IGX

how does pulling out of tpp and other international trade deals help us.

sounds like we're gonna impose tariffs on imported goods, raising their prices to u.s. buyers. not good.

countries around the world will reciprocate by imposing tariffs on u.s. goods, raising their prices, thereby reducing u.s. export sales. uh oh. lower sales means production gets scaled back. guys lose jobs.

presumably, though, tariffs on imports will allow u.s. manufacturers to make shit and sell it to u.s. citizens, but again, at higher prices. will more-expensive, u.s.-made shit sold in the u.s. exceed the amount of u.s.-made shit that can no longer be sold abroad?

and what kind of salaries are manufacturers going to pay? union wages? a lot of business have migrated to the south because, jobs there are largely non-union. but now, the orange don is going to insist that jobs will be union and pay union wages?

in the post-war glory years, we have a major competitive advantage: we were the only advanced nation with a manufacturing base. what's our competitive advantage today?

someone (other than bennie) please explain how protectionism helps us.

TPP was basically handing placing corporate interest over sovereign rights of countries, the US included. There were some other things in there, like extreme protectionism for pharmaceutical companies, expanding their monopoly on manufacturing new drugs decades past it's current limit.

Etc.

Other than that, not sure where the rest of this is going.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:TPP was basically handing placing corporate interest over sovereign rights of countries, the US included.

that sounds like a loaded way of saying the tpp was designed to open up trade between countries by eliminating tariffs, for example.

I can sum up Emperor Alfred E. Neuman's trade policy in a few simple lines:
Any country is free to trade with the US as long as your goods are produced in factories that meet our environmental standards, you meet our worker's rights/pay standards, and your country meets the basic human rights standards (to be written out in another dictum). Meet those qualifications? Welcome aboard! Don't? You're shit ain't coming here. Check back in when you join the civilized world.

As to the original question of how protectionism helps us, as far as simply throwing tariffs at goods that aren't made here, it doesn't help at all. We have to realize we're in a globally competitive market. But exporting our pollution and taking advantage of cheap labor with no worker's rights isn't the right thing to do either.

We need to level the playing field by demanding the world brings it's standards up to ours if they want access to our markets.

u.s. manufacturing output is as high as it's ever been. we're not making less stuff than we used to.

we do have fewer people making stuff. that's called automation.

should we ban robots.

the virtue of having international markets is that underdeveloped places all over the world have increased their standards of living and are now markets for the stuff we make.

a disadvantage to the u.s. of restricting trade is that, typically, our agriculture suffers when international markets are restricted. so the possibility of more manufacturing jobs is offset to some extent by more difficult times for farmers.

conservatives say they want less government, but they seem determined to insert government into the middle of international business, choosing winners (autos?) and creating losers (wheat growers?).

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:I can sum up Emperor Alfred E. Neuman's trade policy in a few simple lines:
Any country is free to trade with the US as long as your goods are produced in factories that meet our environmental standards, you meet our worker's rights/pay standards, and your country meets the basic human rights standards (to be written out in another dictum). Meet those qualifications? Welcome aboard! Don't? You're shit ain't coming here. Check back in when you join the civilized world.

Clap clap clap standing ovation.

And this means, Europe and Aus and NZ and Japland.

dead man walking wrote:how does pulling out of tpp and other international trade deals help us.

sounds like we're gonna impose tariffs on imported goods, raising their prices to u.s. buyers. not good.

countries around the world will reciprocate by imposing tariffs on u.s. goods, raising their prices, thereby reducing u.s. export sales. uh oh. lower sales means production gets scaled back. guys lose jobs.

presumably, though, tariffs on imports will allow u.s. manufacturers to make shit and sell it to u.s. citizens, but again, at higher prices. will more-expensive, u.s.-made shit sold in the u.s. exceed the amount of u.s.-made shit that can no longer be sold abroad?

and what kind of salaries are manufacturers going to pay? union wages? a lot of business have migrated to the south because, jobs there are largely non-union. but now, the orange don is going to insist that jobs will be union and pay union wages?

in the post-war glory years, we have a major competitive advantage: we were the only advanced nation with a manufacturing base. what's our competitive advantage today?

someone (other than bennie) please explain how protectionism helps us.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/ ... nline=file

dead man walking wrote:u.s. manufacturing output is as high as it's ever been. we're not making less stuff than we used to.

we do have fewer people making stuff. that's called automation.

should we ban robots.

the virtue of having international markets is that underdeveloped places all over the world have increased their standards of living and are now markets for the stuff we make.

a disadvantage to the u.s. of restricting trade is that, typically, our agriculture suffers when international markets are restricted. so the possibility of more manufacturing jobs is offset to some extent by more difficult times for farmers.

conservatives say they want less government, but they seem determined to insert government into the middle of international business, choosing winners (autos?) and creating losers (wheat growers?).

