Ronald Reagan on Capitalism and Socialism

[pittbulll]

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0209d.asp

In early 1984, when the U.S. steel industry launched another deluge of unfair trade cases against imports, prices for cold-rolled sheet steel in the United States were nearly 40 percent higher than prices in other markets . Reagan announced on September 18, 1984, that he had decided that �??�??�??�?�¢??import relief is not in the national economic interest�??�??�??�?�¢?? and that �??�??�??�?�¢??we must do all we can to avoid protectionism, to keep our market open to free and fair competition, and to provide certainty of access for our trading partners.�??�??�??�?�¢??

…

Steel trade restrictions bushwhacked American industry. International Trade Commission chairman Paula Stern noted,

�??�??�??�?�¢??Inflated U.S. steel prices were an important factor in the erosion of U.S. manufacturing preeminence and employment from the 1960s to the mid 1980s.�??�??�??�?�¢??

The Institute for International Economics estimated that steel quotas cost U.S. consumers $6.8 billion a year. Steel shortages had had even more devastating impacts on American manufacturers than higher steel prices.

Even General Motors was hurt by quotas: GM Vice President James D. Johnston complained to the White House that steel shortages �??�??�??�?�¢??have jeopardized vehicle assembly at the company.�??�??�??�?�¢??

Steel quotas destroyed far more jobs than they saved. Caterpillar led the fight against the extension of steel quotas in 1989 with buttons proclaiming, �??�??�??�?�¢??Steel VRAs Steal Jobs.�??�??�??�?�¢?? Hans Mueller, professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University, estimated that the quotas resulted in 13 jobs lost in steel-using industries for each steel-worker�??�??�??�?�¢??s job saved.

The Institute for International Economics estimated that quotas were costing the equivalent of $750,000 a year for each steel job �??�??�??�?�¢??saved.�??�??�??�?�¢?? A 1984 Federal Trade Commission study estimated that steel quotas cost the U.S. economy $25 for each additional dollar of profit of American steel producers. [/quote]

Orion, I take back every bad thing I thought about you, Out of curiosity, after Reagan killed the steel industry, did Caterpillar drop any of its prices? Caterpillar has to be the best example I am serious I concede Caterpillar, I am sure got a raw deal

I can tell you one thing the lack of the steel industry costs America way more than $6.8 billion. Add all the welfare, all the taxes those people and their companies would have paid in taxes. You do the math. I bet it cost Youngstown Ohio more than that.

That $25 dollars cost for every dollar profit, had to be quite substantial, where is that money now. Steel profits were more than 140 million dollars for one quarter at U.S.steel that is one company, 25 time 140 million is what 3.5 billion savings for one quarter for one company. Where did all that money go…? I would be curios how they tabulated their numbers. I would bet there is a healthy dose of propaganda in that statement

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/01/business/us-steel-profit-140-million-in-quarter.html[/quote]

Where that money is now?

Who knows?

Not in expensive steel, thats for sure.

Since it must have gone somwhere people obviously got something they wanted more.

Getting thing you want more = better.

edit:

Let me rephrase that.

They bought food for their CHILDREN.

They bought clothes for their CHILDREN.

Before that they could buy less for their CHILDREN because GREEDY, SELFISH steel workers that only cared for PROFIT were syphoning off their hard earned cash.

[/quote]

And I am sure none of the steel workers have the facilities to hold other jobs that get them off welfare and back into the tax rolls. They must have been born to work only in the steel industry?[/quote]

Mr. Dick Wad, I thought you would never speak to me again But I will comment all the same America has a limited amount of jobs, if one of them gets a job some one that has a job loses it. It changes all the time new companies start up old ones fail

[pittbulll]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0209d.asp

In early 1984, when the U.S. steel industry launched another deluge of unfair trade cases against imports, prices for cold-rolled sheet steel in the United States were nearly 40 percent higher than prices in other markets . Reagan announced on September 18, 1984, that he had decided that �??�??�?�¢??import relief is not in the national economic interest�??�??�?�¢?? and that �??�??�?�¢??we must do all we can to avoid protectionism, to keep our market open to free and fair competition, and to provide certainty of access for our trading partners.�??�??�?�¢??

…

Steel trade restrictions bushwhacked American industry. International Trade Commission chairman Paula Stern noted,

�??�??�?�¢??Inflated U.S. steel prices were an important factor in the erosion of U.S. manufacturing preeminence and employment from the 1960s to the mid 1980s.�??�??�?�¢??

