Oh, another reason I don’t think it’s reducio ad absurdum is that for some markets, we already have this situation. For example, health care insurance. You can’t buy a plan offered in another state. You have to buy in-state. The lack of national plans means we have more insurance companies and plans than we would otherwise. Having more companies means more management staffs, accounting departments, etc. This has to have a positive effect on employment. The question is does that outweigh the downsides? And would that tradeoff be the same for other industries?
What would happen to all the Californians who buy, sell and transport cars? How about all the mechanics and service people, once the amount of cars available drops? What would happen to the price of cars in California if suddenly the supply of new cars dropped to only what Californian’s could produce on their own? Where would they get the raw materials from?
The problem with the OP is that he doesn’t realize what would happen if you expended this to include most of the products Americans use every day which are made cheaply in other countries. If we put large tariffs on countries with ‘cheap labor’, but not on his select list of countries, then what would most likely happen is that those countries on his green list would buy the goods and services from the red list countries and resell them in the US. At a substantial cost to the American buying public. Or, US companies would try to produce those goods and services locally, but again at increased costs (plus, we’d need to import many of the raw materials that aren’t available here in the US). It would be California cutting off allowing imports of new cars, except it would be across the board…except that Le Jac wants to allow SOME countries to import goods and services seemingly tariff free, while punishing others, which just opens us to abuse (and really doesn’t accomplish anything, since his list of countries we would still allow to trade with us freely also run trade surpluses with us).
Le Jac simply is incapable of understanding that if we were to actually try to put his dream in place it would be economic suicide, and probably world wide economic chaos, with the end result that the US would be a modern day medieval Japan, left to die on the vine.
-XT
True, but the U.S. would die with an unemployment rate that other countries would covet. So we’d have that going for us, which would be nice.
The whole point of health care reform is to get rid of those boundaries. The entire lack of a national plan thing is what is getting us in the health care mess we’re in. Getting rid of state boundaries for health care insurance would be a great thing - though not as great as a national single payer plan.
The fact that some state economies are larger than others doesn’t save this argument from being reductio ad absurdum. They’re ALL bound by Constitutional interstate commerce laws. Plus, as I said, you don’t need a passport to move from one state to another. So states having tariffs against one another is pointless because, among other big reasons, workers can simply move to where the jobs are. Without a passport. Do you deny this to be true?
And what do Federal taxes have to do with this issue? Because of this thing called interstate roads, national defense, and a whole bunch of other Federal things that are funded by taxes, which, as you can imagine, come from people’s incomes. We send jobs from Nevada to California those taxes are still being paid to Uncle Sam to keep our society running. We send those jobs to China and those taxes aren’t being paid to Uncle Sam to keep our society running: a problem we are in fact being stung by right this instant. Or maybe you have some secret information which shows this is not true?
We had economic progress and prosperity before we let globalism grow out of control. We will have it long after it has discredited itself.
If we continue to pursue Xtisme’s deluded dream of globalism the whole thing will fall apart in economic collapse and rebellions. Has this idiot seen all the countries that are toppling because of the income inequalities that have arisen? That can happen in America, too.
And another thing he’s too stupid to realize: we’re racing toward insolvency with these monster budget deficits. When that happens the dollar will collapse and imports will stop anyway. But he’s too much of a retard to understand that this threat is very real. It is just ONE of many fatal issues that undermine his entire argument.
Globalism will eat itself.
But people would have jobs! Everyone can have 12 hour days down the mine before dying of a respiratory disease at 45.
Isn’t that worth fighting for?
It seemed that full employment was the primary thrust of your argument. Having more insurance companies due to individual state requirements seems to both support your argument: we likely have more employment due to it. Yes, it comes with downsides; insurance would probably cost less if there weren’t these trade restrictions. Yet as you say with other products that could be more expensive with tariffs, you can’t afford insurance without a job. I don’t understand why this example, which seems to be a moderately good demonstration is being rejected as something where restrictions should now be opened. (I won’t address single payer as that moves the industry out of the private sector).
