Right now, Target is selling an [Apple iPod touch® 32GB](http://www.target.com/Apple-touch-Player-Generation-Screen/dp/B001FA1O18/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&searchView=grid5&keywords=ipod touch&fromGsearch=true&sr=1-2&qid=1293820225&rh=&searchRank=target104545&id=Apple touch Player Generation Screen&node=1038576|1287991011&searchSize=30&searchPage=1&searchNodeID=1038576|1287991011&searchBinNameList=subjectbin%2Cprice%2Ctarget_com_primary_color-bin%2Ctarget_com_size-bin%2Ctarget_com_brand-bin&frombrowse=0 ) for $294.99.
If tomorrow Target had them on sale for $25, do you think they would sell more, fewer, or the same number of units?
Alternatively, if tomorrow they set the price to $25000 do you think they would sell more, fewer, or the same number of units?
Is there a price where people would decide to stop buying an ipod touch?
Also note that Best Buy is selling the same ipod for $274.
Given that they are both offering free shipping, who would you order from? Target at $295 or Best Buy at $274?
No, he’s well aware. We all are, everyone except you.
If tomorrow we decided to add another zero to everyone’s wages, we’d still have 16million unemployed. But now everything we buy would have an extra zero attached.
You seem to forget the effect that rising wages has on prices.
Look, I’m sorry you lost your job, I get that it sucks, but what you’re suggesting won’t help you.
Why? Couldn’t we just raise everyone else’s wages?
Okay, I’m going to do that today. What I’d like you to do is buy something, then offer the cashier and extra $100. Tell him/her you are offering to pay more to make sure he/she has a higher salary.
Oh, cool. Can you get the US to end the tariffs on soft wood lumber now? It’s hurting Canadian jobs.
I’ve asked this before and have yet to get an answer: Why is that a bad thing? I am an employer, currently hiring, and am very happy to have multiple applicants to choose from.
emphasis mine. Pot. Kettle. Black. Let’s call that PKB for short, because I will be using this term many, many times. For someone who is accusing me and many others of “tortured logic” you are displaying this in spades. The highlighted portion above, for those of you playing from home, is called circular reasoning/logic. It’s not really logic, but rather, an example of faulty logic.
I keep pointing this out to you because you keep ignoring it. You hand-wave, for lack of a better term, the difference between the wealthy US and poor China like it doesn’t mean anything, when clearly, it does. The reason there is any growth in the US is because China has ample amounts of cheap labor (which you think is easily remedied by making them (whoever that is) pay more – but we’ll get to that later). The US does not have that same luxury.
And again, I will point out that labor is cheap, and that there is a lot of slack in their system, that despite the protectionism, the mainly cheap labor will not stop investment dollars. You acknowledge this point, but you act like it doesn’t matter. Do you even know how tariffs work? Serious question, because I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, but with all this hand-waving, I’m starting to think you don’t. So, here it is in a nutshell:
The costs of making a good largely fall into two categories (there are many others, but mentioning now will only confuse you): labor and raw materials. Raw materials: iron, coal, oil, wood, etc., especially in modern economies, roughly cost about the same. Why? There are these things called ‘markets’ or ‘exchanges’ in a modern economy that trade and set the price levels for them. Most of the raw materials fall under the heading of commodities. Oil has its own market. With me so far?
With the cost of raw materials largely fixed (meaning everyone pays the same for it), the only variable, and the routinely the largest cost to making a good, is labor. If the average Chinese worker is making $0.90/hr and the average US worker is making $10/hr then raising the tariff on a good still makes the Chinese product cheaper. But, let’s add in tariffs, like you say, because you say that protectionism benefits the economy.
Chinese products go from X+$0.90 to X+11, US products stay at X+10. Now, in order to buy this good, people have to spend more money. Congratulations, you have now made everyone poorer! The American’s hard earned dollars now do not buy as much as it has before. But, wait, there’s more! As prices increases for a good, less of it is bought. So now, the market for that good X has shrunk. People who were involved with bringing the Chinese product to market are now out of work. So now, the dollar doesn’t buy as much, and more people are out of work! Yeah protectionism! Oh wait, that’s a bad thing…and, yet you continue to advocate this.