The Institute for International Economics estimated that steel quotas cost U.S. consumers $6.8 billion a year. Steel shortages had had even more devastating impacts on American manufacturers than higher steel prices.

Even General Motors was hurt by quotas: GM Vice President James D. Johnston complained to the White House that steel shortages �??�??�?�¢??have jeopardized vehicle assembly at the company.�??�??�?�¢??

Steel quotas destroyed far more jobs than they saved. Caterpillar led the fight against the extension of steel quotas in 1989 with buttons proclaiming, �??�??�?�¢??Steel VRAs Steal Jobs.�??�??�?�¢?? Hans Mueller, professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University, estimated that the quotas resulted in 13 jobs lost in steel-using industries for each steel-worker�??�??�?�¢??s job saved.

The Institute for International Economics estimated that quotas were costing the equivalent of $750,000 a year for each steel job �??�??�?�¢??saved.�??�??�?�¢?? A 1984 Federal Trade Commission study estimated that steel quotas cost the U.S. economy $25 for each additional dollar of profit of American steel producers. [/quote]

Orion, I take back every bad thing I thought about you, Out of curiosity, after Reagan killed the steel industry, did Caterpillar drop any of its prices? Caterpillar has to be the best example I am serious I concede Caterpillar, I am sure got a raw deal

I can tell you one thing the lack of the steel industry costs America way more than $6.8 billion. Add all the welfare, all the taxes those people and their companies would have paid in taxes. You do the math. I bet it cost Youngstown Ohio more than that.

That $25 dollars cost for every dollar profit, had to be quite substantial, where is that money now. Steel profits were more than 140 million dollars for one quarter at U.S.steel that is one company, 25 time 140 million is what 3.5 billion savings for one quarter for one company. Where did all that money go…? I would be curios how they tabulated their numbers. I would bet there is a healthy dose of propaganda in that statement

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/01/business/us-steel-profit-140-million-in-quarter.html[/quote]

Where that money is now?

Who knows?

Not in expensive steel, thats for sure.

Since it must have gone somwhere people obviously got something they wanted more.

Getting thing you want more = better.

edit:

Let me rephrase that.

They bought food for their CHILDREN.

They bought clothes for their CHILDREN.

Before that they could buy less for their CHILDREN because GREEDY, SELFISH steel workers that only cared for PROFIT were syphoning off their hard earned cash.

[/quote]

You kind did not get my point, I think there were a few companies that were negatively affected, but the cost was so unsubstantial that Americans did not get any boost out of the savings. I think Caterpillar was one of those companies, but I still contend that Reagan did America a HUGE disservice by creating vast fields of unemployment, crushing local and state governments, all for something that no one could tell.

I will research Cat. And tell you my findings

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

And I am sure none of the steel workers have the facilities to hold other jobs that get them off welfare and back into the tax rolls. They must have been born to work only in the steel industry?[/quote]

Mr. Dick Wad, I thought you would never speak to me again But I will comment all the same America has a limited amount of jobs, if one of them gets a job some one that has a job loses it. It changes all the time new companies start up old ones fail[/quote]

And there we have the next fallacy.

America does not have a limited amount of jobs, because human desires know no limit.

They have a limited amount of jobs for people with union wages, which is why we are against them.

Because, if something gets more expensive, people buy less and that includes human labor.

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

You kind did not get my point, I think there were a few companies that were negatively affected, but the cost was so unsubstantial that Americans did not get any boost out of the savings. I think Caterpillar was one of those companies, but I still contend that Reagan did America a HUGE disservice by creating vast fields of unemployment, crushing local and state governments, all for something that no one could tell.

I will research Cat. And tell you my findings
[/quote]

This cannot be.

When government interferes with the market it always has a higher dispersed cost than the concentrated benefits.

Once again, Pareto optimum.

[pittbulll]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

And I am sure none of the steel workers have the facilities to hold other jobs that get them off welfare and back into the tax rolls. They must have been born to work only in the steel industry?[/quote]

Mr. Dick Wad, I thought you would never speak to me again But I will comment all the same America has a limited amount of jobs, if one of them gets a job some one that has a job loses it. It changes all the time new companies start up old ones fail[/quote]

And there we have the next fallacy.

America does not have a limited amount of jobs, because human desires know no limit.

They have a limited amount of jobs for people with union wages, which is why we are against them.

Because, if something gets more expensive, people buy less and that includes human labor.

[/quote]
Well send me 50 jobs:)

[Bill_Roberts]

I know there was Johnny Wadd in porn of course, but was there also a Dick Wad?

