It's the same most places in First World countries.

Post #332,109 by static 8/31/10 7:42:50 PM Reply	It's the same most places in First World countries. Including Australia/NZ, the UK and much of Western Europe. The basic problem is that it's cheaper (often much cheaper) to make things in countries with lower standards of living and import them. It's too easy to ignore the horrible conditions that existed in manufacturing in the last 200 years, ironically without which the Industrial Revolution would not have happened. So a lot of those problems have been "exported" to countries who didn't get to have an IR the first time around: South-East Asia. Maybe we need to wind back some of the "improvements" that have been made in manufacturing laws...? Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #332,111 by Another Scott 8/31/10 10:22:06 PM Reply	This "free trade" mantra is a relatively new development. I hadn't appreciated until recently how much of US history included substantial "protectionist" elements. E.g. US customs duties as a percentage of imports over time - http://www.cato.org/...share-imports.gif http://www.dailykos....c-History-to-1901 is a good summary, (though it uses a lot of loaded language): [...] The Anatomy of the "Race to the Bottom" To make any sense of this issue, we must first competently identify the reasons free trade was initially promoted, and continues to plague humanity to this day. The standard story, which is also the only acceptable position amongst academic economists today, is that cheap is good. "If we can buy a widget from China for $10, but it costs $15 to produce it here," they tell us, "who is the government to say we can't? Why should consumers have to pay more for widgets?" While this is a plausible argument, it is ultimately bankrupt, as it is founded on an incompetent understanding of the nature of economic wealth - namely, the idea that wealth is monetary in nature. By this thinking, it follows that every time government involves itself in the economy, it merely takes money from one actor and transfers it to another. Since this supposedly zero-sum transfer entails overhead costs, it cannot result in more wealth being produced, it can only destroy what wealth currently exists. Yet, wealth is clearly not monetary in nature. It is a tautology that "what is not produced cannot be consumed;" thus, it is plain to see that the ultimate source of wealth is not money, but the production of basic commodities and manufactured goods. Financial wealth assets are merely conceptual claims on the real, physical productivity of the economy. Without production, the value of all financial assets would fall to zero, as there would be nothing of value to redeem for money, financial securities, government debt, etc. Productive power, not the holdings of financial assets, is the ultimate source of a nation's prosperity. [...] As a counterpoint, in 1998 Bruce Bartlett addressed similar arguments made by Pat Buchanan - http://www.cato.org/....php?pub_id=10983 I find many of Buchanan's positions repulsive, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Life is complicated. Mantras like "Free Trade == Unconditional Good" are like most categorical statements - trivially wrong. History tells us that trade between the first world and the 3rd world is complicated, and must be managed to spread the benefits and control the costs to the societies. Economics isn't Pure Mathematics, and it's not real life. It's a model of a more complex system. I suspect (as I've said before) that as transportation costs increase over the next few decades that the world will get larger again, and then manufacturing closer to customers will become much more cost-effective again. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,112 by beepster 8/31/10 11:33:48 PM Reply	The kos artlcle is overly simplistic, correctly described as "loaded language" and wrong on my levels. It overly simplifies "free trade" with the same zeal that people categorize the tea party. Those that understand know that free trade /= no tariffs. It means that supply and demand should allocate resources to locations of comparative advantage. So, if it is determined that lax regulation (sweat shops) create advantage for country x, it is perfectly acceptable within the definition of free trade for a country to exact a tariff on that good that levels the playing field. What is not acceptable is to slap a 5000% tariff on that good simply because you want to ensure that country y's base has no competition. When China began dumping tires in the US, it was perfectly acceptable to put a halt to this. There were and still are serious questions about the validity of the pricing that was used vs cost. (ie, was the pricing predatory or not) And to use late 1800s industrial revolution growth as a validation of protectionism is a bit silly. Who were we protecting ourselves from? Who cares that there was a 200% duty on train engines? Who were we going to import them from? Not like you could drop one of those on a schooner. