perrytheplat

hah oh well.

Thanks Jeff. Didn't even realize there was a comment on this thread from a long time ago. Joined the NYC FDR facebook page.

It's definitely not the same thing. But they will have negative outcomes. The degree and timelines you can measure and debate for yourself. The point is that if Toyota sends cheaper cars than Ford can produce, that is competition, and competition is a good thing for everybody (consumers, employers, and employees). If Ford cannot produce cars as efficiently as Toyota, then perhaps Ford needs to either accept a smaller market share, or get out of the car business. If price fixing and economic rigging cause malinvestment and waste in production, perhaps the capital and labor resources aren't being allocated properly, and therefore, those businessmen and employees working for that company are being told by economic law to move to a field or industry in which they are actually productive. That's just basic markets. It will hurt Ford in many other ways than just direct sales of their cars. We don't have tariffs in between the 50 states and we shouldn't be arguing for tariffs on the importation of products from other states. Private companies are not obligated to do anything for anyone and using government force to steal from them to do so is not only immoral but it is bad economics. In your example, Ford would not be traitorous for manufacturing cars elsewhere. It's a business. Businesses don't make cars because they love countries and governments. They make cars because they love cars and they can do so efficiently. They don't manufacture cars to kneel before the alter of the state. Yes, it could be said that placing that tariff on Ford hurts the US. It hurts car sales, it hurts consumers through higher prices, it forces consumers to buy higher priced lower quality products, it forces people out of jobs. It does a whole lot of bad. You are only paying attention to one thing here ... which is a decrease and shifting of US jobs from one industry to another.

depends on how you define terms. money cannot be debt. currency is debt. There are several characteristics that define money. paper debt notes are not money. I'm not arguing something different. Tariffs "are" taxes. I gave the example of Ford manufacturing products outside of the US market to explain that raising tariffs on trade directly hurts domestic companies and will force them to raise prices along with the cost of capital. It's market rigging and will result in malinvestment, shrinking industry, higher prices, and destruction of inefficiently used resources. You are correctly looking at domestic jobs and their corresponding increase and decrease depending where companies choose to manufacture. You are missing all of the other costs that come along with forcing companies to produce locally in inefficient markets. Bastiat's Law of what is seen and unseen comes into play here regardless of how patriotic and nationalistic this policy sounds. I'm not so sure it's poisoning the well but ... points for negotiation comment. Negotiation is not compromise. In free trade, one party values something they want more than what they are already have. The other party does the same thing. This is a mutually beneficial trade since both parties are winning and not losing anything. This is called the "coincidence of wants".

Is your response above ... a response to people who are claiming that child labor needs to be stopped and a solution for them to put their money where their mouth is and buy local (sarcastically of course)? ... or are you suggesting that buying domestic regardless of price, quality, or economic consequence is a sound economic policy for a domestic economy and the people who live in it? I think what you are referring to is called when you refer to cheap crap is called "dumping". It's another common economic fallacy. In this PDF there is a section on that. Take a read through it if you are so inclined. It explains why this is incorrect. https://mises.org/library/protectionism-and-destruction-prosperity I also have a degree in Economics and Finance. Most college degrees are useless and much of that degree was useless too. I learned most of what I know outside of college through self-study because they don't teach economics in college. They teach political economic philosophy of philosophers they prefer who are all different types of Keynesians, Communists, and Interventionists. The first day in money and banking they taught us money is debt. It was laughable. But yes, I would say there are tons of reasons why companies choose to open plants in other countries and pretty much all of them have to do with the insane amount of regulations, taxes, and devaluation of currency and its effects on the wage rates and benefits demanded by Americans who only understand one thing .... that their dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. That has little to do with what geographic location those goods are manufactured in. I would be happy to entertain this conversation further if you would like. People will not have jobs because taxing companies to levels that make them non-competitive in the global marketplace will decrease their market share as their costs of capital skyrocket in order to comply. If a company was to comply, they would have to raise the costs of their finished products enough to break even and make a meaningful profit that would keep their doors open. It would also fundamentally change the nature of their business model. A company like Ford who manufactures thousands of cars would immediately have to cut production to remain profitable. They would have to fire tens of thousands of people if not more and shrink from becoming a largely international company to a smaller regional one. You cannot impose prices via government edict without negative consequences. This is a common economic fallacy laid out by Bastiat in "The Law". People tend to focus on what is seen and not unseen. That's a great book. It was one of the first I taught myself with. Here's a link to a Rothbard paper on protectionism that addresses several of the most common fallacies. https://mises.org/library/protectionism-and-destruction-prosperity