Really, where do you get this information? Germany is a protected market? Really? From early 2010: Germany’s Merkel: Protectionism ‘Greatest Danger’ To World Economy Here’s one from early 2007: Merkel of Germany Says ‘Nein’ to Protectionism There’s more, but I hope you see that you’re wrong. Also consider that Germany is a member of the EU, GATT, and the WTO all of which encourage free trade. So, tell me again how Germany is protectionist? I do know that they are protecting their renewable energy infrastructure. Why? Because it is a nascent industry. But, tariffs are not enacted without costs. The German people are paying more for energy through higher costs and increased taxation, providing a measurable deterrence to economic growth. Seriously, you could not have picked a more worse example to prove your point.
I have shown, you, again, (please see above) that protectionism breaks down the overall wealth of the economy. I have also shown you how tariffs don’t matter too much to China, because the cost of their labor is so low. PKB, pal, PKB.You have not shown one counter example. Even with simple logic, you haven’t been able to disprove anything I have written.
Do you know what else comes with super cheap labor? Super cheap cost of living. Subsistence farming coupled with foreign investment dollars really does show a lot of growth than subsistence farming on its own. Going from $0.10/hr to $1.00/hr shows 1000% growth, but really isn’t anything to write home about. Congratulations poor people of China, you can now afford a road. Oh, and the growth of the middle class ignores the other 900 million (I just read 245 million live in the coastal areas). The best tariffs and other protectionist policies can do is emulate that, protect the few workers that are employed in those protected industries and screw over everyone else. ‘Oh, but let’s protect all industries,’ you say. Yeah, that makes everything worse.
I’m not ignoring it. Again, this thing called a recession happened. Would you be making these arguments in the summer of 2007, Mr. Hindsight? Automobile ownership, stock investments, home ownership, employment, just to name a few, and the overall standard of living were at an all time high. Death of the Middle Class has been happening since the 1970’s, yet even now, the standard of living is higher than that time period. I’m sure your myopic view of history will hand-wave all this evidence away with whatever you think happened in the past 10 years, despite the fact that automation, off-shoring, outsourcing have been happening since the invention of the wheel. Oh, but way, you say, this time it’s different – same tune, in the same, song, on the same old tired, broken record.
No, you know nothing about supply and demand. You know nothing of inflation or chained dollar average either. Show where this is false. Oh, wait, you mentioned cars. Another ridiculously poor example. Epic Fail.
You fail to address Sam Stone’s salient points about inflation the value of what the dollar buys. You instead, for no other point for your convenience and inability to comprehend inflation, concentrate solely on nominal dollars. Cars cost less in terms of real dollars than they have ever done before.
What is insulting is what you bring to this debate. And again, I have to point you to a dictionary to look up what “cussing” is. Pointing out one’s ignorance [hint: yours] is often misunderstood as insults But, that’s just human nature and a sign of immaturity. But, please, continue to post with superfluous punctuation and capitalization. While you’re at it, also, please look up inflation and this other concept: ‘real vs. nominal value.’ Seriously. Oh, more cars are owned and produced than in 1950, really don’t want a cite for that do you?
Wrong. Again, this isn’t binary. Overall demand decreases. Kill may be too strong a word. The interaction between supply and demand is a real thing. Everything you call “analysis” (even by the loosest of definitions) ignores this. Why?
PKB. In addition to recession, you might want to consider market saturation. And, holy cow, seriously, read your links. For the benefit of the doubt, I usually believe what other people think the link means. I can believe that demand is down overall as consumers spend more on non-luxury items. But, you’re a so dead wrong. Serious epic fail. Demand is down for Christmas shopping. A relatively small time frame. Again with your short-sightedness. Do you think electronics spending only happens during Xmas?I was wrong that demand would fell because consumers focused on non-luxury spending, but not so, according to the article. Luxury items are actually up. iPad and Kindle have demand off the charts. Is the world that binary to you? Or, is view of history so short-sighted that any change to a current trend is absolute evidence that the exact opposite is happening? I would hate to see you at a roulette table: It’s red, it’s always going to be red. Oh, no, it’s black, it’s always going to be black. No wait…whatever.