[Bill_Roberts]

[quote]orion wrote:
America does not have a limited amount of jobs, because human desires know no limit.

They have a limited amount of jobs for people with union wages, which is why we are against them.

Because, if something gets more expensive, people buy less and that includes human labor.[/quote]

Oh no no no. In pittbullnomics, if only everyone were unionized, then everyone in America would make about $100K/year or nearly so, and despite most producing rather little thanks to the union being opposed to reductions in man-hours worked for amount produced, and one might think that the extra cost to companies could drive up retail price, somehow all these people would be able to buy all the goods for this $100K as is the case presently.

There would be far more goods and services for everybody, despite less goods and services being produced, thanks to how great unions are.

How DARE an employer hire an American citizen to work a job at a mutually agreed rate of pay and benefits, rather than sign the union contract or be put out of business! There is little more righteous than union thugs fighting to stop this with violence, or government using force to protect the union’s “right” to prevent such an evil thing from happening.

[SteelyD]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
America does not have a limited amount of jobs, because human desires know no limit.

They have a limited amount of jobs for people with union wages, which is why we are against them.

Because, if something gets more expensive, people buy less and that includes human labor.[/quote]

Oh no no no. In pittbullnomics, if only everyone were unionized, then everyone in America would make about $100K/year or nearly so, and despite most producing rather little thanks to the union being opposed to reductions in man-hours worked for amount produced, somehow all these people would be able to buy all the goods for this $100K than is the case presently.

There would be far more goods and services for everybody, despite less goods and services being produced, thanks to how great unions are.

How DARE an employer hire an American citizen to work a job at a mutually agreed rate of pay and benefits, rather than sign the union contract or be put out of business! There is little more righteous than union thugs fighting to stop this with violence, or government using force to protect the union’s “right” to prevent such an evil thing from happening.[/quote]

LMAO!! I worked for a gov’t agency for 5 years where wages were negotiated via union ‘collective bargaining’. That means you can’t negotiate wages/benefits on an individual basis and you move up a scale to a certain point.

Then, the union got greedy and imposed a ‘fair share’ penalty for people who didn’t belong to the union. They steal money directly from your paycheck to cover for the ‘union contract negotiation’. They had to do that because of declining union enrollments. So, they garnish wages to pay for the employees’ “fair share” of the negotiations-- which ends up being millions of dollars – to negotiate minor changes in benefits and such year to year (things don’t really change all that much in govt except every new administration).

Needless to say, because I refused to give the bastards one penny, I ended up going back into the private sector at double my salary and the same level of benefits with about 15% less out of pocket. I left on the exact date of my ‘full vestment’ of retirement.

The union doesn’t do shit for anyone except itself.
Unions: Opiate of the mental midget.

[tom63]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
America does not have a limited amount of jobs, because human desires know no limit.

They have a limited amount of jobs for people with union wages, which is why we are against them.

Because, if something gets more expensive, people buy less and that includes human labor.[/quote]

Oh no no no. In pittbullnomics, if only everyone were unionized, then everyone in America would make about $100K/year or nearly so, and despite most producing rather little thanks to the union being opposed to reductions in man-hours worked for amount produced, somehow all these people would be able to buy all the goods for this $100K than is the case presently.

There would be far more goods and services for everybody, despite less goods and services being produced, thanks to how great unions are.

How DARE an employer hire an American citizen to work a job at a mutually agreed rate of pay and benefits, rather than sign the union contract or be put out of business! There is little more righteous than union thugs fighting to stop this with violence, or government using force to protect the union’s “right” to prevent such an evil thing from happening.[/quote]

LMAO!! I worked for a gov’t agency for 5 years where wages were negotiated via union ‘collective bargaining’. That means you can’t negotiate wages/benefits on an individual basis and you move up a scale to a certain point.

Then, the union got greedy and imposed a ‘fair share’ penalty for people who didn’t belong to the union. They steal money directly from your paycheck to cover for the ‘union contract negotiation’. They had to do that because of declining union enrollments. So, they garnish wages to pay for the employees’ “fair share” of the negotiations-- which ends up being millions of dollars – to negotiate minor changes in benefits and such year to year (things don’t really change all that much in govt except every new administration).

Needless to say, because I refused to give the bastards one penny, I ended up going back into the private sector at double my salary and the same level of benefits with about 15% less out of pocket. I left on the exact date of my ‘full vestment’ of retirement.

The union doesn’t do shit for anyone except itself.
Unions: Opiate of the mental midget.
[/quote]

Exactly, if you have any kind of work ethic or skill, the Union will do more for the Union than you.

