Posted on 10/07/2003 10:53:06 AM PDT by Willie Green
I'm sure he was acting under direct orders from the president, Franklin Pierce, a Democrat.
I must tell you that my original post regarding Willie Green looks terrible: it may be easily interpreted that I am launching a personal attack on someone's views that differ from mine. Given that, your criticism could've been much more harsh than the rather mild words you have used. Thank you.
I definitely do not attack hem for his views -- he can have them; this is America. And I do not try to curtail discussion on this board. This is not what we are dealing with here: track his past or present posts and you will not find a single positive comment about capitalism as such or conservatives. His posts are limited only to those that are designed to ignite our passions --- on the level of "them fat cat b---d CEOs are firing again." When dragged out into a discussion (which is not often), he reveals verbatim the socialist doctrine. Incidentally, I cannot take credit for the name "unionist plant" for Willie Green: it belongs to another gentleman on FR. He was equally astonished by the purity of socialist view point to which Green subscribes.
Taken together --- and you can see over time whether I am correct --- we are dealing here with a missionary that came to FR to educate us and protect us from our "conservative" errors. His posts reverberate with some because of the post-bubble psychology and concerns over the economy. But he is taking FR for a ride: he is not a conservative, and shows no interest in any other issue. I am merely attracting attention of other posters such as you. (Incidentally, just yesterday I received a reply saying, "I am glad other people are catching up with what Green is doing")
You made another point, which is also well taken that people are frustrated and concerned about the economy, and we should be patient with them. Your following observation is often justified as well: Instead of discussing policy honestly and refernceing facts and mathematics to butress their arguments all that seems to come forth from those arguing for the current unfair trade rules is invective and assertions that are unsupported.
In return, I will offer two points. Firstly, it is difficult to replace basic knowledge of economics and/or management when someone exhibits the lack thereof. Oftentimes I hear a blanket accusation of management of doing this or that -- and an imputation of evil motives as well --- and reply, "Your anger would be justifiable except that is not what happens." To the follow-up question as to what happens, I might reply briefly that, well, owners hire management, management is labor, and its compensation is determined by the market, etc. I would suggest, politely, to read up more on the subject. The reply is immediate: I am personally on the take (the last one was that I must be getting money from the Chinese); that I don't care about my fellow Americans (that's routine and mild); that I have blood of slave labor on my hands…. One thing you cannot ask your fellow Americans any more is to read…
No, I do not find the basic immorality justifiable by any concern over the economic situation. The ease with which people defame --- "fat CEOs," the "rich," and anyone that slows them down from expressing anger --- is an abomination. This is, after all is one of Commandments (incidentally, when I point that out it causes only more anger toward me but does not slow them down; nobody ever said, "Oh, I guess my words were too strong."). When it comes from the Left that wants to dismantle the institutions of this society, I am not surprised. But seeing disrespect of our basic values in self-proclaimed conservatives is an abomination.
Being a conservative means being anti-something: anti-immigration, anti-job-outsourcing, what have you… But you cannot ask these people to adhere to basic values and stop defaming someone and bringing false accusations. That is why they turn on you when you do that. Forgive me, but (i) it is hard to bring mathematical proofs in this climate. (ii) the proofs that one brings they do not want to process.
The foregoing clearly does not apply to you, which is why I replied to you at length. Thank you again for your post.
Dispense with your idle threats, friend. Or proceed with them. Your choice. I couldn't give a darn whether you think that people who disagree with you are liars, or Marxists, or both.
One standard honest mathematics and verifiable source preferably with peer review.
The one you reserve for yourself, or the one you apply to others?
Please show one example of where I have used a double standard or cease and desist.
What other unreasonable restrictions will you place-upon it so that it may be dismissed?
I place no unreasonable standards except that it show something clearly.
Will it be subject to your "impossible to isolate" standard, or not? Can't I simply say that I posted it somewhere else, as you do?
The impossible to isolate standard was not mine it was the study's statement. The range of of included benefit to harm was clearly withinteh study and it does not draw any clear conclusion. If you think the USITC study butresses the agrument for removing American tariffs or not imposing additional American tariffs please qoute from the study with what you think makes that case. I quoted several parts above which included teh range of net effects it found positive to negative.
Dispense with your idle threats, friend. Or proceed with them. Your choice. I couldn't give a darn whether you think that people who disagree with you are liars, or Marxists, or both.