For someone who mentions inflation, you show a stunning ignorance of it. Again, with the last 10 years, I won’t even mention the recession this time. Even giving your arguments here the benefit of the doubt, the standard of living continues to increase and prices (that is real prices, mind you, look up inflation, please) continue to drop. To focus so much on wages belies your class warfare mentality.
I have, and see again, above. And, to sum up the argument like you just did in the quote immediately above is another demonstration of your inability to parse out logic, as that quoted text does not relate the argument at hand. The point is with tariffs, the price of iProducts increase. At $300, the Apple sells X number. At $1500, how many are they going to sell? Who is going to hire these unemployed people? Again, why are we not all millionaires, even in the nominal sense?
The argument is: As the price of any good increases, the less people will buy it. Less buying = less demand. Less demand means less materials resources, and especially labor are needed. Less labor = more unemployed. An increase in the unemployed is an increase in supply of labor. As the supply of anything increases, demand for it decreases, and correspondingly, the price of it decreases. Seriously, this is basic supply and demand theory. If you claim to have any knowledge of economics, even in the slightest, you would know this. But, countless posts you put on this forum show increasingly that you have no clue of these concepts. Back to the example: Employers have a larger pool of people to hire from, so they can offer lower wages because with the larger number of unemployed, the greater the propensity that someone will work for that lower wage. You know this. You constantly harp about the employer’s market. Why do you ignore it now?
Did you just see what I wrote up there? It’s called making an argument. You simply state conclusions with little (read none) logic or argument applied to it. Your evidence of conclusion stating continues below:
China does, it doesn’t mean that local officials don’t favor bribes more. Deep down, I think China wants this to happen. But, that’s for another topic.
Yes, 250 million (I’m rounding up, and giving the benefit of the doubt that living in a coastal region automatically makes one middle class) are benefiting at the expense of 900 million otherwise poor poor people. Most people would think what you think of as middle class in China are also poor. And, how does History hate anything? Please explain, I could use more amusement. And, again, look up cussing. Wow, you have a lot of work on your hands. Let’s make a list:
Supply and Demand
real vs. nominal
Inflation
Cussing
Epic Fail. You really should just let this part of the argument go. Are shovels cheap where you live? “Having” and “spending” are 2 different things. In fact, they are opposites. Do you honestly not understand that? Please add that to the list. Add, opposites (see also, antonyms), too.
PKB, big time. You are arguing from conclusions again. 0 analysis. Zero, nada, zilch, zip.
Wrong. No one has to hire anyone. Unless the government does so on its own, or forces businesses to do so. Uh oh, there’s that communism again… Demand is down remember? Why would demand increase? Remember, thanks to your tariffs, prices have increased. Prices go up, demand goes down, all things being equal. Is the economy suddenly getting better now that all these people are unemployed and prices are rising? Because that’s the situation we’re talking about here in this argument. Your one line of reasoning is: “Someone has to hire a substantial portion of those 16 million…” Really, where? How? Let me bring back that concept of supply and price, just in case you missed it earlier. With more unemployed, the wages offered are lower because more with more people unemployed the greater the propensity to work for a lower wage, wage stickiness only goes so far. With demand down, there is no need to increase production of iProducts or any good suffering less demand.
Ok, you’re going to have explain this comment. I have a feeling that you’re only concentrating on nominal dollars and cents and not on the actual things that it represents like value and wealth.
If anyone knew the answer to this, they would know the future. As I don’t advocate divination, you’re going to have find another dead horse to beat.
Right… Housing bubble, failure in the derivatives market, failure in the auto industry, massive reduction in confidence in the economy and banking system…none of this mattered? More things to add to the list.
Don’t twist your arm patting yourself on the back. Not that I care that you can prove this. But, you do realize that major, highly capitalized long-standing, banks failed (to mention several nations’ economies) from this recession that you claim to so have so accurately predicted. One man triumphs above the system! I see now why you come in here posting with such incredulous abandon. Of course, you’ve had it right all along! Go you! Have you picked out an island to buy? Charles Schwab and Warren Buffet have been getting advice from you all this time, haven’t they? Don’t be shy now…
Well, the most recent statistics (2007) show that homelessness in the US had declined by 30% between 2005 and 2007, but I admit that this statistic is pretty weak, and my quick search hasn’t turned up anything more substantial than homeless in the US is a problem. But, yes, my point stands, overall level of wealth and standard of living has been and continues to increase, even in your vaunted 10 year period. In other words, you’ve got nothing.
