that there is no incentive for marginally skilled individuals to take some jobs when they can get paid more to just collect unemployment benefits.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Why not subsidize something that would benefit the nation rather than a few of the wealthiest and a few stock holders

It is a necessary consequence that in order to give one group privileges they must be taken from from someone else. Besides this how does government know it is making a proper “investment” that will actually benefit society? They got ethanol wrong! Why should we trust them with our money?

Where do you get that in a free market there will never be a shortage of work to do. That has to be one of biggest load of hooey any one has tried to pass for fact.

No it isn’t. Why should there be unemployment at all? Everyone has to eat. One can either take a job providing goods and services on the free market and get paid or one can go begging and digging in trash-cans – either way it is work.

The reason there is unemployment at all is because government makes laws telling business owners what they can pay people. An other reason is that there is no incentive for marginally skilled individuals to take some jobs when they can get paid more to just collect unemployment benefits.[/quote]

I agree the government got it wrong on changing corn to ethanol, but it is not a total waste. There are other ways to come up with alcohol for fuel.
As far as taking from the poor so the wealthy can remain rich, only an Idiot or a very wealthy person would want to live in those conditions.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree the government got it wrong on changing corn to ethanol, but it is not a total waste. There are other ways to come up with alcohol for fuel. [/quote]

No it isn’t but you must understand that there is always a cost involved in making any choice. Could that money have been directed at something else that may have been more efficient in the long run? Could the people who were forced to subsidize this program have used this money to a better end for themselves? What are the effects of these subsidies on the food industry? From an economic standpoint these are the considerations that must be made but from an ethical standpoint it is never right to steal from anyone to give to someone else.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I agree the government got it wrong on changing corn to ethanol, but it is not a total waste. There are other ways to come up with alcohol for fuel.
[/quote]
As far as gov’t action it was a total waste. They have mandated mass amounts of ethenol be mixed with gasoline. They are upping this amount dispite that fact that it has already done more harm than good. 30% of farm land is being converted to provide fuel all while banning the import of sugar based ethenol. This is subsidy for farmers thinly disguised as an energy policy.

Who wants to take money from the poor? I think what we are advocating is the right to keep the profit of your labor. What exactly is wrong with that?