Posted by Boo Boo Foo:
[nitpick]
“Whilstsoever?”
[/nitpick]
I’ll take the Brazilian women. But I wholeheartedly agree with Boo Boo and Rashak. Our policies can be unfair, yet no nation yells louder when it perceives even the slightest trade slight. As a slight hedge, I will say that items like steel and agriculture should have just enough protection so that the industries to not totally atrophy, as both as necessary for national defense (one never knows when Australia and Brazil are going to attack). Unfortunately, protections, once in place, do not come down when they are not needed.
Posted by Estilocon:
Well spoken, Estilicon, but I’m unclear as to what you want done about the problem. The Bush Administration is proposing an expansion of NAFTA to include the whole Western Hemisphere. Do you think Argentina should join in such a trade alliance, or not? If so, do you think Argentina should join on the same terms on which Canada and Mexico joined NAFTA, or would you want different terms?
Oh I would imagine about as fair and balanced as the Clinton bunch were. :rolleyes:
Dennis Kucinich is a much more ethical man than Bill Clinton, Grey, and that is a fact. Anyone here care to contradict me?
BrianGlutten
I would suspect there is not much use for you and I to debate this particular topic since we have widely divergent views of the role of government in the economy. Given those different views, we’ll never agree on trade policy.
From your perspective, I’d at least say that you have a consistent philosophy that more or less hangs together given the assumptions you start with. My argument would mainly be with those who are pretty firmly rooted in the free enterprise system but want to make one exeption in the case of “exporting jobs overseas”. It can’t be done like that. You either accept the whole package of protectionist measures, or you’ll just have companies finding more or more creative ways to get around the whole jobs issue. I won’t repeat the arguments I used in the other thread (Why not tax the hell out comapanies…). Folks can go there if they want to delve into that particular issue.
The man’s personal ethics have little bearing on the matter of US Government policy when it comes to trade issues. The President can easily be a reed in the wind depending on the level of state-level outcry. You need only look to various mid western senators/representative to see how local industrial needs heavily impact national policy. The problem is that domestic issues for Americans tend to become international issues for the rest of us.
And so the search for a scapegoat begins again. Last time with a high dollar and weak economy American policy makers went after the Japanese and Germans, this time it’s China. I eagerly await “The upcoming war with China” book.
Vibrant? You are nothing if not an optimist for your cause.
But why stop at $12.00/hr? Why not just legislate that everyone be made a millionaire by his or her employer?
I’ve got to ask you, Brian, if you think you could jack up wages to $12/hr and have everything else remain the same. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that the new wage doesn’t reduce employment. Why would merchants not raise prices to reflect the new increased spending power of the locals? I somehow suspect your solution then would be to impose price controlls.
One thing I’ve noticed in these protectionist threads is the assumption that companies, forced to pay higher wages, will accept reduced profits. That is NOT going to happen. Increased costs will be passed along, as much as possible, to the consumer. Any increased costs that cannot be passed along will result in less money being budgeted in every other area. Less advertising (lost jobs there), less R&D (lost jobs there), lower medical care contributions and other benefits(that raise you just got has just disappeared), etcetera. Protectionism does not save jobs and help the economy. At its best, it only shifts the burden the economic burden.
Heh Heh! Trust me John, there’d be a few that you’d reject on “quality control” grounds! 
Posted by Grey:
Are you talking about a particular forthcoming book? I could’ve sworn I saw such a book on the stands not long ago but I can’t find it by an Internet search. However, there is a Chinese-American lawyer, Gordon Chang, who wrote a book, The Coming Collapse of China (Random House, 2001) predicting the Communist regime would fall within five years (of the book’s publication) under the double weight of economic inefficiency and public disenchantment with the Party. You can read a good review by the conservative Catholic intellectual John J. Reilly at http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/tccc.htm. If there is a civil war in China, of course, there are any number of ways the U.S. might get sucked into it. I hope that can be avoided. It might involve nukes being fired.
