But that's not the point Jason and I are debating. Jason has stated that protectionism is bad economic policy for the party that engages in it, and also for those who trade with that party. I have argued that without protectionism, countries such as Japan would quite possibly not have a significant manufacturing base, let alone be among the strongest exporters of high tech, machinery and manufactured goods in the world today. So, would Japan be worse off or better off today had their government not given intense shelter to companies such as Toyoda (Toyota now), Mitsubishi (one of the biggest Keiretsus), Honda, Fujitsu, Komatsu, Sony, etc., etc., etc., when those companies did not have the ability to compete with their foreign competitors, and would not have been able to sell goods to the Japanese populace, let alone export those products abroad? Nothing is simple as it ever seems, especially when stated in terms of absolutes. Developing models and theorem is one thing, and they often appear flawless and compelling on paper, yet when they meet the millions of variables in the real world, things get more complicated.
I don't think hiring the clerk by the govt is waste.It might due to increase the man power and also to reduce the pay amount. -------------------- gomez New Jobs
Service sector still thriving. Plenty of jobs in fast food, wall mart door greeter, nail salon, barber, medical technician, nurse, govt, actuary
This is not the case. Real wages have been falling since the 70s. People at the top are making much more while those at the bottom are actually making somewhat less.
I agree completely. It's like when various commentators scream about how we can't use trade barriers these days - after all, remember how Smoot-Hawley made the depression worse? Well, in those days we had a huge trade surplus. Obviously, rising trade barriers are a problem for those countries that rely heavily on exports. Not so much for modern-day America. Right now, the big loser from Smoot-Hawley would be China. What makes it especially insane is that China is in fact actively supporting its exporters to help them ride out the global recession, even more than is the case normally. Not as dramatic as Smoot-Hawley but the effect is the same. Are we willing to play the fool? If we implemented a tariff now, I'd expect that a) some goods (toys, computers etc.) would be more expensive, and b) corporate profits, dividends, and share buybacks would fall due to higher costs. At the same time wages would rise and consumers would have more disposable income. Businesses that have moved offshore would drift back, and attempts to keep labor costs down would spur technological innovation. Big screen TVs would become less affordable but the things that people really need - housing, food, healthcare - should become more affordable. Pretty much everybody here wins, and East Asia loses out.
Gummint employment keeps getting bigger. Private employment keeps getting smaller. What's the end game here, EVERYBODY works for the Gummint? Can't be. Gummint produces NOTHING. They are a drag on the economy... a parasitic blood sucker. If the private sector recedes to the point it cannot support the Gummint, there will be no "host" to draw a living from... Once "enough" people work for the Gummint, the private sector will be sucked dry... the economy will be sucked dry... at that point, NOBODY WILL HAVE ANYTHING... Like the former Soviet Union before its collapse... 10% Gummint Fat Cats... and 90% private sector folks queueing up for toilet paper and a ration of potatoes. Isn't that the path we're traveling right now?
gnome or should I call you Grover (Norquist)? Your free market, free trade, thief pals sucked EVERYTHING DRY, (they must be the gubberment?) They sure were! Hopefully we will now have a GOVERNMENT that will let the Army do it's own laundry and cook it's own meals, and let the Navy overhaul it's own ships rather than oursource it to their friends so that they can skim of profits and deliver SHIT! That said, the tax code with it's labyrinthine list of tax loopholes for your buddies needs to be greatly simplified. Cutting business tax rates to 10% and zeroing out the loopholes would result in an INCREASE if taxes collected from big business, because their tools in Congress (your Gummint)and CPAs have all made sure that they PAY NO TAXES Now. In fact if you pals are financial they are the biggest welfare queens in history. Yeah: and I can not wait to have a real Government in charge and some clear and enforced transparency on who holds what positions rather than your Gummit that promoted insider ping-pong trades !