Since you clearly do not mind being called a Marxist I shall call you a lying Marxist. It is not because of disagreement it is because you mistated my reference to the USITC study.
Clearly I am of the opinion that mathematical proofs are teh best evidnece. Just as clearly I have offered some proffs and am examining antother study at present that is very inconclusive the USITC study on the 2001 steel tariffs. Now I have asked every advocate of the current trade system to provide some evidence either of its net beneficial effect on the US economy (multiple regression analysis of both sides of the question). Or even one case of a tariff being harmful to the economy of the USA. It seems my research is closer to yielding the latter than any advocate of the current trade regimine.
Now to me it is clear we need tariffs as part of an overall plan which I have posted in many places. these tariffs IMHO should be limited to retaliatory tariffs and tariffs for specific defense industries. Yes we need a whole lot of othe rspecific steps too. But since this discussion is being limited to tariffs lets stay on pint. I advocate a much higher tariff on goods being imported from the People's Republic of China because of their currency manipulations, their high tariffs on normal goods, their technology transfer demands as a cost of doing business there and the hostility towards the USA expressed by Chinese leaders within the past three years.
I advocate higher tariffs for India becuase of their very high tariffs on American exports to their nation,and Currency manipulations. There may also be technology transfer problems with India but I have not documented that yet.
Such tariff impositions are not a cure all. I have a thriteemn pint plan posted in many places that addresses most of teh issues with the economy as a start. it includes fixes for Corporate Income tax etc.
Now clearly there are cases where corporate manageent does not act in a fiduciary manner with regards to the Shareholders. There are many reasons for this and this may account for some of the hostility you are seeing but I wish to stay on target with tariffs.
Anyway, there's a limit to how much service-sector work can be sent overseas - much of it, perhaps most of it, is not susceptible to be sent overseas because it requires an actual physical presence to do the work. Your dentist is in very little danger of losing his job to an Indian dentist - there's no incentive to fly you out to Bombay every time you need your teeth cleaned. ;)
to provide some evidence either of its net beneficial effect on the US economy (multiple regression analysis of both sides of the question). What's so magical about regression analyisis. Has it been used in, bridge-building, say? It's notoriously bad but often the best available.
I disagree with your argument, however: when someone advocates a change --- such as an imposition of tarifss, for instance --- the burden of proof is on the proponent.
Further, whatever arguments one makes, for or against tariffs, one has to argue for the net of at least three effects associated with the three roles played by all employed in this economy; namely, we act as consumers, employees, and investors. The arguments made by protectionsists are that tariffs save jobs. You do not need a regression to know that they also make goods more expensive; hence the argument is for all Americans to subsidize jobs in a particular sector. You do not need a regression to know also, from industrial organization, that proectionism makes companies inefficient and removes incentives for innovation. These are the things we know. They, as well as more detailed issues have to be addressed by the protectionist. They never do: it's all about jobs.
I advocate a much higher tariff on goods being imported from the People's Republic of China because of their currency manipulations,
There you go again: ALL governments manipulate their currencies. If one wants to argue the case for tariffs --- fine, but let's at least hear those arguments. As of right now I have not heard of a single one that reflects basic economics, sorry. Or even knowlege that we, the U.S., routinely buy and sell dollars in the open market, and every single gov't does that also. It is your prerogative what to think about that, but your measures and support for them should at least reflect awareness of the facts. Now clearly there are cases where corporate manageent does not act in a fiduciary manner with regards to the Shareholders... and this may account for some of the hostility you are seeing.
Oh, I do not need an explanation for that: it's the immorality of that hostility that I addressed in the previous post. And the confusion between the two undescores my point.
The are cases were people kill people; that does not give one right to claim that all are murderers. Not only it is immoral but when taken too far becomes even illegal. It's a well known fact. But this value is no longer practices by "conservatives" here. And this is a much greater damage thant the job loss, by the way.
The are cases, much more nunerous, were workers steal and pad accounts, "'cause it's companies money anyway." No viciousness and even expression of disaproval to them. It's the CEOs only. And they are bashed by those that do not even know what "fiduciary" means.
Why? 'Cause they are talented people that made sacrifices, worked hard and succeeded, as reflected in their pay. The corporation-bashing going on right now is prepetrated by mostly ignorant people that maintian socialist views.
I do not need an explanation for envy. I am just waiting for people to be appaled by it and at least acknowledge that it is wrong.