And where would you rather be poor and homeless?
Capes? Do you know what wages are? Add that to the list. Hint, they come from having a job. Subsistence farming isn’t a job, is what someone does to survive. It’s like scavenging. The last time I looked neither scavenger nor subsistence farmer are an occupation. Wages come from doing work for somebody, as in having an employer. Who is the employer in this situation? Don’t tell me they are self-employed. (Ironically, it is true, but not in the way you think it is). I asked my driver if these people paid taxes, and he just laughed at me.
Did you really just drop the USSR? And, you say you know your history? Epic fail. What happened during that time period? Hint, it sounds like Stalin. The USSR was too busy with killing millions of its own people to make its great system work. And, what was the standard of living there vis-a-vis the US during that time period? Much, much worse than the comparison of the US and China now. >cough< Luddite. >cough<
Yes, and there has been no true Scotsman either.
Your attributing arguments to me that I did not make. All I am asking is: who is hiring these people again? Why would they be hired? Just because? An argument would fit nicely here. And, Europe’s 8% unemployment wouldn’t have anything to do with its ridiculous trade unions and inability to fire people would it? During that same time period, US unemployment has been much lower than that.
You keep bringing up this word “everyone”. That word does not mean what you think it means.
Sigh. That has nothing to do with actually hiring those 16 million jobless.
What makes you think I lost a job? Is this your way of making up things about someone to attack someone’s ideas? I’m a business owner. There’s a lot of us out there who oppose offshoring.
Because it has less of a positive effect than putting jobless people to work.
One person earning $1 million isn’t going to buy more HDTVs. But 10 people earning $100,000 will most likely buy 10 times as many HDTVs.
Actually I pay my employees more so they’ll perform better. And give them bonuses.
Would love to.
And I’ve explained that this is a bad thing for workers.
But again, you don’t care about workers. So why should they care about you? You’re just as replaceable as they are.
Going by your logic, if we laid off 16 million MORE Americans, say from retail, and replaced them with cheap immigrant labor, we could shave another what, $50 off the cost of the average iPod? Going by your “logic”, we could replace the delivery drivers with ultra cheap immigrant labor and … hell, if we displaced 64 million Americans with lower wage workers we could get the cost of an iPod down to what, $199?
Going by your logic, if we displaced ALL Americans with rock bottom immigrant labor and sent overseas everything that’s not nailed down, iPods would be $50 and everything else would be SUPER cheap!
Problem is, who would be around to buy anything?
Exactly. Because your argument stinks to high heaven and all these jobs we’re sending overseas is crippling the market here in the U.S.
You cannot buy an iPod if you’re earning $0.
You cannot buy an iPod if you’re earning $0. You cannot buy an iPod if you’re earning $0.
The more people who are earning $0, the fewer iPods you will be able to sell at any price whatsoever. This, you keep ignoring.
And you’ll be using it incorrectly every single time.
And you handwave away the fact that the unemployed are not wealthy. Earning $0 an hour is not wealth. It is poverty, in the extreme.
This load of garbage argument isn’t even worth bothering with. Except to tell you it is a load of bull.
All I need to explain to you is we have 16 million people out of work and your arguments pretty much leave them stranded. Permanently.
We need tariffs to put them back to work.
It’s either that, or the dollar inevitably collapses and that creates a NATURAL tariff.
It is impossible for us to continue this course without another Depression. Which, if you know any history, we’ve had before.
Seriously, you could not have posted a more ignorant argument if you tried.
Now you go ahead and tell me how “job guarantees” is not protectionism.
What Merkel SAYS about protectionism and what she DOES is another matter.
Oh and one other thing: Germany’s unemployment is now LOWER than ours.
No, you haven’t. You’ve only done a bunch of cherry picking.
Oooh, bluster. Getting frustrated?
You keep repeating that but that doesn’t make it true.
Going by your logic if we just let all the jobs in this country go to cheaper labor we’ll be even BETTER off.
