NotEliTanenbaum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 33
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Do you agree that free trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and that in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment?
I strongly disagree with that. The only reason for free trade is to outsource to a country where you can pay workers a drastically cheaper wage. 80 hour work weeks, 23-37 cents an hour, lack of worker protection laws and lack of environmental laws is why companies outsource to China.Free trade just means businesses can pocket more money at the expense of workers. This does not in any shape or form improve the product or choices. It just means it is another corner to cut and that companies without any restrictive tariffs in place can undermine actual American companies and goods.Which causes those local companies to drastically cut corners on their products in order to compete with outsourced companies,this is why some American products are crap now.All the big screen TVs at wal-mart don't mean dick if your decent paying job is outsourced and as a result you have to take a lower paying job.
washingtonpost.com: Chinese Workers Pay for Wal-Mart's Low Prices
Li said these factories often require employees to work as many as 80 hours per week during the busy season for $75 to $110 per month, violating Chinese labor laws.
Why would I apply that to states and counties? That doesn't make any sense.Were talking about free trade with other countries.You use ONE example of the most repressive countries on the planet, that I agree should have moderate tarrifs applied to its goods. But think that "protectionist" argument through a little bit more. Try using a county, state or even a region within the country and apply that same "logic". The problem is that all raw materials and skilled workers (the means of production) are not evenly distributed, just as not all land is suitable for farming, and even that which is, may not be suitable for certain crops. If place A is well suited for cotton farming, but not for lumber milling, and place B is good for lumber milling yet not for cotton farming, it is best if they simply trade with each other and not try to wall out "competition" and each try to do both things for themselves.
It is a good thing to trade instead of trying to do all things well only for yourself. Specialization increases efficiency and reduces costs; you don't grow your own food, make your own clothing or build your own home, yet you want and need all these things, so you provide a different product/service and trade that for those other things.
If I understand jamesrage's argument correctly it's the same as mine and it would easily stand up to your other state/region assessment because, in this country at least, the environmental, industrial, and labor laws are all the same across the nation. A factory in Alabama has to pay the same minimum wage, work with the same overtime rules, meet the same worker safety standard, and meet the same environmental goals as the same kind of factory would in Washington State. The factory in China has none of these requirements, or if they do they regularly break those rules and the Chinese government looks the other way.You use ONE example of the most repressive countries on the planet, that I agree should have moderate tarrifs applied to its goods. But think that "protectionist" argument through a little bit more. Try using a county, state or even a region within the country and apply that same "logic". The problem is that all raw materials and skilled workers (the means of production) are not evenly distributed, just as not all land is suitable for farming, and even that which is, may not be suitable for certain crops. If place A is well suited for cotton farming, but not for lumber milling, and place B is good for lumber milling yet not for cotton farming, it is best if they simply trade with each other and not try to wall out "competition" and each try to do both things for themselves.
It is a good thing to trade instead of trying to do all things well only for yourself. Specialization increases efficiency and reduces costs; you don't grow your own food, make your own clothing or build your own home, yet you want and need all these things, so you provide a different product/service and trade that for those other things.
Why would I apply that to states and counties? That doesn't make any sense.Were talking about free trade with other countries.
Do you agree that free trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and that in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment?
The U.S. was started as independent states, united under a free trade and common protection agreement.
It's been absolutely horrible for us, to trade freely between the different states, right?
I don't like the idea of unlimited free trade that allows international corps to dump cheap products on the US made elsewhere, sucking all the wealth and jobs out of this country. There has to be a compromise that protects and balances the economic equation besides capitalism unchecked. I've long held that fair trade is a combination of rules, regulations and tariffs that gives other nations that want our business reasonable guidelines to follow besides anything goes.
Yes, free trade doesn't mean absolutely unbridled trade policy. Obviously there should still be regulations and standards involved. But on the whole, I'm against economic protectionism.
Except that the states have pretty comparable human rights protections with each other.
Nations can vary wildly in that regard. Which is why I want to put human rights tariffs on products imported from nations that abuse human rights.
Errr, the South had slavery, north had little to no worker protections.
I think you need to reread these things.
Why would I apply that to states and counties? That doesn't make any sense.Were talking about free trade with other countries.
Do you agree that free trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and that in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment?
Free Trade offers Consumer more choices, I will agree with that part, but with a hidden cost.
Does it produce more efficiency, maybe.
Does it kill US employment, yes.
Free Trade has brought in thousands of Junk Imports, many of those products are laced with Lead and others have killed our Pets, made people sick, etc.
Due to Cheap Import Products, many US companies have moved manufacturing to cheap labor Countries.
Call me crazy, but if 80% of the foreign imports were no longer available, I would not be sad, yes I would be willing to pay more for American Made, but also most of my fellow Americans would have a job too
Conservative?I strongly disagree with that. The only reason for free trade is to outsource to a country where you can pay workers a drastically cheaper wage. 80 hour work weeks, 23-37 cents an hour, lack of worker protection laws and lack of environmental laws is why companies outsource to China.Free trade just means businesses can pocket more money at the expense of workers. This does not in any shape or form improve the product or choices. It just means it is another corner to cut and that companies without any restrictive tariffs in place can undermine actual American companies and goods.Which causes those local companies to drastically cut corners on their products in order to compete with outsourced companies,this is why some American products are crap now.All the big screen TVs at wal-mart don't mean dick if your decent paying job is outsourced and as a result you have to take a lower paying job.
washingtonpost.com: Chinese Workers Pay for Wal-Mart's Low Prices
Li said these factories often require employees to work as many as 80 hours per week during the busy season for $75 to $110 per month, violating Chinese labor laws.
The U.S. was started as independent states, united under a free trade and common protection agreement.It's been absolutely horrible for us, to trade freely between the different states, right?
You do not seem to see what the effect of tarriffs are, so I thought perhaps if you thought about it on a smaller scale that you would then see the effect. If nation A has 70% of the shoe export market, and nation B has 70% of the wheat export market, does sit make any sense to ignore that and insist on nation A trying to produce its own wheat, and nation B trying to establish its own shoe industry?
It saves both nations a lot of time, money and trouble to simply trade with each other. I guess you think that the USA can be totally self contained, just like you are, since you grow (or hunt for) all of your own food, make all of your own clothing, furniture and appliances (and are thus likely way too busy to make anything to sell). Nations, just as people, cities, counties and states would be foolish to try to do everything for themselves and ignore trading with others, selling what they can make a surplus of and then buying what they lack.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?