[pittbulll]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
America does not have a limited amount of jobs, because human desires know no limit.

They have a limited amount of jobs for people with union wages, which is why we are against them.

Because, if something gets more expensive, people buy less and that includes human labor.[/quote]

Oh no no no. In pittbullnomics, if only everyone were unionized, then everyone in America would make about $100K/year or nearly so, and despite most producing rather little thanks to the union being opposed to reductions in man-hours worked for amount produced, and one might think that the extra cost to companies could drive up retail price, somehow all these people would be able to buy all the goods for this $100K as is the case presently.

There would be far more goods and services for everybody, despite less goods and services being produced, thanks to how great unions are.

How DARE an employer hire an American citizen to work a job at a mutually agreed rate of pay and benefits, rather than sign the union contract or be put out of business! There is little more righteous than union thugs fighting to stop this with violence, or government using force to protect the union’s “right” to prevent such an evil thing from happening.[/quote]

Hey, I like that Pittbullnomics. The problem with letting the free market dictate is they bring the bottom in from Mexico to start below not only minimum, but below a sensible living standard, and try to convince you that even if they paid a fair wage they could get no one to work the fields. Then we have to pay for their social benefits like medicade and food stamps where is the good sense there?

[molnes]

Reagan was a war criminal, and he was the most protectionist president in post WW2 US history. Why some people still think of him like a god is mystery to me. The only answers I can find are ignorance and/or stupidity.

[John_S1]

[quote]molnes wrote:
Reagan was a war criminal, and he was the most protectionist president in post WW2 US history. Why some people still think of him like a god is mystery to me. The only answers I can find are ignorance and/or stupidity.[/quote]

Have you even read this thread, pittbull is complaining that Reagan wasn’t a protectionist.

[John_S1]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Hey, I like that Pittbullnomics. The problem with letting the free market dictate is they bring the bottom in from Mexico to start below not only minimum, but below a sensible living standard, and try to convince you that even if they paid a fair wage they could get no one to work the fields. Then we have to pay for their social benefits like medicade and food stamps where is the good sense there?[/quote]

You don’t understand free market so how can you talk about problems with it.

In a free market social benefits wouldn’t exist because you wouldn’t need them. The problem with having government or unions or what ever fascist/communist/socialist groups that take control of the market is they only care about making just enough happy to be re-elected. Take a look at Detroit to see the affects of Pittbullnomics.

You also forget about the most powerful force in free market, You. If a company is bringing in people from mexico instead of paying American workers good paying jobs you don’t buy from them.

[pittbulll]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I know there was Johnny Wadd in porn of course, but was there also a Dick Wad?[/quote]

[pittbulll]

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Hey, I like that Pittbullnomics. The problem with letting the free market dictate is they bring the bottom in from Mexico to start below not only minimum, but below a sensible living standard, and try to convince you that even if they paid a fair wage they could get no one to work the fields. Then we have to pay for their social benefits like medicade and food stamps where is the good sense there?[/quote]

You don’t understand free market so how can you talk about problems with it.

In a free market social benefits wouldn’t exist because you wouldn’t need them. The problem with having government or unions or what ever fascist/communist/socialist groups that take control of the market is they only care about making just enough happy to be re-elected. Take a look at Detroit to see the affects of Pittbullnomics.

You also forget about the most powerful force in free market, You. If a company is bringing in people from mexico instead of paying American workers good paying jobs you don’t buy from them. [/quote]

I understand the theory of free market; I think it is you that thinks there is in reality such a thing. Probably Somalia would be the closest we get to a free market, the only ones there that mess with free enterprise is the war lords.But I think a free market would have to figure a way to deal with thieves, why has it not happened?

You are funny you make comments and never return to answer the rebuttals

Believe it or not that is the very type of area I came from. I know you want to believe the you tube Steel D posted. Detroit took a big hit in the Reagan Admin., and has never recovered. I will agree with you to this point the Unions are doing those areas no favor now.

Your comment about not buying from companies that make their product in Mexico is silly. First off you would only know a small portion of the products made in Mexico. Second I am only one consumer. You free marketers want to act like the market would take care of all our woes, do not hold your breath, the market would fix it only if it were profitable

[John_S1]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I understand the theory of free market; I think it is you that thinks there is in reality such a thing. Probably Somalia would be the closest we get to a free market, the only ones there that mess with free enterprise is the war lords.But I think a free market would have to figure a way to deal with thieves, why has it not happened?