Prima facia case the net result of over 200 years of protective tariffs was the best US economy. There are several analysis where the tariffs have been shown to benefit the USA see link in 133. The purpose of convening teh Constitutional convention was in part to create a sound tariff policy.
. Further, whatever arguments one makes, for or against tariffs, one has to argue for the net of at least three effects associated with the three roles played by all employed in this economy; namely, we act as consumers, employees, and investors. The arguments made by protectionsists are that tariffs save jobs.
They actually provide an incentive for capital investment in teh USA which thereby saves creates jobs. The former incentive for capital investment is what is significant.
You do not need a regression to know that they also make goods more expensive; hence the argument is for all Americans to subsidize jobs in a particular sector.
Actually the protective tariff does not seem to have a significant impact on the overall cost of items in the long run as teh incentive for capital investment leads to more domestic competition making the overall cost effect on domestic substitutes for foreign imports negative. thus the lower prices are freflected in the domestic production of replacements for imports so while in the very short term ther is a tax cost that is quickly returned with interest to teh consumers in the form of lower overall prices. There is no subsidy involved whatsoever. It is the funding of government via a copnsumption tax on imports and your calling it a subsidy is a mistatement of the argument that makes me question your knowledge of economics. remeber we are trying to be precise a subsidy is a direct delivery of something of value from teh government. To call a tariff a subsidy is simply wrong. words have meaning a rational debate includes using words properly. A tariff is a tax levied on an imported good. No one is forced to pay a tariff.
You do not need a regression to know also, from industrial organization, that proectionism makes companies inefficient and removes incentives for innovation.
This assertion is not backed by evidence. In fact since the greatest era of invention in the USA was during a time of protective tariffs your assertion is counter to teh historical record.
These are the things we know.
How do you know them? Did God personally reveal them to you? This is why we need evidence mathematical or factual.
They, as well as more detailed issues have to be addressed by the protectionist. They never do: it's all about jobs.
It is not just about jobs it is about investment technology transfer and transfer of wealth by government action. The transfer of wealth is accomplished by the high tariffs of states like China and India versis our low tariffs courtesy of Bill Clinton.
Some people are most concerned about jobs and perhaps that is the traction issue but it is about far more than that.
I advocate a much higher tariff on goods being imported from the People's Republic of China because of their currency manipulations,
There you go again: ALL governments manipulate their currencies.M.
Not all governments maintain an artificial peg that kjeeps their currency undervalued.
If one wants to argue the case for tariffs --- fine, but let's at least hear those arguments. As of right now I have not heard of a single one that reflects basic economics, sorry. Or even knowlege that we, the U.S., routinely buy and sell dollars in the open market, and every single gov't does that also. It is your prerogative what to think about that, but your measures and support for them should at least reflect awareness of the facts.
My measures and support do reflect the facts. I note teh US treasury secretary and GWB have both made note of the artificial currency manipulations of China. tariffs are the soverign constitutional response to such manipulations. The simple fact taht nations do this sort of thing makes it neither right nor wrong it is a standard response to deal with such manipulation by one's own manipulations (currency controls) or tariffs. due to teh reserve nature of the dollar the tariff is the only feasible response for the USA.
I further note you did not address teh Chinese tariffs on normal goods nor the Indian tariffs.
I gave you a study showing benefits in one case from a tariff. Itis your turn to at least provide some evidence that the current Clintonista trade rules should not be done away with.
Now clearly there are cases where corporate manageent does not act in a fiduciary manner with regards to the Shareholders... and this may account for some of the hostility you are seeing.
Oh, I do not need an explanation for that: it's the immorality of that hostility that I addressed in the previous post. And the confusion between the two undescores my point. My problem is with the anti-Americanism I see from those who think it is their right to import goods into teh USA wqithout paying for that privledge. My problem is with the immorality of apologists for the PRC who espouse teh current WTO rules with their special considerations for developing nations that are in effect a wealth transfer program sold to the American people as Free Trade. My problem is with supposed conservatives supporting this program because they think they are wiser than everyone in espousing Free Trade when they have never read either Adam Smith or David Riccardo. I am a believer in Adam Smith's definition of Free Trade wiith teh exceptions he noted for tariffs. The high Chinese and Indian tariffs aloner would be justification for American tariffs on imports from these natiosn under theri definitions of Free Trade. The problem I have is with absolutists who ignore the harm being done to the USA.
