Ronald Reagan on Capitalism and Socialism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
There are areas, such as alternative energy, that hold great potential benefit to the country. In the 1970’s, such an industry was unable to exist without governmental subsidies. [/quote]

As someone who works tangentially in the (Alternative) Energy sector, I can say that that industry is unable to exist without governmental subsidies NOW.[/quote]

so almost 40 years and it still can’t exist without government subsidies? Sounds like it is going no where fast.[/quote]

What would your choice be? Wait until everybody runs out of oil then worry about alternative to oil? Or do you believe the oil will last forever?[/quote]

No, I believe the oil companies are smart enough that when the oil begins to run out they will use their vast resources to create an alternative energy, you know so they can stay in business.

Its been 40 years and we don’t have shit to show for it. We just keep throwing good money after bad. [/quote]
why would they care ? all they care is about profit

62

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]
I have been over this exact same topic with him before. He insists on discussing economic policy without ever reading a single book on economics or understanding very simple economic principals. I wouldn’t waste your time.[/quote]

Dick Wad welcome to the conversation, I assume I must be the (HIM :slight_smile:

63

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some one�¢??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.[/quote]

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]

You still refuse to answer my question. What good did Reagan do by decimating the Steel Industry? Answer that question and I will go down your road of reasoning.

64

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Either you are an idiot or you do not know the damage done by the likes of that type of rhetoric. That is like justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the economy�??�??�?�¢??s point of view, how is killing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs and hundreds of big American businesses and all of their tax revenue good for America?

Your logic boggles the mind?
[/quote]

Unions killed the market, Reagan fixed the strangle hold steel mills had on the market, and instead of the unions giving up some of there demands they just rode the steel industry into the ground. The high paying jobs you speak of where killing the rest of America.

If you want to be mad at anyone don’t be mad at Reagan but be mad at the unions that stalled/killed businesses. If there where no unions the steel industry would still be around.[/quote]
you are wrong , the Unions did not kill the Industry The Unions did not sign the bill[/quote]

He did not kill anything.

He removed the life support of a terminally ill patient.

[/quote]

You are wrong he forced American steel to compete with companies that that under pay their workers and had no environmental standards. American Steel spent allot of money protecting the environment. I was working then we had orders out the ass.[/quote]

So you think I should and everyone else should pay more money to live and take away jobs from foreign workers, that would love to take that job that would pay to put food on their table, because you want to make sure steel union workers keep their wages that have to be supported by the government when they could get another job?

So, protecting the environment is better than…helping other people out by not making it so hard to live? Ah, okay so as long as the air is clean and the water is clear we do not have to worry about taking a persons livelihood’s away. Gotcha.

I am sure you had orders out the ass because you were the only competition allowed, I’m sure everyone liked paying inflated prices more.

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
There are areas, such as alternative energy, that hold great potential benefit to the country. In the 1970’s, such an industry was unable to exist without governmental subsidies. [/quote]

As someone who works tangentially in the (Alternative) Energy sector, I can say that that industry is unable to exist without governmental subsidies NOW.[/quote]

so almost 40 years and it still can’t exist without government subsidies? Sounds like it is going no where fast.[/quote]

What would your choice be? Wait until everybody runs out of oil then worry about alternative to oil? Or do you believe the oil will last forever?[/quote]

No, I believe the oil companies are smart enough that when the oil begins to run out they will use their vast resources to create an alternative energy, you know so they can stay in business.

Its been 40 years and we don’t have shit to show for it. We just keep throwing good money after bad. [/quote]
why would they care ? all they care is about profit[/quote]

That is the same as saying “all they care is about creating wealth instead of destroying it”.

Hell yeah, when we go to work we want to be better off, not worse,.