This is ridiculous. Is the entire left neoliberal? You want to depress wages so that a US worker makes the same as a Bangladeshi or Chinaman? Is there no profit level too obscene for capital? Do you not understand why the share of wealth country has inverted since the 1980's? At that point 90% was owned by 90% of the people. Now the top 10% own 90%. You think that is just impersonal market forces? We are a god damn barrista economy nOw thanks to these trade agreements. And not the manufacturing powerhouse we were.

Do you honestly think Japan could have dominated without a nationalist and protectionist auto and electronics industry?

Here I will link this again

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-f ... 00213.html

dead man walking wrote:u.s. manufacturing output is as high as it's ever been. we're not making less stuff than we used to.

we do have fewer people making stuff. that's called automation.

This brings up another interesting question: what do we do with multiple millions of US citizens who stand to be out of jobs within the next 2-3 iterations of automation / A.I.?
Take trucking for example: Within a couple more generations of autonomous vehicles, it will be far cheaper to have trucks run by computers rather an people. That's both long haul and local delivery. Long haul trucking companies would be insane not to take advantage of technology that lets truck run 24/7 and only stop for fuel and maintenance. Then look at UPS or FedEx. They could have autonomous long haul trucks moving stuff from facility to facility, then autonomous delivery trucks will drones that drop go our for final destination runs.
Something like 2 million jobs gone in well under a generation.

And A.I. is going to make factory automation nearly ubiquitous. Once machines can manipulate soft goods, like the wiring harnesses on cars and such, it's game over for any medium skilled factory worker. Another few million jobs worldwide gone in under a generation.

And it's not like the corporations will be make less money, just employing less people.

Makes you wonder if something like the UBI is on the horizon, and whether it's going to be a necessity to keep the global economy going.

are you smoot?

or hawley?

explain how we do better by closing markets and making our share of potential customers shrink?

if you keep out low-wage goods, as you suggest, our high-wage goods face reciprocal exclusion. how does that help workers who will then make fewer goods as a result. and u.s. consumeers see higher prices.

as for the obscene redistribution of wealth into the hands of a few, is that because of international trade or tax policy (individual and corporate) ? i don't know. what does picketty say?

i just thought someone might make a reasoned argument how protectionism helps. no one has done that. america first is an appeal to emotion, the enemy of sound decisions.

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:This brings up another interesting question: what do we do with multiple millions of US citizens who stand to be out of jobs within the next 2-3 iterations of automation / A.I.?
Take trucking for example: Within a couple more generations of autonomous vehicles, it will be far cheaper to have trucks run by computers rather an people. That's both long haul and local delivery. Long haul trucking companies would be insane not to take advantage of technology that lets truck run 24/7 and only stop for fuel and maintenance. Then look at UPS or FedEx. They could have autonomous long haul trucks moving stuff from facility to facility, then autonomous delivery trucks will drones that drop go our for final destination runs.
Something like 2 million jobs gone in well under a generation.

Transportation within our borders is one area where international trade is not really an issue. My guess is that, even though it will be cheaper and safer to turn to Skynet for transporting stuff, that state and federal laws will be passed to prevent it-- that's probably the lasting lesson for both sides from the Trump election.

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:

dead man walking wrote:u.s. manufacturing output is as high as it's ever been. we're not making less stuff than we used to.

we do have fewer people making stuff. that's called automation.

This brings up another interesting question: what do we do with multiple millions of US citizens who stand to be out of jobs within the next 2-3 iterations of automation / A.I.?
Take trucking for example: Within a couple more generations of autonomous vehicles, it will be far cheaper to have trucks run by computers rather an people. That's both long haul and local delivery. Long haul trucking companies would be insane not to take advantage of technology that lets truck run 24/7 and only stop for fuel and maintenance. Then look at UPS or FedEx. They could have autonomous long haul trucks moving stuff from facility to facility, then autonomous delivery trucks will drones that drop go our for final destination runs.
Something like 2 million jobs gone in well under a generation.

That's not what's going to do it. AI will replace most law professions and diagnosing illness. GOP will get on board once you have whole categories of 6-7 figure jobs vanishing.