The mobility of labor in the US does put a wrinkle into my question. I don’t think the passport bit is the rub (we only recently added requirements for passports for travel in and out of Mexico and Canada and other countries, and primarily for security reasons). I think enforceable work permits is more what prevents migratory labor. Since this is just a proposal and would require constitutional changes anyway, why not allow states to regulate work permits for people from other states? Yes, it’s a big change, but if borders and teriffs can increase employment, why wouldn’t states and the US gov’t make these changes to enable it?
According to your point of view, one of the problems with sending jobs to India is that it decreases the tax base. You’re right that state tariffs wouldn’t change that. But let’s say we’ve got our nat’l tariffs in place. India is no longer a “problem”. But we may not yet have full employment. Why not do state tariffs to increase employment, industry, and income? If employment and income go up, that will increase tax receipts to the US gov’t.
You’re approaching the level of logic that says “if we legalize drug dealers that means more jobs”. The downside of insurance companies is there is less money for health care itself which costs lives. Which makes the increased job thing not worth it.
As for full employment, I want to see a return to the employee’s market, where jobs are chasing workers, not vice-versa.
Plus it gets worse when you try to pursue a job in India or China.
Now that’s madness. You might as well also push for the fantasy of international immigration with no red tape. Both are equally sane and likely to ever happen.
State tariffs would increase tax receipts to the US Government? You mean by moving employment from one US region to another? Really? Are you trying to kill me by making me die laughing?
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
You’re approaching the level of logic that says “if we legalize drug dealers that means more jobs”. The downside of insurance companies is there is less money for health care itself which costs lives. Which makes the increased job thing not worth it.
[/QUOTE]
If we legalized drugs, even if most of the drugs were imported, would or wouldn’t this create American jobs? Why or why not? Would or would it not generate new tax revenue? Why or why not?
Sure, and I’d love a pony. Unfortunately, outside of your magical world you can’t simply wave a magic wand and create jobs. You THINK that by forcing US companies to move back to the US and use US workers, and by putting in place tariffs on countries that have low labor costs that this is going to magically bring back jobs and wealth to the US, but this is magical thinking that only appeals to the ignorant and the clueless. The real effect would be to make the US a trading pariah, to shift trade away from the US to other countries who would benefit by not being so fucking stupid, to make goods and services in the US cost more and to lower our overall wealth across the board. Give me one historical example of a country with a mature economy and robust trade that implemented massive tariffs on the scale you are talking about, that forced companies flagged to said company to have to move their facilities back to their home country and use their own labor. Just. One.
In anticipation of the fact that you won’t be able to find one (hell, you’ll not respond to me even if you can read what I’m saying), that leads to a follow up question…why? Why hasn’t any nation attempted what you are proposing? Is it because they are all too stupid to see the massive benefit you state as the pot at the end of the rainbow? Or, perhaps they know something you don’t?
I believe that glilly was trying to illustrate a point, but s/he would have to illuminate further on what that point is. I THINK I know where s/he was going there, but I’m not sure. Assuming it is a point, I doubt you’d get it anyway.
-XT
I just don’t understand what you don’t grasp, Le Jack. It’s really very simple: tariffs equal a small rise in employment and salary and a HUGE FUCKING INCREASE in cost of goods. That makes people POOR.
Now, before you respond, please describe in your own words the concept of “comparative advantage”.
Here’s an example of a trade restriction that is generating employment, yet you’re against it because the costs outweigh the benefits. This is similar to what others are saying, except that they are looking at both costs to the product/industry and the economy in general and finding a wider range of products/industries where protectionism is a net loss.
If we were to implement protectionism to try to increase employment/the economy, who would decide which industries/tasks would have a net positive with protectionism? How would they measure it?
It’s not madness. The ability to move freely for work was granted within the EU, for example.