66

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some one�?�¢??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.[/quote]

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]

You still refuse to answer my question. What good did Reagan do by decimating the Steel Industry? Answer that question and I will go down your road of reasoning.[/quote]

In American (and the world) jobs and companies are created through savings (loans, bonds, start up money, et cetera). So, with tariffs (higher price equals higher prices), subsidies (inefficient businesses using savings that could work at better places), and quotas (less supply raises prices) it props up a few select companies that are as well forced to pay higher wages because of unions (the more money they have to pay means that marginal return and marginal cost is met sooner, which means less workers).

Let’s start, when Reagan removed the tariffs for imports it allowed more supply, to rise which lowered prices, to come into the country allowing people to save more money (which if you remember savings = loans, bonds, start up money = more business = more jobs). When he removed the steel subsidies it lowered taxes, which allowed others to save more money (read: create more businesses and jobs). When Reagan removed the quotas it would allow more supply to meet demand, which would lower prices and allow businesses and consumers to save more money (read: create more businesses and jobs).

So when all three, tariffs subsidies and quotas, were removed it allowed businesses and consumers to save more money which when people save money it creates or allows more business and jobs to be formed. It has a terrible but necessary side effect though, it exposes the weaknesses of businesses and workers. So if a worker’s marginal return does not meet their marginal cost then they either have to take a pay cut (pay cut’s allow for more workers to receive a job) or become more efficient or (unfortunate but needed) fired and find a job that they their marginal return can cover their marginal cost. When a company cannot cover costs, lack of efficiency or it cost too much to meet market price, then it has to go bankrupt. If demand is not met when the company leaves the market than there will be room for someone to fill their spot, however if the market is over-saturated (costs are more than revenue) than no one will fill that spot and likely they will be cost cutting or other companies go bankrupt because they as well cannot cover costs.

67

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some one�?�¢??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.[/quote]

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]

You still refuse to answer my question. What good did Reagan do by decimating the Steel Industry? Answer that question and I will go down your road of reasoning.[/quote]

He “decimated” nothing.

He stopped to force people at gunpoint to buy an inferior product so they stopped.

He did not bomb those factories, if they had known how to compete they would have been fine.

If you had your way we would still produce subsidized horse buggies.

68

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Interesting little read[/quote]

It is an opinion article with no facts or logic to it. Yes, interesting but also wrong.

69

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some one�??�?�¢??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.[/quote]

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]

You still refuse to answer my question. What good did Reagan do by decimating the Steel Industry? Answer that question and I will go down your road of reasoning.[/quote]

In American (and the world) jobs and companies are created through savings (loans, bonds, start up money, et cetera). So, with tariffs (higher price equals higher prices), subsidies (inefficient businesses using savings that could work at better places), and quotas (less supply raises prices) it props up a few select companies that are as well forced to pay higher wages because of unions (the more money they have to pay means that marginal return and marginal cost is met sooner, which means less workers).

Let’s start, when Reagan removed the tariffs for imports it allowed more supply, to rise which lowered prices, to come into the country allowing people to save more money (which if you remember savings = loans, bonds, start up money = more business = more jobs). When he removed the steel subsidies it lowered taxes, which allowed others to save more money (read: create more businesses and jobs). When Reagan removed the quotas it would allow more supply to meet demand, which would lower prices and allow businesses and consumers to save more money (read: create more businesses and jobs).

So when all three, tariffs subsidies and quotas, were removed it allowed businesses and consumers to save more money which when people save money it creates or allows more business and jobs to be formed. It has a terrible but necessary side effect though, it exposes the weaknesses of businesses and workers. So if a worker’s marginal return does not meet their marginal cost then they either have to take a pay cut (pay cut’s allow for more workers to receive a job) or become more efficient or (unfortunate but needed) fired and find a job that they their marginal return can cover their marginal cost. When a company cannot cover costs, lack of efficiency or it cost too much to meet market price, then it has to go bankrupt. If demand is not met when the company leaves the market than there will be room for someone to fill their spot, however if the market is over-saturated (costs are more than revenue) than no one will fill that spot and likely they will be cost cutting or other companies go bankrupt because they as well cannot cover costs.