You are funny you make comments and never return to answer the rebuttals

Believe it or not that is the very type of area I came from. I know you want to believe the you tube Steel D posted. Detroit took a big hit in the Reagan Admin., and has never recovered. I will agree with you to this point the Unions are doing those areas no favor now.

Your comment about not buying from companies that make their product in Mexico is silly. First off you would only know a small portion of the products made in Mexico. Second I am only one consumer. You free marketers want to act like the market would take care of all our woes, do not hold your breath, the market would fix it only if it were profitable
[/quote]

Unions killed the steel industry, not Reagan. Reagan allowed the rest of the US to buy cheaper and better quality of goods and America prospered. I understand you have to play the victim role but saying Reagan is what caused Detroit to crash is a joke. Detroit was the flag ship of the Great Society and it failed miserably.

The free market has always worked, in fact it has given you the computer you use to bash it. We the consumers control the market in free market, if you want alternative energy you and people who think like you buy from companies that our investing in it.

The free market is not a theory, it is a fact that has always worked.

[pittbulll]

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I understand the theory of free market; I think it is you that thinks there is in reality such a thing. Probably Somalia would be the closest we get to a free market, the only ones there that mess with free enterprise is the war lords.But I think a free market would have to figure a way to deal with thieves, why has it not happened?

You are funny you make comments and never return to answer the rebuttals

Believe it or not that is the very type of area I came from. I know you want to believe the you tube Steel D posted. Detroit took a big hit in the Reagan Admin., and has never recovered. I will agree with you to this point the Unions are doing those areas no favor now.

Your comment about not buying from companies that make their product in Mexico is silly. First off you would only know a small portion of the products made in Mexico. Second I am only one consumer. You free marketers want to act like the market would take care of all our woes, do not hold your breath, the market would fix it only if it were profitable
[/quote]

Unions killed the steel industry, not Reagan. Reagan allowed the rest of the US to buy cheaper and better quality of goods and America prospered. I understand you have to play the victim role but saying Reagan is what caused Detroit to crash is a joke. Detroit was the flag ship of the Great Society and it failed miserably.

The free market has always worked, in fact it has given you the computer you use to bash it. We the consumers control the market in free market, if you want alternative energy you and people who think like you buy from companies that our investing in it.

The free market is not a theory, it is a fact that has always worked.
[/quote]

I understand your argument is so weak that you must make personal inferences, I still have done no research on the profits of Caterpillar, or to see if they sold more than when the steel market was American.Your statement that Americans got some kind of boost by creating vast fields of unemployment is to be seen. Regan is still a dick and in my opinion a traitor

Well if you as a consumer have so much power I would like to pay $.20 a gal for gas, make it happen please, and quick, thanks in advance

I think any market that has the ability to run free will do great, but life is more complicated than that . Not everything can run free. The market is driven by profit, it has no concern if it fucks up the environment or if every body gets what they need, all they care about is profit

[pittbulll]

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I understand the theory of free market; I think it is you that thinks there is in reality such a thing. Probably Somalia would be the closest we get to a free market, the only ones there that mess with free enterprise is the war lords.But I think a free market would have to figure a way to deal with thieves, why has it not happened?

You are funny you make comments and never return to answer the rebuttals

Believe it or not that is the very type of area I came from. I know you want to believe the you tube Steel D posted. Detroit took a big hit in the Reagan Admin., and has never recovered. I will agree with you to this point the Unions are doing those areas no favor now.

Your comment about not buying from companies that make their product in Mexico is silly. First off you would only know a small portion of the products made in Mexico. Second I am only one consumer. You free marketers want to act like the market would take care of all our woes, do not hold your breath, the market would fix it only if it were profitable
[/quote]

Unions killed the steel industry, not Reagan. Reagan allowed the rest of the US to buy cheaper and better quality of goods and America prospered. I understand you have to play the victim role but saying Reagan is what caused Detroit to crash is a joke. Detroit was the flag ship of the Great Society and it failed miserably.

The free market has always worked, in fact it has given you the computer you use to bash it. We the consumers control the market in free market, if you want alternative energy you and people who think like you buy from companies that our investing in it.

The free market is not a theory, it is a fact that has always worked.
[/quote]

Give me one example of a place or even a market that has no restrictions on itâ??s market

[JEATON]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Give me one example of a place or even a market that has no restrictions on itâ??s market
[/quote]

Galt’s Gulch.

Oh, in you mean the real world.

[raybbaby]

Reagan sucked. Did you not live through it?