All of your futile attempts at logic continually ignore one basic fact: the more people are out of work in America the smaller the market is for the companies who want to sell here.
Sigh Must I educate you on everything?
The middle class was shrinking long before 2007, with more people going to the ranks of the poor than the ranks of the rich.
Actually, I was. I said back then that the whole economy was based on BS: stagnating wages and anemic job growth made up for by spending based on skyrocketing consumer debt. In 2007-2008 fate called BS on the economy and the rest is history.
No, they weren’t. It was all false, based upon an orgy of buying on margin, the use of credit cards and people using their homes as ATMs. Employment was flat, with new jobs not keeping up with new entrants to the workforce, and wages were falling behind inflation.
I’ve cited all of this repeatedly. At this point one can only assume you’re intentionally discounting it.
Just like you discounted it when I pointed out to you that innovation jobs were going overseas, too.
The standard of living has been increasing for whom? Certainly not the jobless.
More temper tantrums. What you claim to know is clearly contradicted by what is currently going on.
Neither you nor Sam Stone have any salient points. What you have are temper tantrums and cookie cutter arguments that reek of desperation.
Ah, now you’re backpedaling.
LOL! Does your ahem understanding of supply and demand address what happens to a market when you put 16 million people out of work? What happens to demand when a bunch of people are earning $0? Ah yes, you have zero idea of the answer to that - this you have already shown. In spades.
Oh yeah I know - we’re in a recession. Exactly when do you think those people will find jobs again? Ah yes, that’s where your knowledge of economics plays the “somewhere over the rainbow” card.
Wow, you learned a new word sometime this last week.
At the expense of other consumer electronics. Did you miss that part?
And you have the inability to understand this:
Going by your logic, if we laid off 16 million MORE Americans, say from retail, and replaced them with cheap immigrant labor, we could shave another what, $50 off the cost of the average iPod? Going by your “logic”, we could replace the delivery drivers with ultra cheap immigrant labor and … hell, if we displaced 64 million Americans with lower wage workers we could get the cost of an iPod down to what, $199?
Going by your logic, if we displaced ALL Americans with rock bottom immigrant labor and sent overseas everything that’s not nailed down, iPods would be $50 and everything else would be SUPER cheap!
Problem is, who would be around to buy anything?
When you send jobs overseas you’re not replacing them with anything here. Except maybe lower-paying cashier jobs. In essence you’re shrinking the market of people who can afford iPods - and if they can buy iPods they’re not buying much else.
That’s only part of the argument. You’ve intentionally left out what happens to demand when you have more and more people who have no jobs, and wages that are stagnating. You probably left this out because it completely undermines your laugh argument.
Uh, what you do is not commonly called making an argument. Well, maybe it is called that here but in the real world it’s called burying your case under a mile of concrete.
In that case who will they have for customers?
There goes your ENTIRE argument in its own mushroom cloud.
sigh Once again… this was CAUSED by the problem of stagnating wages and anemic job growth.
False dichotomy. Most people would rather not be poor or homeless anywhere.
Subsistence farming is like scavenging. Ohkay, that wins the prize for first uber clueless comment of the year. I’m sure you’ll post more to top that soon.
You just contradicted yourself. And then hung a lampshade on it!
You’re confusing their economics with their human rights issues. The two are not the same. Again, your “arguments” have no resemblance to analysis whatsoever. However it does have a great resemblance to propaganda.
And I’ll be pleased when you actually make one.
Why should we hire those 16 million Americans? What else are we going to do with them? What’s to stop those 16 million people from growing? Oh wait, they are. We STILL don’t have enough jobs being produced to serve the new entrants to the workforce.
Those 16 million people can drag our entire economy into the dirt. Unless you suggest we just cut off services to them in which case you’re looking at a revolution. Which’ll cost America even more.
Your entire “argument” fails to look at anything from the perspective of those 16 million people.
You epic fail once again. US unemployment wasn’t much lower - we go by the U3 standard while Europe goes by the U6. Going by U6 standards the U.S. and Europe had quite similar numbers.
sigh
Your point stands much in the same way that Ronald Reagan is still standing.
