Walter Williams: Economics for the citizen [all of the Ten-Part Series]

jewishworldreview.com | Walter Williams

[Tolik]

 

Economics for the citizen

 By Walter Williams

Ten-Part Series:

 

Part One    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0105/williams_econ1.php3

Part Two    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0105/williams_econ2.php3

Part Three    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0105/williams_econ3.php3

Part Four    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0105/williams_econ4.php3

Part Five    http://jewishworldreview.com/0105/williams_econ5.php3

Part Six    http://cweb.jewishworldreview.com/0205/williams_econ6.php3

Part Seven    http://jewishworldreview.com/0205/williams_econ7.php3

Part Eight    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0305/williams_econ8.php3

Part Nine    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0305/williams_econ9.php3

Part Ten    http://jewishworldreview.com/0605/williams_econ10.php3

 

---

[avg_freeper]

bump for later read

[Tolik]

Walter Williams explains Economics in simple terms!

    This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.

       Besides this one, I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Orson Scott Card, David Warren and Lee Harris (sometimes). You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[My2Cents]

Long read, but worth it. Thanks Tolik.

[Jason_b]

bump for later read

[kellynla]

BTTT

[Bigun]

Now THIS is what I would call a truly GREAT POST!

Thank you!

[Lil'freeper]

That Walter Williams sure is a handsome fella....

Thanks for the post - this is a great read.

[justaguy]

Bump for later

[Tolik]

My hat goes off to Dr. Williams. I think his writings and Dr. Sowell's must be a required reading in the high school.
 

[My2Cents]

That Walter Williams sure is a handsome fella....

Walter, is that you?

[Commander Salamander]

Outstanding post. And he is a handsome fella.

Wonder what unique gifts he will be getting his wife this year. LOL!

[Bigun]

I have had to good fortune to be distantly aquainted with Dr. Williams for some years now and have concluded that we could use a great many more just like him.

He and Dr. Sowell are fine Americans worthy of emulation.

[Lil'freeper]

Well it was kitchen utensils last year. I suspect it'll be lawn care equipment this year....

The woman *must* be a saint.

[Commander Salamander]

I like the year where he just repaired items instead of buying anything new. ROFLMAO

[Van Jenerette]

...reading files.

[Willie Green]

Last fall semester, I didn't teach for the first time in 37 years.

Well that's GOOD news!!!

If his lectures are anything like the special-interest driven pseudo-economics that he pimps in his media columns, then Walter's students would have a legal basis to sue for tuition reimbursement.

[Sirloin]

A great series of articles. Thanks for posting!

[WhiteGuy]

Thanks for your work.

Bump for Later

[chaosagent]

bookmark

[Bigun]

If his lectures are anything like the special-interest driven pseudo-economics that he pimps in his media columns, then Walter's students would have a legal basis to sue for tuition reimbursement.

How typical of a Willie Green post!

Dr. Walter Williams, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, doesn't know sh*t about economics but Willie Green does!

[KarlInOhio]

WillieGreen is just mad that for every Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman out there one hundred Keynesian economists lose their jobs.

[cowtowney]

Thanks

[Ignatz]

Bump

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dr. Walter Williams, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, doesn't know sh*t about economics but Willie Green does!

That's right. For instance over here, Willie says that we need to pay higher prices for sugar now (double or more), to protect ourselves from a possible price rise in the future. You can't get that kind of economic brilliance from a guy with a PhD.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Imagine that the Japanese government imposed trade restrictions on U.S. grain imports. Japanese farmers could charge monopoly prices and enjoy higher income, and Japanese consumers would pay higher prices. Would you deem it an intelligent response for the U.S. government to retaliate against Japan's trade restrictions by imposing trade restrictions on Japanese camera lenses, thus allowing American lens producers to charge monopoly prices and American consumers to suffer higher prices? Put another way, is it a smart response for the U.S. government to harm American consumers because Japan harmed its consumers?

So simple, yet beyond so many.

[Protagoras]

That Walter Williams sure is a handsome fella.... Thanks for the post - this is a great read.

Williams, is that you?

[Protagoras]

LOL, a classic Willy Wonka post.

Utterly goofy, but great for a laugh. You should do stand up!

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should do stand up!

As long as he wears his Choo-Choo Charley hat.

[Protagoras]

I don't have the inclination to tell our resident "Ned" (the guy on the Fedex commercial who's always wrong) what he should do, so I'll let Penn do it.

[inquest]

And like I said, you can blame the mad rush for FTA's for the reason why it's beyond so many. A lot of people take their cues from the politicians, and when politicians on both sides of the aisle are outwardly so united on a single point (namely, that unilateral lowering of tariffs is inherently bad economically), and no one dares to correct them, what do you expect the result to be among the citizenry at large?

[RJL]

Thanks for posting.

My 13 year old has some reading to do.

[biblewonk]

WW ping.

[Toddsterpatriot]

A lot of people take their cues from the politicians, and when politicians on both sides of the aisle are outwardly so united on a single point (namely, that unilateral lowering of tariffs is inherently bad economically), and no one dares to correct them, what do you expect the result to be among the citizenry at large?

I can't even get some on FR to agree that 12 cents a pound is a better price than 24 cents a pound. And you want politicians to educate these people.