Interstate protectionism would only require a constitutional amendment and some laws. That should be an easy sell if protectionism naturally increases the economy and employment.
I do believe that if protectionism “worked”, it would work between states also. And I brought the whole thing up because I’ve found that people are more likely to be inconsistent in their views between states and countries when they are arguing from an emotional standpoint.
If protectionism increases employment, interstate protectionism should also. More employment means higher income tax receipts. That’s all I meant.
Bullshit. It creates and preserves a TON of high paying jobs. The only simple thing here is your mind and your one-dimensional thinking.
Take your comparative advantage and shove it up your ass, NON SENSE boy. It has provided no benefits to the working class. It is up to you to prove that it provides any advantage for the working class. Otherwise the working class has NO REASON to want to allow offshoring.
Again, it only shifts jobs from one part of a country to another. Unlike jobs moving between countries, when jobs move between states people can move without passports. Plus the tax money goes to the same Government that manages a huge chunk of the nation’s social services, the national defense, the roads. Furthermore, trade restrictions between states does not reduce or create jobs nationally. Another reason why your argument is wrong is that all states have a common currency and that is generally not true between nations.
You are comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it a valid comparison by claiming that national borders and international borders are equivalent, which they absolutely are not.
I mean, really. You’re trying to defend your argument by proposing Constitutional amendments to allow states to regulate work permits for people from out of state. You’re trying to alter reality to make your argument work. You tried to bring up the example of the benefit of multiple insurance companies and you couldn’t even put together the fact that these multiple bureaucracies are in fact the cause of people dying… which is even worse than losing jobs.
You’re reaching and reaching and reaching for this interstate tariff argument and you probably don’t even realize that states DO tax some things that come out of state. I pay taxes for stuff I buy on the internet, for instance. The problem with your argument here is that this hasn’t killed any jobs. In actual practice your argument just doesn’t hold.
Listen to this very closely: states can tariff other states all they want. In some ways they already tax out of state goods. It doesn’t mean a thing. If your interstate tariff argument is applicable to international tariffs - which it isn’t -
wait for it
then existing interstate tariff-equivalents already prove that it won’t harm us.
Globalism has already proven to be a net loss.
Furthermore if we continue on the path of globalism America’s currency will collapse and overseas labor will become too expensive to send jobs to. For some reason you’ve been afraid to discuss how globalism will benefit from eating itself into oblivion - which, considering the state of the US economy, it has clearly been doing.
Good for them!
Now how does this make movement from the U.S. to China easy? Or the U.S. to the EU? Or the U.S. to India?
You keep telling yourself that fantasy. You keep making up pipe dreams like that to bolster your argument. If your argument is in any way sane - which it’s not - then it only shows that international tariffs won’t hurt us, either. Existing interstate tariff-equivalents aren’t doing jack monkey squat to kill jobs.
So on your world… international trade, interstate trade, what’s the difference?
And you people accuse me of failing economics? What. The. Fuck.
Hey, you’re the one agreeing with Gonzomax about mortgages.
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
Again, it only shifts jobs from one part of a country to another. Unlike jobs moving between countries, when jobs move between states people can move without passports. Plus the tax money goes to the same Government that manages a huge chunk of the nation’s social services, the national defense, the roads. Furthermore, trade restrictions between states does not reduce or create jobs nationally. Another reason why your argument is wrong is that all states have a common currency and that is generally not true between nations.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s pretend for a moment that people could move from country to country without needed a passport or other documentation. They would, of course, need the funds to do so, but let’s just pretend that there would be no other barriers. Got that? Ok…do you seriously believe that Americans would joyfully move to China or India to take manufacturing jobs there? Why or why not?