First you counter my claim that homelessness has been on the rise since the start of this subprime crash with the claim that homelessness was down in the years before?
I’m quoting this hear so you can see again what you wrote. Start from the end of your statement and work backwards: If you want people to be employed, you need a larger market for companies to sell in.
Now you need to apply your logic or your facts, and try to figure out how tariffs are going to help increase the size of markets in the US.
When you lay people off and they’re earning $0 will you sell
a) more
b) less
c) the same
number of goods?
2)
If we send all those iPod jobs overseas and Foxconn workers ask for a raise, and their wages approach ours, and iPod production moves to Vietnam where their workers eventually ask for raises, then it moves to Africa, then India, then Eastern Europe…
At some point the whole world is going to be asking for normal wages and you’re going to run out of places to offshore. At that time you might as well bring production back here.
Of course this’ll be 50 years and an entire ruined American working class later, but iPods will then go back to $1500 apiece because you’ve run out of cheap labor!
Hear that buzzing sound, black knight? It’s the sound of your argument short circuiting.
The other big glaring error in emacknight’s repeatedly-asked iPod scenario question is that American labor would produce more iPods per work-hour. Their productivity levels would push iPods back down from $1500 to $300 simply because their production levels would flood the market with iPods if Apple didn’t artifically slow them down.
American workers are known for their superior productivity. Or maybe not anymore, since I pointed it out.
Dodge. What kind of reply is this? The comparison is the wealthy US and poor China. There will always be unemployed. Even 4% (some say 5%) unemployment is start undue inflationary pressures (you can research that on your own).
In other words, you got Jack (sorry, I couldn’t resist). If it is so much bull, where is your analysis? Like the rest of your posts, you have none. Oh, and China is importing our inflation, too. I already know what you’re going to reply with (i.e. Apple Ipod production), so save it. You’re wrong there too, which I will point out soon enough.
What 1929? Arguably 2008? Even assuming what you say is true, I will gladly take a 70 year depression cycle, and I would even be more glad to live through two of them (mainly because I’d rather not be dead). I’ve seen to have done fine so far (2008 - present) so I must be doing something right. Regardless, you are dodging the argument again. Claiming that there is any unemployed pretty much any argument, even your one-note analysis.
‘Free markets should be pursued.’
‘No, there are X number unemployed, it proves such a strategy doesn’t work.’
‘We should pursue large protective tariffs…’
‘No, there are X number of unemployed, it proves such a strategy doesn’t work.’
‘We should pray to god Kali, he will make our economy better…’
‘No, there are X number of unemployed, it proves such a strategy doesn’t work.’
Oh, and add “history proves right” to all of those to complete the argument, i.e. simple conclusion statements without any analysis. Seriously, with every point in history, the sheer progression of wealth and the standard of living since Adam Smith proves your arguments wrong.
And your coining of the term “natural tariff” demonstrates that you know little to nothing of the very thing you advocate.
Not that this is a surprise to anyone, but these quotes do not mean what you think they mean. Because the word “protect” is used, does not mean actual protectionism, at least not in the economic sense, not vis-a-vis another country. The word you are looking for is subsidization. The connection between subsidization and actual protectionism is a tenuous connection at best, and complete fails in this argument. Notice, that these jobs programs do not put a higher price on imported goods. Notice again, that these actions are not in conflict with the EU, GATT or WTO all of which advocate free trade amongst its members. This is like saying any country that engages in minimum wage is a protectionist economy. Good luck on finding that true Scotsman.
What you fail to do is distinguish low-skilled, button-pushing labor vs. actual labor that people compete for. Before you post any more snapshots of the economy, do factor in the recession which far outweighs any trade imbalance, or economic re-adjustment. Otherwise, your arguments are only centered on the view that there is a fixed pie of economic wealth, jobs, wages, earnings, etc. Clearly, you must be aware you are wrong in that thinking.
The only thing you are educating anyone on anything is your own ignorance.
I’ve already posted my cites against this. Before you post your cherry picking site from axe-grinding liberal and hippie web sites, do note that there isn’t a universally accepted definition of the middle class. All you’re really doing is arguing income inequality.