[/quote]

I understand your Theory, Where did this benefit happen, what state? What factories? What Industry? How much money was saved? How much tax revenue was generated by all this start increase of production products? Where did this big plus happen to counter the big negative effects of Ronald Reagan?

If you are a casual observer like myself Americaâ??s production of goods has gone down in flames, you may attribute it to Reagan and the misguided theories of some academic scholars with an agenda

So please give me an answer that is not some oneâ??s opinion , give me facts please.

70

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some one�??�?�¢??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.[/quote]

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]

You still refuse to answer my question. What good did Reagan do by decimating the Steel Industry? Answer that question and I will go down your road of reasoning.[/quote]

He “decimated” nothing.

He stopped to force people at gunpoint to buy an inferior product so they stopped.

He did not bomb those factories, if they had known how to compete they would have been fine.

If you had your way we would still produce subsidized horse buggies.

[/quote]

What inferior product?

The difference between steel and buggies is obvious to most of us.

Go to Youngstown Ohio and tell me there was no bomb dropped.

And you still have not answered my question. To have conversation you ask questions I answer them, and then I ask you questions and you answer them .All I can figure is you do not have an answer or you would quit acting like an educated fool, your economic theories are not difficult to understand

71

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your comment about expensive steel, no one was subsidizing the Steel industry, America was probably paying no more for steel than could be bought on the open market. Reagan was a staunch anti union advocate and had no problem throwing the baby out with the bath water, Hence my opinion. I do not think it would take much imagination to call Ronald Reagan an accidental TRAITOR.

For you to make the statement that the Steel industry was living on some one�??�??�?�¢??s back requires proof. And an intelligent President would weigh the cost of destroying a (LARGE < HEALTHY) industry to the small benefit of a few people.

Your comment about a job or hobby is idiocy

Where is all that cheap steel that was created by killing a viable Steel industry, Now that we do not make our own steel , we pay what ever the market demands , As far as supply and demand what happens when you do away with the dominant supply ? The Demand goes up along with price.[/quote]

If they produced steel as cheaply as anyone else, why did they need tariffs and quotas and whatnot and why did they collapse once they are removed?

Obviously they were not producing at competitive prices or else they would not have needed BIG Government from all the mean meanies who dared to sell better quality at lower prices.

Therefore, all Americans were forced to pay more for steel than they really had too, they were forced to subsidize the steel industry.

Since many off the jobs in the steel industry would not have had a job had it not been for the tariffs and whatnot, they were only having a job because other people were forced at gunpoint to buy an inferior product.

You are right that that is even worse than a hobby, because no stamp collector ever sent a government agent to make me pay for his rather unproductive endeavours.

Unfortunately, and this is were I lose you because you refuse to let go of stronrg emotions and replace them with detached clarity that comes with economic education, it is inevitable that a government intervention of this nature does more harm than good because it drags us away from the Pareto optimum.

Everytime a government intervenes it takes us one step further away from the best of all possible worlds and that is not my opinion but flows directly from the concept of economic utility.

You see, people like me do not necessarily want to “hurt the little guy”, in fact we want to stop people like you to really hurt him in the name of helping him and then blame the “free market” for your mistakes and heap even more regulations on the economy, hurting him even further.

Who do you think will suffer most when SS breaks down?

The proverbial little guy who has put his trust in politicians who promised him the sky is going to be thoroughly fucked.

[/quote]

You still refuse to answer my question. What good did Reagan do by decimating the Steel Industry? Answer that question and I will go down your road of reasoning.[/quote]

In American (and the world) jobs and companies are created through savings (loans, bonds, start up money, et cetera). So, with tariffs (higher price equals higher prices), subsidies (inefficient businesses using savings that could work at better places), and quotas (less supply raises prices) it props up a few select companies that are as well forced to pay higher wages because of unions (the more money they have to pay means that marginal return and marginal cost is met sooner, which means less workers).

