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.

In my second therapy session, which went well, my therapist asked me to talk about my strengths and weaknesses. I almost exclusively discussed my weaknesses and I came up short of being able to describe any strengths that I have. This was pretty illuminating for me and made it very clear that I haven't really placed any value in myself and that I have low self-esteem. She gave me a sheet with a list of a bunch of positive traits and asked me to go through it and see which ones I thought I had and comment as to how. I'm going to share the entire list as well as the ones that I chose below. In the process of trying to identify positive traits that I have, I found it very difficult because as soon as I consider them, my mind immediately calls up instances to negate those positive traits and to suggest to me that I don't have those traits. This is pretty troubling and unsettling. I put a negative spin on almost all of them. I also questioned whether some of these traits are positive at all or if they even serve me well. Just to refresh everyone's memory ... I'm in therapy for social anxiety disorder. Here's the full list. Positive Traits: kind, intelligent, hardworking, loyal, attractive, down-to-earth, goofy, creative, accepting, friendly, flexible, nurturing, thoughtful, confident, optimistic, respectful, determined, skilled, helpful, motivated, insightful, funny, patient, realistic, honest, generous, modest, serious, independent, trusting, resilient, cheerful, self-directed, reliable, relaxed, listener, brave, decisive, enthusiastic, forgiving, humble, sensitive, organized, selfless, practical, mature, focused, courteous, grateful, open-minded, positive, responsible, cooperative, frugal, tolerant, innovative, balanced Traits I Checked Off: kind, intelligent, hardworking, loyal, nurturing, respectful, helpful, insightful, realistic, modest, serious, independent, reliable, listener, forgiving, humble, mature, courteous, open-minded, responsible, tolerant I'm coming to the realization that quite possibly these things are all just traits ... they aren't positive or negative. They just are traits ... and that they can either be used positively or negatively. They aren't binary. I can choose to recognize that I do have some without being self-deprecating while also choosing some traits that I don't have that I can work towards and achieve. What do you guys think?

well that's what i'm getting at ... which brings us back to absolutes ... So if I list a bunch of qualities and I say these qualities make up who I am ... these positive traits ... and I have one instance where I am not kind to someone .... that negates the fact that I am that thing? So how can I ever have any positive qualities? That is mind boggling to me. Because that is what my mind is doing ... it's saying remember when a, b, and c happened ... so therefore you do not have this positive trait ... How can I identify any positive traits? I don't even know what to ask anymore ... let's stick with the example of kind for the time being so I can understand this.

thanks the for the very detailed reply. I agree with much of what you have said. That's why I'm in CBT, because the automatic thoughts are self-attacking, illogical, and irrational. They aren't absolute truths. I am having a bit of trouble wrapping my mind around the final thing you said about absolute truth or falsity. But I think i'm moving in the right direction. If I'm a kind person 100% of the time and I choose not to be kind to someone who shows me that they don't deserve my kindness ... that does not make it false that I am a kind person. Can we go over a few of these if you don't mind?

Thanks for your responses Ferssitar. I'm not sure how to answer your question about whether or not social anxiety could exist if their beliefs 100% correspond with reality. That's definitely an interesting question. Do you have any insight on that that you would like to share? To answer your second question ... I mean that I take something relatively tiny and make it something relatively huge ... taking things to extremes that are unhealthy and self defeating through negative self talk. 100% would be an absolute truth and 0% would be absolutely false. Does that make sense? Let me give you an example: "Wow this thing didn't work out for me. Nothing ever works out for me. Remember that time I was nice to this person ... and they treated me like crap. Remember that other person that treated me like crap? I always treat people well and they treat me like crap. Everyone treats me like crap. Remember that time I worked super hard and my boss didn't recognize me and just kept on piling on work. Remember those two times my coworker was riding me harder than anyone else in the office even though I knew I was doing my best. I can't take this crap anymore. Nothing ever works for me. Nothing ever will work for me. There's no point in trying if the result is always going to be the same." Do you see there how I would be taking it as absolute true that nothing ever works for me and how the super negative self talk is being used to reinforce the idea that things will never change. My mind will point to several instances where something didn't work for me as proof that things will continue not working for me. It negates all of the instances that something DID work for me. So it's not absolutely true, yet it is not absolutely false. That is the point that I'm getting at. I need to understand that and I it's hard for me when my mind automatically self attacks and ignores any evidence to the contrary. In regard to your last question ... that's a good one ... I don't know that the actual percentage matters so much as the fact that most of the self attacking that my mind engages in and the conclusions that it comes to are not based in reality ... they are based on selective memory used to reinforce the original thought that nothing ever works for me.