As for the tariffs, they are dumb. We sit atop the world economically and Trump has convinced a certain percent of the country that we're up shits creek. His whole premise of bringing back jobs makes no sense when 80% of them disappeared to automation. it's all smoke and mirrors.

dead man walking wrote:are you smoot?

or hawley?

explain how we do better by closing markets and making our share of potential customers shrink?

if you keep out low-wage goods, as you suggest, our high-wage goods face reciprocal exclusion. how does that help workers who will then make fewer goods as a result. and u.s. consumeers see higher prices.

as for the obscene redistribution of wealth into the hands of a few, is that because of international trade or tax policy (individual and corporate) ? i don't know. what does picketty say?

i just thought someone might make a reasoned argument how protectionism helps. no one has done that. america first is an appeal to emotion, the enemy of sound decisions.

Immigration plus free trade = impoverishment of labor. High skill and high wage jobs get outsourced. Low skill jobs go to immigrants to keep wages low. Who wins in that scenario? Cui bono?

Absent outsourcing wages rise and or remain constant thereby enabling workers to pay more. True, there may not be the plethora of low quality crap to purchase at Walmart. But who cares?

As even Adam Smith admitted, and readily and essentially, labor is the source of all wealth. In the age of outsourcing, our national wealth has decreased and been transferred into the hands of a global elite. True, people like me have done very very well, but on the whole, free trade plus immigration has impoverished the nation: defined as the majority of citizens.

And if protectionism is so bad, how did Japan eat our lunch and how has china grown?

The neoliberal and neocon fallacy rests on the assumption that wages are a cost to the national economy. They aren't. They are a good thing. The higher the better. For the nation. But not for the elites.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:

dead man walking wrote:u.s. manufacturing output is as high as it's ever been. we're not making less stuff than we used to.

we do have fewer people making stuff. that's called automation.

This brings up another interesting question: what do we do with multiple millions of US citizens who stand to be out of jobs within the next 2-3 iterations of automation / A.I.?
Take trucking for example: Within a couple more generations of autonomous vehicles, it will be far cheaper to have trucks run by computers rather an people. That's both long haul and local delivery. Long haul trucking companies would be insane not to take advantage of technology that lets truck run 24/7 and only stop for fuel and maintenance. Then look at UPS or FedEx. They could have autonomous long haul trucks moving stuff from facility to facility, then autonomous delivery trucks will drones that drop go our for final destination runs.
Something like 2 million jobs gone in well under a generation.

That's not what's going to do it. AI will replace most law professions and diagnosing illness. GOP will get on board once you have whole categories of 6-7 figure jobs vanishing.

As for the tariffs, they are dumb. We sit atop the world economically and Trump has convinced a certain percent of the country that we're up shits creek. His whole premise of bringing back jobs makes no sense when 80% of them disappeared to automation. it's all smoke and mirrors.

Total bullshit. Trump convinced no one of anything. This is a lie. The resentment and sense of loss pre-dated trump and was not capitalized on sooner merely because the two parties ruthlessly suppressed any candidate who did not buy into globalism.

Did Bernie and Warren convince their voters of an illusory decay in standard of living?

Did Ron Paul do the same?

Did H Ross Perot do it too?

Did Pat Buchannan?

The strip mining of neoliberalism was felt as early as 1992 and manifested as the Buchannan campaign. Of course miserable shitlibs like you lie and argue it was just muh racism. But every almost every claim Buchanan made was prescient. And you know this.

Our high paying jobs were outsourced. Our wages as a whole were depressed via immigration. And any jobs that were eliminated via automation would have been picked up via the overall increase in workdwide demand. But what happened was that employers wanted to depress wages so they advocated immigration and free trade which means outsourcing.

Neoliberalism and neoconservatism is the movement to drive wages down to a global minimum and thereby maximize the distance between the profit of capital and the profit of labor.

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:

dead man walking wrote:u.s. manufacturing output is as high as it's ever been. we're not making less stuff than we used to.

we do have fewer people making stuff. that's called automation.

This brings up another interesting question: what do we do with multiple millions of US citizens who stand to be out of jobs within the next 2-3 iterations of automation / A.I.?
Take trucking for example: Within a couple more generations of autonomous vehicles, it will be far cheaper to have trucks run by computers rather an people. That's both long haul and local delivery. Long haul trucking companies would be insane not to take advantage of technology that lets truck run 24/7 and only stop for fuel and maintenance. Then look at UPS or FedEx. They could have autonomous long haul trucks moving stuff from facility to facility, then autonomous delivery trucks will drones that drop go our for final destination runs.
Something like 2 million jobs gone in well under a generation.