Let’s start, when Reagan removed the tariffs for imports it allowed more supply, to rise which lowered prices, to come into the country allowing people to save more money (which if you remember savings = loans, bonds, start up money = more business = more jobs). When he removed the steel subsidies it lowered taxes, which allowed others to save more money (read: create more businesses and jobs). When Reagan removed the quotas it would allow more supply to meet demand, which would lower prices and allow businesses and consumers to save more money (read: create more businesses and jobs).

So when all three, tariffs subsidies and quotas, were removed it allowed businesses and consumers to save more money which when people save money it creates or allows more business and jobs to be formed. It has a terrible but necessary side effect though, it exposes the weaknesses of businesses and workers. So if a worker’s marginal return does not meet their marginal cost then they either have to take a pay cut (pay cut’s allow for more workers to receive a job) or become more efficient or (unfortunate but needed) fired and find a job that they their marginal return can cover their marginal cost. When a company cannot cover costs, lack of efficiency or it cost too much to meet market price, then it has to go bankrupt. If demand is not met when the company leaves the market than there will be room for someone to fill their spot, however if the market is over-saturated (costs are more than revenue) than no one will fill that spot and likely they will be cost cutting or other companies go bankrupt because they as well cannot cover costs.

[/quote]

I understand your Theory, Where did this benefit happen, what state? What factories? What Industry? How much money was saved? How much tax revenue was generated by all this start increase of production products? Where did this big plus happen to counter the big negative effects of Ronald Reagan?

If you are a casual observer like myself Americaâ??s production of goods has gone down in flames, you may attribute it to Reagan and the misguided theories of some academic scholars with an agenda

So please give me an answer that is not some oneâ??s opinion , give me facts please.
[/quote]

Opinion =/= logic.

I referred you to what is seen and what is not seen.

The reason why you do not get it is because you do not read it.

All 5-10 pages or so.

Right now you make an excellent case against democracy.

72

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

What inferior product?

The difference between steel and buggies is obvious to most of us.

Go to Youngstown Ohio and tell me there was no bomb dropped.

And you still have not answered my question. To have conversation you ask questions I answer them, and then I ask you questions and you answer them .All I can figure is you do not have an answer or you would quit acting like an educated fool, your economic theories are not difficult to understand
[/quote]

Well obviously their steel was inferior in some way shape or form because consumers wanted something else. Otherwise they would have continued to buy it.

Then, if they are so easy to understand, why do you fail to grasp them?

The mere idea that horse buggies are somehow fundamentally different from steel is a good indicator that you do not get them, because in these cases they are really not.

Also, I gave you my answer, letting me repeat it will not change it.

73

“During the year, the Dallas FED estimated the financial obligations of the US government at 99 trillion dollars. The head of the TARP program estimated the bailout cost at 24 trillion dollars. Totaled together the US has in the neighborhood of 120 trillion dollars of current and future obligations on an annual revenue of around 2 trillion dollars which is falling due to high unemployment, higher state and local taxes and fees and lower wages.”

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16189.html#comment87929

I think if RR had been a true conservative, he would have seen this coming – you can’t keep spending more than you earn, year after year, and not expect a disaster.

74

Pittbull, you are confusing the cause of the decline in U.S. steel with the federal government’s reaction to that cause.

The cause was an evolving international steel industry that began producing comparable steel for a much cheaper price than U.S. steel.

From your posts, I think that your opinion is that protectionist policies should have been put in place to prevent international steel from competing fairly with U.S. steel. But as others have already discussed, protectionist policies are foolish because they increase prices and decrease consumption for everybody else.

So for that, the federal government (“Reagan”) made the correct decision. But that doesn’t mean that the federal government’s (“Reagan’s”) reaction to this new globalized steel industry was perfect.

Instead of protectionist policies, the federal government (“Reagan”) should have loosened labor and environmental regulations to give U.S. steel an opportunity to compete with international steel. Obviously they did not, and U.S. steel was severely damaged for it.

