Posted on 10/04/2007 7:07:18 AM PDT by SJackson
Please, feel free to share. Provide some of his "predictions and theories" which have proved to be wrong.
(Oh, and "worship"? Puh-LEEZE.)
(Sorry for the double-post.)
Not to worry brownsfan, P'burgh will beat Cleveland and Detroit to the bottom (bankrupt, must ask the state if it can spend a dime on anything because they can't be trusted to handle tax $, population 1/3 what it was in 1960, no corporate headquarters left and 20+ yrs. ago it was the corporate home of the greatest number, no $ to tear down the abandoned homes that could not be sold, etc.) It isn't really headed to the "dumper," it's going to vanish to what it was when the first settlers headed west down the Ohio River.
The definition of free trade and what currently exists in America under the banner of free trade are not the same thing.
Here's what Duncan Hunter has to say on the subject -
"Keeping American Industry and Jobs in the U.S. “American workers are the most productive and innovative labor force in the world. Unfortunately, they are asked to compete in an unfair environment against other workers who make only a fraction of a living wage and are employed by companies that face few, if any, responsibilities to the environment or the long-term prospects of their employees. Our domestic manufacturers are forced to compete against foreign companies that benefit from their country’s currency and regulatory regimes. Ominously, China is cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to build ships, planes and missiles at an alarming rate while, at the same time, taking millions of American jobs. I will reverse this “one-way street” with a new policy of fair trade for the American worker."
What about America’s free trade experiment since WWII?
Never thought of that. It is certainly a valid concept. Thanks.
I guess I have loved this country and what it once was for so many years it is difficult for me to let go of that.
And yet we still manufacture far more than any other nation and enjoy 4.6% unemployment and a $13.5 trillion economy. Obviously, we're doomed.
The market IS taking care of the bad products. When they are discovered, the market (us) reject them, they get sent back. Now the market (us) are looking to buy more expensive but safer goods made in other places.
Of course, if the market (us) would rather save money than have safe products, then we will continue to buy unsafe products cheaply.
The market is great — each of us gets to vote for whatever we want.
Too often, regulation interferes with that, like forcing me to pay extra for “safety” features that are meaningless to me, someone who isn’t stupid.
Like stickers on my lawn mower telling me not to trim hedges with it. :-) Those stickers cost money.
I can’t imagine how much more productive our money would be if so much of it wasn’t spent marginally improving the safety of products so we can marginally decrease the random injuries that happen in life.
“I’m asking you which economists you think are better than Friedman who believe more government control of our economy would be better. I know Clinton has socialist economists, I didn’t think many Freepers would agree with them.”
No you’re not, you’re changing the subject as so many try. I said there is always an economist with an alternative theory. You came back with:
“You have an economist who thinks greater government control of our economy would be a good thing?”
Yep, there are many of them advising Democrats. And if you want a name: Karl Marx.
“Not to worry brownsfan, P’burgh will beat Cleveland and Detroit to the bottom ...”
That’s really sad. I had no idea things were that bad in Pittsburgh.
I clearly have a problem with free trade with unequal partners. I also have a problem with those who find nothing special in being an American when it comes to neighbors needing a job, but find much glory in their sons going off to war.
The conservative way is right, minus the bogus globalists. The thing Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cleveland have in common is they are Democrat strongholds. Democrats ruin what they touch. I just hope Hillary! only gets one term.
Great. I'll continue to believe Friedman over Marx.
So we should be just like them and restrict the freedom of our citizens by forcing them to accept fewer choices at higher prices. Don't you think American citizens would prefer to keep more of their money in their own pockets so they can buy other goods their family might need, or to save for retirement, or for their child's education? Do you think they'd rather pay higher taxes (tariffs are taxes) and have less freedom of choice? Nope, they want higher prices and fewer choices. For their children!
Would your proof of this be the 125 million Americans who shop at Wal-Mart every week?
The result can be nothing other than what it’s been: great benefits for those who own the factors of production and diminishing benefits for those who provide labor and lower skilled work.
Ahh, the argument of the class warrior. If you could prove that real incomes have been falling for Americans since free(r) trade was embraced after WWII, you'd do it. If you could show us a high unemployment rate, or declining employment, you'd do it. If you could show us a country with a declining manufacturing output, you would. Can you also show us a declining GDP, falling household wealth and negative per-capita GDP growth?
This is called efficiency, but one person’s efficiency is another person’s diminishing standard of living.
Economics is a zero sum game? When one person gains another person loses? You're spouting nothing more than what one would hear from a liberal economics professor at any liberal university. I think you're the one slavishly adhering to what you heard in college or read in a book by Krugman.
There are sensible ways to manage trade, but this bogus free trade that rewards some while penalizing others in the US will eventually have the result anyone should have predicted.
You don't like a system with winners and losers? Perhaps you have a problem with capitalism? What is your sensible method for managing trade? Are you a bigger government conservative? Do you think that smaller government is good except when it comes to trade? Do you believe that somehow, when it comes to trade, all of a sudden government becomes reliable, responsible and capable, and can choose fairly which industries should be protected, how much protection they should receive and for how long they should receive it? Do you really think that the industry truly deserving of protection will receive it or, do you think it will go only to organizations that are politically connected? Restricting competition makes companies better? Are you saying that career government bureaucrats know what's better for individuals than the individual?
