Comments on: Job-Killing Labor Costs and the Manufacturing Sector

By: labeling systems

labeling systems — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:46:55 +0000

That’s good RWW. A solid background of efficient infrastructure with labor makes for a perfect foundation.

By: Vanmind

Vanmind — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:10:00 +0000

You remain ignorant of economics because you insist on not learning anything about your ignorant opinions.

By: Vanmind

Vanmind — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:06:01 +0000

Unlikely. It is regulation and the inherent liability limits of being a politically-connected company within a regulated environment that leads to things like poisoned consumer products and environmental disasters. Under free markets, almost no company would dare to defraud people in such ways.

By: Vanmind

Vanmind — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:02:52 +0000

The need for a “positive trade balance” is a lie.

By: Colin Phillips

Colin Phillips — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:38:57 +0000

Well, yes, in a free society, you would be welcome to add all of those things to your diet, if you wanted to. I wouldn’t stop you, but I wouldn’t shake your hand either. In general, because those things are widely considered harmful, most people would choose not to buy food, water, and medicine from someone who did not take pains to show he had removed these things. It’s quite simple really – if government is able to solve a problem, the free market is also able to solve that same problem, usually incredibly more fairly, justly, and efficiently.

By: biomedlives

biomedlives — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:06:50 +0000

“…regulations have by their general obstructive tendency.. ” Without regulations, we could have thalidomide, heavy metal ions in the water, and E. coli in our food.

By: Colin Phillips

Colin Phillips — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:05:13 +0000

What do current economic policies have to do with free trade?

By: biomedlives

biomedlives — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:02:51 +0000

So when, free trade enthusiasts, will current economic policies bring us a lower trade deficit? Perhaps, though, you don’t see the chronic trade deficit and the accumulation of large reserves by China as problems.

By: jnewsham

jnewsham — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:30:11 +0000

So government intervention and rising labor costs caused unemployment. In the late 1990′s and early 2000′s productivity rose but workers wages did not. Fewer workers accomplished more for less. In earlier periods when productivity rose, the fruits of productivity were shared with labor. In this period the wealthy enriched themselves and used the money to exert influence on the the political process to deregulate until their unregulated greed crashed the economy. The great strength of this country is in the middle class and working class which are being devistated by a 30 year period of redistribution of wealth to the upper class. We are stuck in this recession because the middle and working class workers who formerly consumed the manufactured goods have had their wages reduced, lost the jobs or had them cut back. While corporations based in the Cayman Islands, whose workers are overseas, claim the rights of US citizens. And workers must read smug articles about how they are to blame.

By: Charlie Virgo

Charlie Virgo — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:53:50 +0000

That’s a very good point Colin.

By: Iain

Iain — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:29:23 +0000

It is interesting to see how many ways ideas can be seen and used to advance many different ideologies.

By: Iain

Iain — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:27:34 +0000

Thank you, Colin, for explaining that rather well.

By: Iain

Iain — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:26:05 +0000

What I want to know is what happens when the insurance companies go out of business? Does that mean people working there will lose their retirement savings automatically and permanently? Is this what happens with these kinds of bills?

By: Colin Phillips

Colin Phillips — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 07:51:20 +0000

Lee,

Nobody’s saying that you shouldn’t be independence-minded, there’s nothing wrong with that (other than losing significant opportunities for trade with people with a different comparative advantage than you, which is your choice). But by advocating the restriction of free trade, you are advocating removing that choice from other people – essentially destroying their independence, as they should ask you at each trade whether you approve of their trading partner. Thus, by restricting free trade, you are an enemy of self-reliance, not a friend. People will be forced to rely on your judgement rather than their own.

By: Brett in Manhattan

Brett in Manhattan — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 05:24:02 +0000

You left out that most of the 98% percent has access to technology that the top 2% couldn’t have dreamed about only a few years ago.

Steve Jobs made his money by selling products to everyone with a few hundred bucks, not just the so-called elites.

Of course, Marxists tend to avoid these “inconvenient truths.”

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:15:35 +0000

Maybe the government could mandate demand.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:43:15 +0000

Guys, I think we may just have a very fundamental difference in the way we look at things. I have to admit I’m extremely isolationist and independence minded; above all else I value self-reliance, and that goes from the individual to the national. I have no taste for any international trade beyond sheer necessity.

But I’m being sincere when I say thanks for taking the trouble to put me to the test. Someday I may decide I’m wrong; I’ve been wrong about a lot of things before and doubtless will be again. But that’s why we’re here, isn’t it.

By: Charlie Virgo

Charlie Virgo — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:05:04 +0000

It’s amazing to me that someone can read that and come to the conclusion that you have. If you read it carefully, you will see that he is actually opposed to free trade because he believes it leads to the destruction that communism requires. Here is the quote I am referring to:

“by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions,…will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians”

Charles Manson employed similar logic. He taught that if Blacks and Whites were allowed to mingle, it would result in the great racial war that would put him in power over the Blacks. Just because he was promoting desegregation doesn’t mean he wasn’t a racist. Similarly, Marx believed that free trade wouldn’t actually work, which is what he needed for his theories to take hold. This doesn’t make him a proponent of free trade, because he actually believes it will fail.

Using your logic, then, you would have to say that free trade is a good thing, since Marx didn’t believe it was effective (“Free Trade…will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletarians”).

While I agree with you that the Bushes were much more leftist than many people realize, it has more to do with their foreign, monetary and civil rights policies than anything. Unfortunately, what you haven’t realized is that you are the one drinking the feaux “patriotic” kool-aid by demanding products only be made in America. Some states are more socialist than others (I live in AZ, and both CA and NM are MUCH more socialist) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t in my best interest to buy things from them. Because in the end, and this is very important, capitalism will ALWAYS trump socialism. Free trade is simply the most efficient way for capitalism to do it. What you are arguing is that less efficiency, higher costs and poorer quality (how unpatriotic of me to suggest another country could produce something better than us…) is the best way to go. I recommend thinking more about Anthony’s argument because you manipulated it in order to ignore what he is really saying.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:08:46 +0000

Lee,

Did you read my second point? What Marx thought does not matter… he based his argument on a large number of erroneous assumptions that have been thoroughly debunked here. I will say it again: who has supported free trade and why has NO bearing on the legitimacy of free trade.

How about this: if you hate trade so much then you should refuse to buy anything that has at any point left your country, or that was made with anything that has left your country. Would that make you better off? Or have you benefited first hand from international trade?

Better yet, you should not trade with anyone outside your household. Think of all the jobs you would save if you refused to trade with anyone! You could make your own car, your own clothes, and you would be guaranteed lots of work to do.

On a more serious note, if you can see the benefit of trade within a country how can you fail to see that there trade outside of your country is also beneficial? How does crossing an arbitrary line on the ground make the difference between trade being beneficial and trade being harmful? Think about it.

By: Lee

Lee — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:33:58 +0000

Yes, Anthony, that’s precisely the point: Marx supported it because he thought it would kill capitalism. Check the history of who has supported free trade in this country; up until the Bush twins, who with their own and the media’s connivance managed to pass themselves off as conservatives, when in fact they were probably the most leftist since FDR.

As a matter of fact I do expect the majority of people to support it in a herd mentality, just as they supported the Bush twins while they pretty much destroyed whatever was left of this country; all they had to do was wave the flag and thump a bible occasionally and too many people never actually looked at the effect of what they were doing.