Right, my parents, my best friend, and HR manager didn’t buy new cars in 2007. I didn’t buy a new house in 2007. My sister didn’t expand her portfolio, the DOW wasn’t trading at 14k? Are you sure about that? All these people still have their cars. I still live in my house. I can find statistics that stocks were trading at the 14k mark in 2007. None of this happened? Am I dreaming? Of all the times to step out of your binary thinking, this isn’t one of them. Clearly these transactions took place. Whether they were wise decisions, is the subject of another matter, but does not mean that they did not take place.
To be fair, I didn’t start double-checking your cites until I started finding false ones (see my last post). You’re 0-for-2 so far.
You didn’t point it out to me specifically. But, others have already refuted your notion. Your snapshots into the economy are much like your arguments, devoid of context, logic and reasoning. I don’t need to repeat what others have said and what you are failing to grasp.
Keep moving the goal posts. It does so much to bolster your arguments [/sarcasm].
So, you know nothing about inflation, chained dollar averages, supply and demand? Because, you haven’t answered the question. Because when a call drops, disconnects, I have to press the on button on my tv twice, turn my ignition key again, Outlook crashes, these all mean that these various systems have failed…because fluctuations or variance don’t exist in your world, does it Captain Binary?
More dodging. There are calculators out there you know, that price a car (or any good) at any given year compared to now (or other time frames) you know. Just admit you’re wrong. Of course, you would have to admit then you know nothing about inflation either, real vs. nominal…etc…
Another dodge. So, you don’t know the interaction between supply and demand? Again you belabor X million out of work, when there is always people out of work. The price of tea in China is what again? In this particular example, all things being equal is that demand drops. Just like what happens when you raise the price of anything. Except now, you’ve affected 300 million people with your tariffs, whereas only 16 million were affected before. Does that sound rational to you, making everything more painful for everyone else is more desirable than limiting it to only a few in the first place?
In short, yes, that’s what happens. To claim anything else would imply one had a crystal ball. The long answer involves the setting of a new lower equilibrium and the destruction of wealth and earning capacity, which is exactly the road we will be on if we continue protectionist policies. I won’t even bother explaining this to you, since you are routinely failing to grasp even the most basic of other concepts involved in this discussion.
No surprise, but you did miss the part that it only covered the Christmas season. Electronics have no season. I won’t bother repeating what you intentionally deleted.
sigh (for real) This isn’t what is happening and it isn’t what is being argued. Additionally, it fails to comprehend the overall wealth generation from the trade. The short answer is that obviously this is a good trade as more and more iProducts continue to be sold, new products continue to be sold, innovation continues to happen.
And, yet, the same can be said about raising tariffs. Funny that…
Except that isn’t what is happening. More products are being created, demand is up. Business, even my department, are talking about giving iPads to its workers. If the market were truly shrinking, then there wouldn’t be any more iProducts. Apple wouldn’t waste their time and move on to something else.
Really, when I said “all things being equal” is leaving it out? Even with your misunderstanding, the lower price point does not impact the overall wealth from the parties or from the wealth created by the trade. Hyperbole does not a good argument make.
Do you even know what you’re writing? You are saying that business hire people to have customers. Do you really believe that? Is this really worth addressing? Do you not see anything wrong with that business model?
Dodge.
Both subsistence farming and scavenging earn no wages. Your idea of wage representation for effort only matters in your world.
If you could only reason, you would have realized that I said that wages mean that you are earning dollars (or whatever currency you want to use) for your efforts. Since we are not in a barter economy, you are hard pressed to find any actual wages being paid. Who is paying them? Oh, that’s right, nobody. Self-employed implies that you are earning wages through your own efforts, that still means actually getting paid from someone. See, I told you wouldn’t get it.
Do you not have a creative bone in your body? Are you going to turn around everything I write? Whatever… Again, look at the standard of living and GDP between the two. It’s a small snapshot because mass murder makes it hard to be productive. Just in case you’re curious, you would comparing a largely 19th century agrarian society against an industrialized, automated, mass-manufacturing economy, even with the depression, the USSR was a poor choice. But, I know you are looking at the issue way too literally. You might have well said the Aboriginal people.
