I'm not saying that I never buy foreign made goods. In this country it's impossible not to because quite frankly, you would be hard pressed to find a whole lot in your home that is made in the USA anymore. I'm not saying that buying something from another country is a bad thing or that it makes you a bad person. I am saying that there is most definitely benefit to buying local over foreign when possible and patriotism has NOTHING to do with it. Some of the best economies in the world right now have high import taxes, ensuring their people buy local goods whenever possible.
Trade with China does not have to be even at all, but in the long run the overall import/export should not grow infinitely when including trade with all international partners. The problem with the trade deficit is that it only calculates trade, but not Chinese investment in US corporations for example - which also brings dollars back and is equally beneficial.
Also, for the Ayn Rand scenario of free trade, minimum wage does not have to be abolished (altough I support that). USA does not have to do any $1/hour cheap labour work at all. It can import all those low-skills services/products from foreigners. This allows the majority of US workforce to focus on producing medium-high skill products/services. Both foreigners and Americans win.
Those Reagan talking point makes no real economic sense, as it makes the worker worse off. Sure, he will have a higher paying job thanks to the protections that the tariffs brings. But at the same time everything he has to buy suddenly becomes much more expensive as he must purchase it from inefficient domestic producers.
For a consuming nation the perfect scenario is if all low-skill work is being performed by foreigners and all high-skill work performed by the nation.
---------- Post added 2011-07-12 at 04:51 PM ----------
NAFTA consists of over 1000 pages with all sorts of exceptions, environmental and labour regulations, that hurt the USA as a whole.
If NAFTA was to only provide free trade then it wouldn't have to be much longer than 1 page.
Last edited by Diurdi; 2011-07-12 at 04:52 PM.
Here is something kinda funny. Patriot act was named this way to gain support, which worked for a time. NAFTA was abbreviated, to hide Free Trade, because at the time it was very unpopular. Because people believed it would cost America jobs. Those low level jobs you don't think US should have anyway. Google the SNL sketch about it, it features Rob Schneider in a sombrero. (Side note, my memory is awesome!)
Last edited by Felya420; 2011-07-12 at 05:25 PM.
Just because you got rid of the low wage jobs that doesn't mean all those unemployed people are now going to score mid-wage jobs dude.Also, for the Ayn Rand scenario of free trade, minimum wage does not have to be abolished (altough I support that). USA does not have to do any $1/hour cheap labour work at all. It can import all those low-skills services/products from foreigners. This allows the majority of US workforce to focus on producing medium-high skill products/services. Both foreigners and Americans win.
---------- Post added 2011-07-12 at 05:15 PM ----------
Well you are talking to someone who follows a fairly absolutist ideology.The fact that it wasn't absolute, does not change the fact that it did apply it to some.
Those pesky "jobs", peh who needs 'em, I have my 100k teaching salary and my tenure and I write articles on how white people are destroying the world. We don't need all those low-end jobs.
Oh some people need them? nah we don't need those people either, let kill 'em off.
No seriously, I actually read an article that said just this(in no so many words), but yeah, it's downright disgusting what people who "have it made" think sometimes.
If the foreign labour didn't exist, Americans would have to do it themselves instead of focusing on higher productivity work.
They are inefficient mostly because they require higher pay, yes. Does this mean that those workers should suddenly start accepting $1/hour wages and do the same job? No. They should simply find a job that can compete without protectionism, that is all.Originally Posted by Felya420
You're again only focusing on the seen, but not at the unseen. Sure, the workers that work for the industry that is protected by the tariffs will have a higher standard of living. But this higher standard of living comes at the cost of the rest of the economy who now has to pay more for the same products because they cannot buy them from Foreign producers.
What happened to those jobs that disappeared when machines rendered their labour useless? It basicly allows them to move to higher-productivity jobs. And most low-level service sector jobs will still remain. You can't serve food in an US restaurant from Taiwan.Originally Posted by Felya420
Agree on both parts, and NAFTA did cost America jobs as far as I'm aware. But applying free trade for some but not for others can have some really bad consequences. Just like giving taxcuts to certain companies instead of giving it to everyone.Originally Posted by Felya420
Last edited by Diurdi; 2011-07-12 at 05:37 PM.
I buy locally as well, I go the windmill around the corner and buy my bread and grains and everything there. Buy my vegetables and (some) fruits from farmers (Also Honey, it's so good!) nearby. Can't really say I'd care if free trade suffers under it.
I personally do not support America turning into China or India as far as peoples living conditions are. That's not America...
well i am a canadian who supports buying non-canadian at all times. because i despise canadian companies passionately. so i do my best to never give them any money -_-
i am... the ANTI-PATRIOT
Self-sustainability is only good from a national-security point of view (which I think is ridiculous). It does not serve the general interest of the American people to force the creation of low-productivity jobs in the US.Originally Posted by Felya420
Also, simply creating jobs for the sake of having them is not good. Full employment is not a good goal - full production is.
You misunderstood the whole quote. If I put a tariff on the mining industry, all US mining companies could charge much higher prices for their products. This would mean the standard of living of all miners would also rise. BUT, this raise in standards of living for one group of people would come at the expense of a decrease in standards of living for everyone else. All products that depend on products from mines would now become more expensive. If all industries were protected by tariffs, the increase in overall prices of everything would mean the whole nation would suffer.Originally Posted by Felya420
Building robots is not a low-level job. Plowing a field manually instead of with a tractic is a low level job. But some jobs low-level service jobs will always exist in a nation no matter how wealthy.Originally Posted by Felya420
At this time, no one really buys American just to do so. Buying American, in terms of cars and big budget items, is more ingrained into a person as a want. They're buying a Ford because they believe that's what they want.
Ultimately, unless you're ordering something directly, pretty much everything you buy supports America. Foreign companies with products here see their money change hands many times before they actually see the profits. You're buying that made in Taiwan T-shirt from Wal-Mart, but that's helping Wal-Mart expand and provide new jobs for Americans.
This has also nothing to do with classes, unless your class does not benefit by having a higher standard of living for majority of American people. But then, to do something that would lower the quality of life of majority of Americans, seems wrong to me. It's like a scale and at this point in US history, the majority of US isn't doing as good as they used to. To fight it, lowering the standards of living even more, seems counter productive.
In your model, we will for ever be dependent on China for lower end jobs. Lower level jobs like plowing fields for what I am assuming is food. Food gathering is the lowest level job you can get. If we have to depend on imports for food, US is in a bit of trouble. Don't you think? Hypothetically, let's pretend the robot future is not so absolute, so automated food gathering is not yet imminent.
Last edited by Felya420; 2011-07-12 at 07:39 PM.
Full employment is not a good goal to strive for. I could achieve full employment if I was a dictator right now.
You can have full employment but only 10% production. When you are close to full production, employment will be roughly 5% because of structural unemployment that should simply be accepted.
Basicly: Full employment (everyone has a job regardless of it's nature) does not mean society is better off.
Buying local is extremely important when it comes to honey. It's a great way to boost your immune system =)
---------- Post added 2011-07-12 at 08:35 PM ----------
Last edited by Felya420; 2011-07-12 at 08:41 PM.
How is that good?
Also, I meant that 5% unemployment is the optimal. That 5% is the result of structural unemployment - basicly people who are changing jobs, or lost theirs because their profession has become useless thanks to technology (and now need time to find a new profession).