And A.I. is going to make factory automation nearly ubiquitous. Once machines can manipulate soft goods, like the wiring harnesses on cars and such, it's game over for any medium skilled factory worker. Another few million jobs worldwide gone in under a generation.

And it's not like the corporations will be make less money, just employing less people.

Makes you wonder if something like the UBI is on the horizon, and whether it's going to be a necessity to keep the global economy going.

We see the return of ancient Rome. A debased and depraved urban populace dependent on welfare and an elite in possession of the land and means of production.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:

dead man walking wrote:u.s. manufacturing output is as high as it's ever been. we're not making less stuff than we used to.

we do have fewer people making stuff. that's called automation.

This brings up another interesting question: what do we do with multiple millions of US citizens who stand to be out of jobs within the next 2-3 iterations of automation / A.I.?
Take trucking for example: Within a couple more generations of autonomous vehicles, it will be far cheaper to have trucks run by computers rather an people. That's both long haul and local delivery. Long haul trucking companies would be insane not to take advantage of technology that lets truck run 24/7 and only stop for fuel and maintenance. Then look at UPS or FedEx. They could have autonomous long haul trucks moving stuff from facility to facility, then autonomous delivery trucks will drones that drop go our for final destination runs.
Something like 2 million jobs gone in well under a generation.

That's not what's going to do it. AI will replace most law professions and diagnosing illness. GOP will get on board once you have whole categories of 6-7 figure jobs vanishing.

As for the tariffs, they are dumb. We sit atop the world economically and Trump has convinced a certain percent of the country that we're up shits creek. His whole premise of bringing back jobs makes no sense when 80% of them disappeared to automation. it's all smoke and mirrors.

Holy shit you social climbing stooge. We sit atop the world? Our top 1% sit atop the world. Our top 10% are well off. The rest are seeing their equity vanish. We have rarely, if ever seen this massive inequality. And when it has existed... well you know what happens next...

picketty, bennie.

and you are aware of the irony of the working man looking to a bunch of cold-blooded, finagling billionaires to save them. the puppet masters control the strings and citizens imagine themselves to be free.

government by self-deception.

Great poast. Nice work. Really matriculated the ball down the field. Thanks.

dead man walking wrote:are you smoot?

or hawley?

explain how we do better by closing markets and making our share of potential customers shrink?

if you keep out low-wage goods, as you suggest, our high-wage goods face reciprocal exclusion. how does that help workers who will then make fewer goods as a result. and u.s. consumeers see higher prices.

as for the obscene redistribution of wealth into the hands of a few, is that because of international trade or tax policy (individual and corporate) ? i don't know. what does picketty say?

i just thought someone might make a reasoned argument how protectionism helps. no one has done that. america first is an appeal to emotion, the enemy of sound decisions.

What is it like when even dumb deadspin writers understand more than you do about economics?

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/we-ar ... 1789802286

dead man walking wrote:picketty, bennie.

and you are aware of the irony of the working man looking to a bunch of cold-blooded, finagling billionaires to save them. the puppet masters control the strings and citizens imagine themselves to be free.

government by self-deception.

Trump is the closest thing we may have to a cold blooded finagling billionaire politician who really wants to put Americans to work at middle class jobs in the private sector. His billionaires are certainly no worse at this than Clinton's would have been.

I despised Obama but he moved at a professorial golfer's pace which gave me a chance to catch my breath. Hating Trump has to be 10x worse because he's moving at the speed of a caffeinated 6 year old on his birthday.

So far he's the quintessential Black Swan and everything is in an uproar. For better or worse remains to be seen.

bennyonesix wrote:Holy shit you social climbing stooge. We sit atop the world? Our top 1% sit atop the world. Our top 10% are well off. The rest are seeing their equity vanish. We have rarely, if ever seen this massive inequality. And when it has existed... well you know what happens next...

You don't solve wealth inequality with tariffs.

Benny's learnding.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Holy shit you social climbing stooge. We sit atop the world? Our top 1% sit atop the world. Our top 10% are well off. The rest are seeing their equity vanish. We have rarely, if ever seen this massive inequality. And when it has existed... well you know what happens next...

You don't solve wealth inequality with tariffs.

Japan and china. Germany prior to WWI.

A typically disingenuous response: you assume wages are falling because of impersonal and inevitable forces. They aren't. Wages within a country like the US may be preserved or increased via tarrifs. The process involves the progressive increase of skill within the labor force and consequent increases in productivity and therefore wages. Manufacturing and employers dislike this and spare no expense to stop thr process because it decreases their profit margin.