Globalization of industry, whether steel or oil or auto manufacturing or robotics or q-tips, is a phenomenon that a government CANNOT prevent or undo. Once international steel became competitive with U.S. steel, the status quo of the U.S. steel industry (high profits, high wages, lots of work, etc.) was permanently destroyed and nothing and no-one could ever bring it back without harming many other industries.

The federal government failed not by refusing to pursue protectionism, but by refusing to allow U.S. steel to compete on the same terms as international steel. But even if they had done so, steel-workers would have found themselves in a harder, more competitive, and less lucrative industry than before.

75

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I asked you what good happened to America because Reagan crushed a industry that was profitable , sustained hundreds of thousands of people well above poverty level that are now unemployed , tapping our social programs . How did it do America any good to lose billions of dollars in tax revenue? Please educate me. [/quote]

The money that was spent on expensive steel was saved and used to build something else.

Obviously it was spent on something people wanted more, or else they would have spent it on steel.

More people got what they wanted that way, which is better.

[/quote]
Which people got what?

76

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

What inferior product?

The difference between steel and buggies is obvious to most of us.

Go to Youngstown Ohio and tell me there was no bomb dropped.

And you still have not answered my question. To have conversation you ask questions I answer them, and then I ask you questions and you answer them .All I can figure is you do not have an answer or you would quit acting like an educated fool, your economic theories are not difficult to understand
[/quote]

Well obviously their steel was inferior in some way shape or form because consumers wanted something else. Otherwise they would have continued to buy it.

Then, if they are so easy to understand, why do you fail to grasp them?

The mere idea that horse buggies are somehow fundamentally different from steel is a good indicator that you do not get them, because in these cases they are really not.

Also, I gave you my answer, letting me repeat it will not change it.
[/quote]

I understand YOUR THERORY just fine, I would be surprised that YOUR THERORY is all they teach in Economics; I would say the THERORY you keep hammering is only a sliver of the total picture

I have to think you are mentally challenged, how you derive that America made inferior steel is uninformed and inaccurate

77

By supporting artificially high commodity prices, you are also crippling industries that use those commodities. US based firms that use steel to produce parts or finished goods will not be able to compete as effectively (especially internationally) with foreign firms producing the same parts or finished goods with the less expensive steel. Jobs lost or never created.

This is why central planning does not work. For every action taken by gov’t to “fix” the economy or a particular industry, there are uncalculated losses. Economies should be driven by consumer action. All of us vote with our dollars. Resourses are automagically allocated to where they will be used most efficiently. Wages are set based on what consumers are willing to pay, not based on some arbitrary number selected by the unions and supported with tarrifs that effectively tax the consumer.

78

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

Instead of protectionist policies, the federal government (“Reagan”) should have loosened labor and environmental regulations to give U.S. steel an opportunity to compete with international steel. Obviously they did not, and U.S. steel was severely damaged for it.
[/quote]
This is key. In a perfect world, what seems like a disadvantage (legislated or natural) would sort it self out as a result of comparative advantage and exchange rates. Unfortunately, legislated disadvantage is not universal and they keep fucking with our currancy. Because they arbitrarily pick winners and losers and are intent on making a mess of our currancy, the legislated disadvantage becomes a moving target and maket forces are not able to make heads nor tails of it.

79

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Pittbull, you are confusing the cause of the decline in U.S. steel with the federal government’s reaction to that cause.

The cause was an evolving international steel industry that began producing comparable steel for a much cheaper price than U.S. steel.

From your posts, I think that your opinion is that protectionist policies should have been put in place to prevent international steel from competing fairly with U.S. steel. But as others have already discussed, protectionist policies are foolish because they increase prices and decrease consumption for everybody else.

So for that, the federal government (“Reagan”) made the correct decision. But that doesn’t mean that the federal government’s (“Reagan’s”) reaction to this new globalized steel industry was perfect.

Instead of protectionist policies, the federal government (“Reagan”) should have loosened labor and environmental regulations to give U.S. steel an opportunity to compete with international steel. Obviously they did not, and U.S. steel was severely damaged for it.