The are cases were people kill people; that does not give one right to claim that all are murderers. Not only it is immoral but when taken too far becomes even illegal. It's a well known fact. But this value is no longer practices by "conservatives" here. And this is a much greater damage thant the job loss, by the way. Actually by stating this value is no longer practiced by conservartives here you are engaging in the same tactic as the one's you criticise. When I said lets deal with evidence I expected to get some evidence back in response to links referenced in thsi article what I ahve gotten so far is a whole lot of unsubstantiated assetions that contradict teh historical record.
The are cases, much more nunerous, were workers steal and pad accounts, "'cause it's companies money anyway." No viciousness and even expression of disaproval to them. It's the CEOs only. And they are bashed by those that do not even know what "fiduciary" means.
I have been on Free Republic 5 year plus now and I have bnever seen criminal behavior of the type you described even condonded. Since the numbers of employees is much greater than the number of CEO's then we may naturally presume the number of such instances would be far higher but the significance of each individual act will naturally make the CEO's action's more visible. i certainly have no idea if unethical behavior is more common among CEO's or employees. The one thing we do know is that as a general rulethere is no one to unish an unethical CEO.
Why? 'Cause they are talented people that made sacrifices, worked hard and succeeded, as reflected in their pay.
In some cases you are correct in others it is more questionable.
The corporation-bashing going on right now is prepetrated by mostly ignorant people that maintian socialist views.
I am not corporation bashing in any way I am merely trying to get a rational discussion of tariffs.
I do not need an explanation for envy. I am just waiting for people to be appaled by it and at least acknowledge that it is wrong.
Envy is certainly wrong but what does tis have to do with tariffs?
We had an economy that (i) was largely isolated from the rest of the world, (ii) had a large market, (iii) many free goods, especially land, (iv) functioned in a qualitatively different technological environement, etc.
One cannot attribute prosperity to tariffs unequivocally.
Suppose the company can purchase labor needed to produce a $125 gadget for $100 from one source --- overseas, say. It purchases that labor instead domestically for $105. To get the same profit it now sells the gadget for $130.
If I buy that gadget, where did extra $5 go. My extra $5 went to the worker that charged $105 instead of $100. I have subsidized him out of my pocket.
More generally, whenever you institute measures like this, American consumers collectively subsidize the particular sector that has unresohably high labor costs. You might as well send the money to those workers by mail.
Again, you have a problem with attribution of effects to causes. The statement I made is of the standard ceteris paribus: other things being equal (and this is the only way to compare apples to apples) protectionism removes incentives to cut costs.
Firstly, you are now talking on about the manipulation of currency but about a specific form. Secondly, what constitutes "undervalued?" Sounds like you know the value of currency. If so, you should publish your methodology.
Things, including currency, do not have an intrinsic value --- people do. The price is determined by the markets.
I did not say it was. The point is, if you retaliate for the lawful actions of one coutry, some other country can retailiate against us, etc.
In other words, the point made by the administration is within a decision-theoretic framework, as if the world remains unresponsive to the actions of one player. The true outcome is game-theoretic instead; that is, to see what emerges one needs to estimate the response of other players to our response. I have not heard that addressed. Many practicioners, both in private and public sectors, have not been taught to think game-theoretically, and from time to time you hear such mistakes being made.
It is not the privilege of the importers: I keep telling you that the benefit accrues to the CONSUMERS of that product. One can discuss the magnitudes, the tradoffs --- fine, but your arguments do not indicate even awareness thereof.
I will not exhibit for you the mathematical models and explain partial derivatives (cateris paribus arguments) for you. Almost everything I said is available in industrial organization textbooks and texts on incentives and contracts. Partial derivatives are the subject of a standard calculus course. I mentioned that earlier, and will be glad to supply you with more detailed references if you so desire.
The logical problems you encounter in your arguments are usually referred to as "threats to external validity." You can find that in most of textbooks on research methods of an article by Cook and Campbell (1956).
I do not find it reasonable that you expect a poster on FR to replace replace reading of what's widely available.
Please stop posting this urban legend from the Ferris Bueller school of economics. True, it was stupid and made no sense, but that is because tariffs were already too high. This legislation came after the crash, and was smaller than the Tariff Of Abominations, which didn't seem to put us into a depression, or even a recession.
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.