Some are just hopeless. They need to be worked around.

[newgeezer]

JWR is on the must-excerpt list. ;)

[Rakkasan1]

[inquest]

I'll break it down for you. There are those who believe that lowering tariffs unilaterally is a bad idea, the thinking being that the good that comes from lower prices would not outweigh the bad that comes from lost jobs. Using that as a premise, there is no possible way whatsoever that you could argue that a bilateral agreement like CAFTA would make up for it, because the increase in U.S. exports would be minimal (as these countries have next to no purchasing power). So whatever jobs that come from an increase in exports would be very far outweighed by the jobs that are lost from the increase in imports.

Hence, you get no political leverage whatsoever - none, zip, nada - from making it bilateral as opposed to unilateral. The same anxieties get provoked in both instances. The only possible hope is convincing people that the reduction in prices that comes from lower tariffs would outweigh the damage that results from loss of jobs. Once you do that, then they'd be receptive to unilateral lowering of tariffs. So either way, there's no political advantage to bilateral vs unilateral.

[Bigun]

You can't get that kind of economic brilliance from a guy with a PhD.

Yeah! I know! Willie is just FULL of such economic brilliance as "corporations do not pass on taxes they pay to their customers".

[listenhillary]

Thanks - a most enjoyable read.

[1rudeboy]

bttt

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are those who believe that lowering tariffs unilaterally is a bad idea, the thinking being that the good that comes from lower prices would not outweigh the bad that comes from lost jobs.

Yes, we agree they are ignorant.

Using that as a premise, there is no possible way whatsoever that you could argue that a bilateral agreement like CAFTA would make up for it, because the increase in U.S. exports would be minimal (as these countries have next to no purchasing power).

What do you think they will do with the dollars we send them for the goods we buy?

Hence, you get no political leverage whatsoever - none, zip, nada - from making it bilateral as opposed to unilateral. The same anxieties get provoked in both instances.

Sure you do. You hear them say they are tired of these one-sided trade deals? So they think it is possible to get enough from the other side to make lowering our own prices worthwhile. They just don't think we've done it. Imagine the screaming if we did it unilaterally. They'd sound like the all eunuch choir (well more like that).

The only possible hope is convincing people that the reduction in prices that comes from lower tariffs would outweigh the damage that results from loss of jobs.

I think the majority understands this. Most recent Senate races with a free trader vs a protectionist were won by the free trader.

So either way, there's no political advantage to bilateral vs unilateral.

There is. It reduces, somewhat, the whining.

[listenhillary]

There's a good reason Walter Williams is a well paid economics teacher and columnist and you're a keyboard pounder.

The free market! Isn't it wonderful? ;)

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah! I know! Willie is just FULL of such economic brilliance as "corporations do not pass on taxes they pay to their customers".

Not to mention the importance of taxpayer funding of uneconomical choo-choo trains.

[krunkygirl]

must save -- didn't know about this thread -- thanks!

[RhoTheta]

Thanks for posting the whole thing. It was long, but worthwhile.

[inquest]

What do you think they will do with the dollars we send them for the goods we buy?

How long will it be before that money filters its way down to the masses in those countries? I'm not saying it won't happen at all, but how long? We've had NAFTA for 12 years now, and yet Mexicans are still flooding across the border in search of work just like they've always been, so obviously these things take time, especially when you're dealing with kleptocratic banana republics.

You hear them say they are tired of these one-sided trade deals? So they think it is possible to get enough from the other side to make lowering our own prices worthwhile.

When dealing with dirt-poor countries with little to no purchasing power (either now or in the near future), it'll still be almost completely as "one-sided" as a unilateral lowering of tariffs.

[Toddsterpatriot]

How long will it be before that money filters its way down to the masses in those countries? I'm not saying it won't happen at all, but how long?

Regardless, when those dollars are spent, we will benefit.

We've had NAFTA for 12 years now, and yet Mexicans are still flooding across the border in search of work just like they've always been, so obviously these things take time, especially when you're dealing with kleptocratic banana republics.

That's our fault for not building a wall and forcing Mexico to deal with their own poor, instead of foisting them on us.

[inquest]

Regardless, when those dollars are spent, we will benefit.

In the meantime...what? People are just supposed to be waiting around to be employed?

That's our fault for not building a wall and forcing Mexico to deal with their own poor, instead of foisting them on us.

You're talking dealing with the effects of the problem. I'm talking about the source. After over a decade of NAFTA, the fact that even now there are still all those people who desperately want to come here shows how slowly the wheels of economic progress turn in these countries, even under optimal trading conditions with us.

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the meantime...what? People are just supposed to be waiting around to be employed?

Huh? I'm saying that when these other countries get dollars for their goods that America will benefit when these dollars are spent. Who's waiting around to be employed?

You're talking dealing with the effects of the problem. I'm talking about the source. After over a decade of NAFTA, the fact that even now there are still all those people who desperately want to come here shows how slowly the wheels of economic progress turn in these countries, even under optimal trading conditions with us.

No argument here that Mexico is screwed up. Your think more trade might make things better? It should. You think less trade will make things worse? No doubt.

[GVnana]

Oh! What a treasure this is! Thanks for the post!