Globalization of industry, whether steel or oil or auto manufacturing or robotics or q-tips, is a phenomenon that a government CANNOT prevent or undo. Once international steel became competitive with U.S. steel, the status quo of the U.S. steel industry (high profits, high wages, lots of work, etc.) was permanently destroyed and nothing and no-one could ever bring it back without harming many other industries.

The federal government failed not by refusing to pursue protectionism, but by refusing to allow U.S. steel to compete on the same terms as international steel. But even if they had done so, steel-workers would have found themselves in a harder, more competitive, and less lucrative industry than before.[/quote]

The Steel from third world companies has always been cheaper than Steel produced in civilization; I have tried to find what steel from Viet Nam cost compared to U.S. steel in the early eighties.

I do not see my posts as protection from steel producers that comply with air pollution standards and producers that pay a wage that is livable. I heard even in the nineties Viet Nam was paying labor pennies an hour. I call that unfair completion

Reaganâ??s job was not to meet some hypothetical standard; his job was to look out for Americaâ??s best interest. Reagan did not do that by casting many large and small Cities and States in to a recession that has lasted now over a quarter of a century

I do understand Your THERORY and I do consider it part of the way an economy, works
Your theory is half of a healthy economy, that half is the half that is good for the consumer where customers can buy cheap goods. But America needs to bolster the half that allows the consumer to consume. For that half we need good paying jobs. And you can not do that by exporting all of our money to buy merchandise. You need to keep the money in America to pay the workers to produce. That is the other half

I agree the Unions needed to be curtailed, but as I said Reagan threw the baby out with the bath water. He did a huge disservice to America creating vast areas with generations of young men that have no hope of finding a job that could support a family

I do not care what you say about they could go to school, move out of the area. But America has a limited number of jobs and if one of them gets a job some else loses a job.

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Pittbull, you are confusing the cause of the decline in U.S. steel with the federal government’s reaction to that cause.

The cause was an evolving international steel industry that began producing comparable steel for a much cheaper price than U.S. steel.

From your posts, I think that your opinion is that protectionist policies should have been put in place to prevent international steel from competing fairly with U.S. steel. But as others have already discussed, protectionist policies are foolish because they increase prices and decrease consumption for everybody else.

So for that, the federal government (“Reagan”) made the correct decision. But that doesn’t mean that the federal government’s (“Reagan’s”) reaction to this new globalized steel industry was perfect.

Instead of protectionist policies, the federal government (“Reagan”) should have loosened labor and environmental regulations to give U.S. steel an opportunity to compete with international steel. Obviously they did not, and U.S. steel was severely damaged for it.

Globalization of industry, whether steel or oil or auto manufacturing or robotics or q-tips, is a phenomenon that a government CANNOT prevent or undo. Once international steel became competitive with U.S. steel, the status quo of the U.S. steel industry (high profits, high wages, lots of work, etc.) was permanently destroyed and nothing and no-one could ever bring it back without harming many other industries.

The federal government failed not by refusing to pursue protectionism, but by refusing to allow U.S. steel to compete on the same terms as international steel. But even if they had done so, steel-workers would have found themselves in a harder, more competitive, and less lucrative industry than before.[/quote]

The Steel from third world companies has always been cheaper than Steel produced in civilization; I have tried to find what steel from Viet Nam cost compared to U.S. steel in the early eighties.

I do not see my posts as protection from steel producers that comply with air pollution standards and producers that pay a wage that is livable. I heard even in the nineties Viet Nam was paying labor pennies an hour. I call that unfair completion

[/quote]

They call that a living wage and are apparently totally unwilling to starve at a wage rate that you would consider to be “fair”.

It almost seems like that “minimum wage” thing does not work in Vietnam either, noone would hire them for a wage that is considered to be “fair” by you so they take what they can get, and working in a steel mill seems to be preferable to all existing alternatives.

Low wages is their advantage and they milk it for what its worth.