Really, more hyperbole? The unemployment rate just didn’t drop again? And, why are we concentrating on 16 million? We just threw how many billions at the banks and the auto industry? 16 million is not going to ‘drag the economy into the dirt.’
U3 is the ILO standard, and used in comparison between countries (yes, including European nations).
Yes, fluctuations don’t matter in your world.
Recession.
Keep moving the goal posts. You can still use the “What about the children?” argument. Yet, it will do nothing to explain that protectionism is terrible for any economy.
After going well over the 20,000 character limit taking snapshots of where your argument rigorously deconstructs itself, I’m just going to trim this down to the TOP 5-ranked deluded arguments that you posted here. That being the 5 most hilarious among all the failed cartoonish points you tried to make.
Such as? Factcheck.org even explains the middle class is shrinking.
While you’re at it, go look up “plutocracy” while you’re at it.
It happened because the economy was lying to itself. Ever heard of a house of cards?
No one anywhere on here has ever refuted the fact that we’re bleeding research jobs overseas. Show where that has happened. Go look up biotech offshoring if you believe it is untrue.
Wrong. AGAIN. In manufacturing, American productivity outsizes China’s by a factor of 9 to 1. (cite: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/) Bringing the work back here would mean a 5x increase in labor price and a 9 to 1 drop in work hours needed to produce the goods. The cost of iPods (originally $300) would be multiplied by 5/9, depending on how well worker productivity interacts with the machinery.
I’m amazed that you don’t understand the basic concept of productivity and its relationship with wages when calculating the price of goods. Oh no, wait, I’m not surprised.
Let’s start with the simple stuff.
Factory A: Johnny is working for $5 an hour and he produces 9 iPods an hour.
Factory B: Richard is working for $1 an hour and he produces 1 iPod an hour.
Which factory produces iPods at the cheapest cost?
That isn’t even what I’m saying. If one company lays off its staff and moves overseas, that doesn’t hurt the overall economy. But when thousands of companies do this and MILLIONS of jobs are lost as a result, that’s a lot of people who are earning $0 and will not be able to afford goods at any price. The more workers get laid off the more won’t be able to afford anything. It’s like pissing in a big pool: one swimmer won’t be a problem but get 100 people on the side taking a whizz and you’ve got problems for everyone in the pool.
Furthermore you have yet to show how sending jobs offshore creates jobs in other areas. A lot of companies simply pocket the profits. Case in point: the ginormous cash reserves corporations are amassing right now.
So, not only do we need tariffs to prevent free trade from benefiting our economy and that of the Third World, we also need tariffs because our workers are so productive that we can out-produce everyone else.
If this “analysis” were at all valid, one would wonder why anyone ever outsourced at all.
I realize you are denying yourself the benefit of my posts, but you cannot deny me the pleasure of pointing out the awe-inspiring foolishness of your posts.
"There is no standard definition, and in fact, an overwhelming majority of Americans say they are “middle class” or “upper-middle class” or “working class” in public opinion polls. Hardly anybody considers themselves “lower class” or “upper class” in America…
…
So what do politicians mean when they say “the middle class”? … Each politician may be talking about a different group of Americans, but the message many voters hear is that the politician is talking about them."
There are certainly some advantages to the European system, but on the flip side, the taxes in the U.S. are much less, unemployment is lower, and the purchasing power of the population is much greater. So yeah, an engineer in the U.S. might have 30gs in loans after school, but he is more likely to find a job, have a higher salary, and pay less of his income in taxes.
I think there is some confusion as to why we don’t have a great public transportation system in the U.S. The first reason is a simple matter of geography. Our country is bigger, and it’s population is more spread out. As you note, when the population density reaches that of Europe, we have a similar level of public transportation. The second reason is that the reality is that most people want to live in the suburbs and drive their own car. The reason that we lack much public transportation is because the demand is low due to the fact that most people are rich enough to afford the cars they need.
I mean, look at what you said. You said when the price of gas sky rockets they can choose public transportation if they don’t want to drive. The reality of that situation is that the people still do want to drive, they just can’t afford it.
shrug. You run on the “cut GDP by 1/4 and raise taxes” platform, and see how it works. Not that I don’t agree with the health care bit, but the regulations on the job market in Europe and the taxes do a number on employment and wages.