Posted by John Mace:
No need to speculate, John. Let’s just keep an eye on those communities where Living Wage movements have had some success and see what happens there. Last year in New Orleans, for instance, a movement led by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – http://www.acorn.org/) and SEIU (Service Employees International Union – http://www.seiu.org/) won enactment of a city law adding $1 per hour to the federally-mandated minimum wage; there is now a movement to expand that to the whole state of Louisiana. Story at http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/livingwage/neworleans.htm. This has not caused any runaway inflation in New Orleans – yet. Let’s see what happens after the law has been in place for a couple of years. I really doubt price controls will be necessary, but note that even Republicans are not averse to using them now and then – remember Nixon? Come to think of it – did the original enactment of a minimum wage in the U.S. lead to inflation? We had runaway inflation for a time in the '70s, but I don’t think minimum-wage laws had anything to do with it; it was mainly caused by unstable oil prices. Whether Nixon’s temporary price freeze helped curtail it is another question.
By the way, there is going to be a ballot measure in San Francisco next month on raising the minimum wage there from $6.75 per hour (the current statewide minimum in California) to $8.50. ACORN is now gathering signatures for a Florida ballot initiative to establish a statewide minimum wage of $6.15. And there are other ongoing campaigns – you can read about them at http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=42. That’s why I describe the living-wage movement as “vibrant,” John. It’s actually getting stuff done!
Instead of $12 dollars an hour outside the US… how about we lower US salaries to make them competitive ?
Once big business has a better alternative to US wages... why should they stay ? So much for Dopers who say US big business needs protection and creates jobs... the jobs they create are in Asia.Brian:
Perhaps I’m confused on the term “living wage”. I’ve seen efforts here locally in the San Jose area to enact a living wage, but those have always discussed wages more in your range of $12/hr (and higher) than the examples you are citing. So yes, if you want to call efforts to tweak the min wage up “vibrant”, you’re probably not far off the mark.
I would also agree that relatively small changes in the minimum wage, like that acomplished in Louisiana are not going to induce “runaway inflation”. The economy is extremely complex and there are many, many factors that go into determining the rate of inflation and the unemployment rate. I’ve seen the various studies that have attempted to prove that small changes in the min wage have little or no impact on the economy. I’ve also seen the critiques of those studies and it’s unclear to me that anyone has really proven anything-- economics being a very inexact science.
I’ve started and run businesses for quite a few years, and if I were contemplating openning one in SF, I certainly wouldn’t do so if I thought that city was going to raise the min wage as per the ballot initiative. Why wouldn’t I start it just south of the city in the next town unless the company absolutely had to be located in SF?
Then, if you ever visit Europe, I would advise you not to talk about fair trade with the locals, in particular local farmers or industry workers (or else, bring your gun with you, ready to use).
Actually, there’s an alternative, which is to modernize the steel industry in order to make it competitive on the world scale, like it has been done (at great pain) in Europe twenty years ago. But this would result in massive laid-off (and angry voters). Some of the regions where steel was traditionnally produced here never really recovered economically. But steel is always produced, at competitive prices, so it’s not an issue for national defense.
Since essentially, farming is the economical activity we just can’t live without, I would personnally think there’s mo wedge room in this area. However, though tariffs might be justified in order to keep a country self-sufficient, subventionning exports at the expense of both the tax-payer and the farmers of foreign countries who go broke because they can’t even compete on their own *domestic * markets as a result of these subventions is harder to justify. And it’s exactly what both the US and the EU are doing.
Simple, the first world has to realize that they cannot sustain they spectacular way of life for ever in a world with so little equility. I am not speaking from a religious or moral point of view but from a practical one.
Every day we see in the news reports of inmigrants dying trying to cross the frontier to a better way of living. A few days ago I went to a conference where this situation was compared to the Barbarian invasions (particularly to the ones that contributed to the demise of the Roman Empire), I found the idea very interesting.
Now answering your question, I think that Argentina has to negotiate forming a block with it’s southamerican partners (see Mercosur), it is the only way of having at least a bit of strenght in the negotiation table, specially considering that on the other side is the Leviathan.
Posted by Estilicon:
Interesting idea. Hey, Rashak Mani, you’re a Brazilian, what do you think? Should the South American nations from their own trade association, independent of (and generally opposed to) NAFTA?
There was a book in the early 1990’s that had people seriously considering a US/Japan war based on economic forces. The domestic pressure to blame others for American economic woes dragged out a number of apocalyptic theories. The Publishers Weekly review is telling if you replace China for Japan.
From Amazon.com, the book Coming War With Japan
Bolding is mine.
Shooting European farmers–especially French farmers–would be a wonderful way to promote free trade. And in fairness to Europe, I propose to give them the same right to shoot American farmers.
Aw hell, let’s just shoot all the farmers and be done with it. Biggest welfare queens on the planet.