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,117 by Another Scott 9/1/10 7:24:29 AM Reply	I guess you missed the rending of garments about the tires.. E.g. http://www.washingto...009091103957.html [...] The tire tariff will amount to 35 percent the first year, 30 percent the second and 25 percent the third. [...] Marguerite Trossevin, who represents a coalition of U.S. tire companies that import Chinese tires, said the tariff decision is "very disappointing." She predicted price increases for U.S. consumers and losses for U.S. tire importers. "For the U.S. tire distributors and consumers, there's going to be a heavy burden to bear," she said. "It sends the message that special interests will get protection if they ask for it -- regardless of what that means for broader trade policy." China's Ministry of Commerce said in a statement early Saturday that the move violated WTO rules. "China strongly opposes this serious act of trade protectionism by the U.S," the ministry said, according to the Associated Press. Not surprisingly, there were conflicting predictions about what effect the tariff might have on the U.S. industry. Supporters said the measure would have only a negligible effect on the price of tires and would lead U.S. manufacturers to invest in their U.S. plants. The tariff's detractors said higher tire prices could lead some consumers to wait longer before replacing tires, creating a safety risk. Moreover, they said, the tariff won't result in more jobs. Tires will simply come in from other low-cost countries, they say, and U.S. manufacturers, keep making their cheaper tires in China. [...] "It'll kill people! It'll kill jobs! And it won't matter anyway!" You have some people who disagree with you about what's "perfectly reasonable". ;-) While in practice there may be no fully "free-trade" the short-hand stands for a regulatory mindset that has dramatically reduced tariffs in the last 60 years. Yeah, the DK piece was over the top in the language used. But the underlying point is important, if perhaps overstated - there are significant consequences to removing tariffs when your trading partner does not operate in a similar arena (due to differences in costs, regulations, corruption, etc.). It is not an unconditional good to trade with someone who can provide goods at lower prices. Lower selling prices is not the only important metric. Oh, and I don't understand your comment about locomotive imports. The US imported them from Britain - e.g. http://books.google....onepage&q&f=false Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,123 by boxley 9/1/10 8:18:14 AM Reply	tires I go thru Gadsen Alabama occasionally. Before the tariffs the parking lot of the goodyear plant was always empty. After the tariff it appeared to have a lot of cars there. Now those wages arent great but they are marginally better than McDonalds. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #332,131 by beepster 9/1/10 10:05:45 AM Reply	No, I didn't I ignored it as noise, which it is. What I spoke to was >real< free trade, not the definition the folks who want to make some point are calling it today. And in that post I also noted, and you seemed to miss it, that tariffs are acceptable in a free trade environment as long as they are used to balance against non-S&D market imbalances (regulation differences, labor differences, etc). There is no incongruity with my statement and your statement that complete removal of tariffs can have significant consequence. My point on locomotive imports...is that in that day and age there was no possible way we could fuel the infrastructure development going on in the US without developing that capability domestically. The world at that time was too large (even between US and UK. Sure they could supply some. But the cost to move them here would automatically create a profitable market for domestic manufacture, tariffs weren't necessary. The folks using "protectionism" as causation for the build-out of the United States infrastructure and industrial engine are stretching very thin to make that case. PS: I have people disagree with me all the time, on both sides..especially in economic endeavor. I was educated truly in the "dismal" science. Both sides are wrong... often ;-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,124 by boxley 9/1/10 8:20:25 AM Reply	Not sure if you are advocating the article By this thinking, it follows that every time government involves itself in the economy, it merely takes money from one actor and transfers it to another. Since this supposedly zero-sum transfer entails overhead costs, it cannot result in more wealth being produced, it can only destroy what wealth currently exists. why are you always wanting the guv to try to krugman our way out of financial difficulties? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #332,129 by Another Scott 9/1/10 9:51:05 AM Reply	He's saying that argument is wrong. Contrary to the "free trade uber alles" advocates, he's saying that government action in the economy (esp. during a time of lack of demand) not a zero-sum. I agree with that. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!