If the government knows what's best for the individual with regards to trade, why wouldn't they know what's best for us in other areas? Where does your do gooding end?
I think I agree with you.
In the short-run, while each country is a net winner from free trade, owners of productive resources that are not easily transferable from the shrinking sectors will lose as a country moves from autarky to free trade.
In the long-run, when all resources are easily transferable, everyone is a winner.
There are still some anti-globalists out there who actually say we should form small self-sufficient communes. But, nowadays, we can suspect that these are people suffering from a combination of a genetic predisposition to mental ilnness combined with too much whacky tobacky.
Most of those who “oppose” globalism oppose the pace of change of globalism, and would like us to slow down the pace of change or perhaps even take a pause. They enjoy the high standard of living that globalism has thusfar achieved, but are or feel threatened by continuing change.
After WWII, the US, Europe, and Japan were not at the same economic level. Japan and Europe were still recovering from the effects of a devastating war.
“Please, feel free to share. Provide some of his “predictions and theories” which have proved to be wrong.”
One of the great theories of Friedman’s career involved monetary policy and what factors affected the money supply. It’s been years since I read about this, and I don’t have time to research it today. I will for a later post. But many believe that theory was proven invalid.
But anyone who thinks any economist has satisfactorily proven all his theories and predictions is living in a dream world. They don’t call it the “dismal science” for no reason, and there is always someone on the other side of any theory, with different beliefs.
Yep, and I’d definitely say that Friedman has some worshipers. Not sure how many.
Be sure to read about the protectionist Congress he had to appease.
First I must ask, does EXACTLY have a meaning other than exactly?
If lower consumer prices are achieved at the cost of national security and the jobs of Americans, they aren’t worth any short term saving that might be realized.
And, why do you think that free trade was devised to lower consumer prices when it fact it sole purpose is to increase corporate profits without regard for its impact on democracy?
"slip in and out" ??? The comparison was directly related to your argument. Would it be better if I used only one comparison for all arguments? Would that upset you less?
Also, I didn't "lecture" you on anything. I explained a concept that you seemed to misunderstand. It was for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread, as well as you.
You are entrenched. I’ll take it to the bottom line. Borrowing from NVDave:
***
What Joe Lunchbucket knows about “free trade” is this:
Like other terms, "free trade" can be incorrectly defined and consequently misunderstood. The term "patriotism" gets similar treatment from Democrats.
1. He has to worry about his job like he never did before.
Horse crap. People have always had to worry about their jobs.
Do you think layoffs were invented when NAFTA was passed?
2. His wages haven’t increased the way they did in the past.
Again, horse crap. Do you think life was an endless string of healthy raises prior to 2000, or 1990, or [insert date here]?
3. He has illegal aliens coming into the country to take his job, and management trying to figure out how to take the whole job out of the country.
Illegals is a whole separate issue. You don't have to love illegal aliens in the US to love free trade.
Job outsourcing is just another competitive pressure in a labor market that has plenty of them already.
This cry is exactly the same as it was for those who's jobs are now done with machines. There were many impassioned, emotional appeals to stop mechanization of labor. But all the machines have made us wealthier, even though they "took away" some people's jobs. Despite all those jobs "taken away", the country is at full employment and then some.
4. And now, he has to worry about “what is in my food, toothpaste, dog food, etc?” and wonder if it is going to kill him.
This is another separate, but admittedly related, issue.
For the record, many of the flawed Chinese products were flawed because of bad American design! The Chinese manufactured exactly what they were told to.
That's not true in all cases, but sometimes it was our fault, not theirs.
We do need to hold imported products to the same standards, I agree.
Joe Lunchbucket votes. I live near lots of Joe Lunchbuckets. The free traders are pushing us to a tipping point. That tipping point is that the Joes are going to elect Hillary! as president. Now most Joes I know aren’t too keen on socialism, but they are even less thrilled about the problems they see on a daily basis now. We are running headlong to becomming a socialist state.
Lots of ignorant, self-centered college students vote too. Shall we throw out all reason and fact to pursue those voters? You seem to be advocating that very strategy to pursue "Joe Lunchbucket", regardless of his ignorance of basic economic facts.
I prefer to try and teach people about economics rather than pander to their ignorant phobias and superstitions. That strategy is a Democrat one.
I hope the free trade crowd has enough global investments to make it all worthwhile.
As a matter of fact, I do. And they're performing quite well right now. So are my American investments.
And you know what? Anyone else can invest in them as well.
Isn't capitalism great? :-)
Those who don't invest in stocks can invest in themselves and learn a more valuable skill or trade. Education makes you more valuable, regardless of outsourcing.
I know. You said " Free trade among areas that are not at the same level of economic development ends in exploitation and conflict"
So did we exploit them or did they exploit us? Or were you wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.