(It’s a rhetorical question btw, since you are such a baby you won’t answer it)
Interesting. And your evidence for this is your bald faced and ignorant assertion that it is so. By any objective measurements, I’d say that overwhelming data is that globalism has been a net gain across the board. It’s been an individual loss for some people and some sectors, but overall it’s been a net gain. In America, for instance, goods and services are cheaper due to globalism. Jobs have been created on the distribution, marketing, service and sales end (to name just a few), as well as jobs for products and services that the US export. World wide countries who couldn’t afford to feed themselves now have an influx of hard currency which WILL CREATE NEW MARKETS THAT US COMPANIES WILL BE ABLE TO SELL TOO (with the requisite ‘YOU FUCKING IDIOT!’). It’s a win/win, especially for America because of the status of our currency as the de facto world reserve and the size of our markets. But you are too fucking stupid to understand any of this (basic) stuff.
If America’s currency ‘collapses’ (presumably you mean drops by a large amount relative to others currency), what do you think would be the likely outcome in the real world (as opposed to your fantasy universe)? Would China keep it’s peg below our currency? What would that mean? If not, what would that mean for Chinese goods and services vs American goods and services? What would it mean for US exports world wide to have our currency substantially below all of the other world currencies? How would this change the import/export equation? Lastly, why do you think that other countries try so hard to keep the American dollar high?
I know, you can’t and won’t answer any of this stuff because you is ignorant, and also you is a stupid little cry baby.
What makes you believe that the average American WANTS to move to China or India to get a crappy low wage job? If they wanted crappy low wage jobs then there are plenty of those in America? What makes you think that the average American wants to move to the EU where unemployment in many EU countries is historically higher than ours is?
Conversely, if the Chinese and Indians have all those juicy jobs they ‘stole’ from us, why do THEY want to move HERE? I mean, if we are some sort of economic ghetto compared to the rest of the world, why are there still so many people who want to move here? Or, taking the American exceptional-ism out of it, why do so many people want to move to Europe when THEY HAVE OFFSHORING AND OUTSOURCING TOO??
Well, the fact that you are an economic and trade theory idiot probably has something to do with it.
-XT
So now the pro-offshoring argument is so completely bankrupt that its ragingly fundamentalist adherents are resorting to fantasy scenarios to uphold their stupid arguments.
What’s next… “let’s just say there were no borders”? :rolleyes:
You guys are the stupidest human beings on Earth. No wonder you’re so desperate to fight me on this. I can just sit here and humiliate you about this for years - that is, if you’d stop humiliating yourselves long enough for me to do so…
And once again you resort to insults without addressing a single argument that has been offered.
Your definition of not addressing a single argument is giving an answer that shows your argument is a complete load of bollocks.
You have yet to address many things I’ve said - such as the fact that your “economic pie is growing” does not take into account the fact that the pie is SHRINKING for the working class. Or that even the Economist admits offshoring has replaced high paying jobs with lower paying jobs. Or that wages have not even kept up with inflation. Or that job growth has lagged population growth since 2001 at least. Or that the only result of “comparative advantage” is that we have millions of people doing absolutely nothing and earning nothing at all; for them there is no “re-allocation of talent” except to the unemployment line, and when that ends, there’ll be a bunch of people doing low paying work FAR below their skill level (otherwise known as underemployment - another point I’ve brought up that you guys have not addressed). Or that offshoring has nothing to offer the working class and the working class has no reason to support it… which is probably why opposition is so damned high.
Oh, there’s a lot of things you haven’t addressed. And never will.
The most important thing that you’ll never address is that your own argument is an ongoing personal insult against you.
Fortunately, though, fewer and fewer Americans are falling for your defense of the globalism scam. You can scream argumentum ad populum all you want but fewer people are listening. You should be looking into why that is.
I’d be happy to address any argument you bring forward that is supported by more than just your own assertions. Protip - it might be a good idea to read the cite before you post it. You know, to make sure it says what you think it does.
Well, come on guys. It’s time to TAKE ACTION!!
Let’s all go down to WalMart and buy some big poster boards and markers, make ups some signs and drive our Priuses down to city hall and start protesting!!