I agree. The emotional component is not necessarily a bad thing ... maybe what I was trying to say was ... acting purely on emotion and not paying attention to the other components is absolutely a bad thing. Those individuals are free to make those bad decisions if they want to. I happen to disagree when they believe they should be able to make them for us ... in example governments dictating trade barriers ala Trump, Hillary, Bush, or anyone else. You have a decent point in here although I'm not sure you see the other side of it. Those economics laws are universal things. They exist like the law of gravity or mathematical laws. Where I think you are missing my point is that sure they are somewhat negative to the individuals who have skills and employment in inefficient industries. When a manufacturer of a product, for examples cars, is not able to do it competitively, creating an economics safe zone for them, to waste resources, and raise prices on a multitude of things makes us ALL worse off in the long run. It's an economic fallacy. Tariffs create deadweight loss of resources, higher prices, and even more economic instability after their companies become bankrupt. I'm open to further discussion. I believe this gentleman expressed it very clearly. Government creating losers in situations that are expressly always win win for both parties. It's a net negative.

the slave labor or child labor thing is a common misconception. when trading labor for productivity both parties win ... one doesn't win and the other loses. basic econ. as consumers we participate in the market logically and economically ... not emotionally ... the whole buy american thing is not free trade nor is it sound economic policy.

there are others as well sure ... i was kind of focusing on economics so I could hash that out clearly ... maybe somewhere in there is the situation with apple ... who the hell do they think they are? and their manufacturing outside of the country. the other one that comes to mind at the moment is executing snowden.

The one I was specifically referring to was in regard to the double digit tariffs and trade barriers that Trump proposed. Economic protectionism. Here's a paper that discusses them: https://mises.org/library/protectionism-and-destruction-prosperity Fairness, Dumping, Infant Industries, Aging Industries, and Balance of Payments are all very common criticisms of free trade. Very bad examples of attempting to prove that competition harms the economy and the individual. Placing a 35% tariff on Ford and Carrier for manufacturing outside of the country would be popular examples Trump brought up himself. The other is the assumption that jobs belong to Americans or Japanese or whoever.

I actually have had a very hard time finding podcasts/videos of him addressing valid criticisms. I've definitely heard podcasts of him addressing nonsense criticisms of him (racist ... etc). The only other one that I found was about Donald and tarrifs ... and the guest who he was speaking to devolved into bumbling goo. Are there any in particular that go over valid criticisms?

I thought I would add a second comment after re-reading your conclusion .. You've come a long way and that's amazing. I just started therapy ... so it's nice to see a positive successful example of someone having made substantial progress. Thanks again.

Great post Kathryn! Thank you. I will be printing this out to re-read every now and then. I find reading something on a regular basis helps reinforce it.

Interesting observation. Can you share the quote or source of that quote so that we can have a better idea of what we are considering? Good for you on getting rid of some toxic people in your life. I recently did the same and while your world may seem smaller for the time being ... it's a more honest one with less drain on your conscience. Could you elaborate on this more? Is it always designed to hurt someone for the express purpose of hurting them?

Thanks for your response Steve. Very uplifting. I appreciate that. There is positivity in recognizing the negativity that I exhibit because I'm actually doing something about it to change my life outlook and self-esteem. I like what you said about the aristotelian mean. I find that to be very true whereas before it's so easy to have black/white absolutes dictate life. So I may be able to benefit from using this knowledge to challenge those negative automatic thoughts. When my mind says well you are this and what about this and that and it is taking things to extreme I can filibuster and tell myself to stop and remind myself of the artistotelian mean. These particular traits may be my default, however, if I stray from them in particular situations, it doesn't negate the fact that they are my baseline ... and that I can be proud of having such traits. In your example ... courageous and brave enough to tackle my demons ... but not reckless to ignore the costs of what I may be doing and what effects it may have. In this instance I wouldn't be a coward because there's no deficit in courage or bravery because I'm already participating in my own growth. So I could proudly own the fact that I am courageous or brave ... Am I making sense there Steve?

I think this thread may have delved beyond the scope of the negative automatic thought process I was initially talking about. I'm going to start another thread about the positive trait exercise that I did and we can talk about it there https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47713-positive-traits-worksheet-from-cbt-therapy/ Thanks for the great discussion Ferssitar. I think we've both come to the same conclusion.