Thanks Cheryl. I'm half way there now I just have to put in all the hard work now which I'm prepared to do.

That's an interesting question. But I think that more likely than not ... At least for me none of these things may be 100% true. Using a handful of examples as a sample to prove something 100% true is not a good way to think or at least where my mind takes them is to unhealthy extremes.

I recently made the big decision to enter therapy for social anxiety disorder. I've only been through 2 sessions but so far so good. I was given this worksheet on recognizing the different types of automatic thoughts and thought I would share with you guys. I decided to go down the list and check off everyone that I have ... and I have all of them! It makes sense to me that someone with super negative automatic thinking has trouble socializing. Categories of Distorted Automatic Thoughts: A Guide for Patients 1. Mind Reading: You assume that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts. "He thinks I'm a loser." 2. Fortune Telling: You predict the future negatively: Things will get worse, or there is danger ahead. "I'll fail that exam," or "I won't get this job." 3. Catastrophizing: You don't believe that what has happened or will happen will be so awful and unbearable that you won't be able to stand it. "It would be terrible if I failed." 4. Labeling: You assign global negative traits to yourself and others. "I'm undesirable," or "He's a rotten person." 5. Discounting Positives: You claim that the positive things you or others do are trivial. "That's what wives are supposed to do - so it doesn't count when she's nice to me," or "Those successes were easy so they don't matter." 6. Negative Filtering: You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives. "Look at all of the other people who don't like me." 7. Overgeneralizing: You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident. "This generally happens to me. I seem to fail at a lot of things." 8. Dichotomous Thinking: You view events or people in all-or-nothing terms. "I get rejected by everyone," or "It was a complete waste of time." 9. Shoulds: You interpret events in terms of how things should be, rather than simply focusing on what is. "I should do well. If I don't then I'm a failure." 10. Personalizing: You attribute a disproportionate amount of the blame to yourself for negative events, and you fail to see that certain events are also caused by others. "The marriage ended because I failed." 11. Blaming: You focus on the other person as the source of your negative feelings, and you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself. "She's to blame for the way I feel now," or "My parents caused all my problems." 12. Unfair Comparisons: You interpret events in terms of standards that are unrealistic - for example, you focus primarily on others who do better than you and find yourself inferior in the comparison. "She's more successful than I am," or "Others did better than I did on the test." 13. Regret Orientation: You focus on the idea that you could have done better in the past, rather on what you can do better now. "I could have had a better job if I had tried," or "I shouldn't have said that." 14. What If?: You keep asking a series of questions about "what if" something happens, and you fail to be satisfied with any of the answers. "Yeah, but what if I get anxious?" or "What if I can't catch my breath?" 15. Emotional Reasoning: You let your feelings guide your interpretation of reality. " I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out." 16. Inability to Disconfirm: You reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict your negative thoughts. For example, when you have the thought "I'm unlovable," you reject as irrelevant any evidence that people like you. Consequently, your thought cannot be refuted. "That's not the real issue. There are deepr problems. There are other factors." 17. Judgmental Focus: You view yourself, others, and events in terms of evaluations as good-bad or superior-inferior, rather than simply describing, accepting, or understanding. You are continually measuring yourself and others according to arbitrary standards, and finding that you and others fall short. You are focused on the judgments of others as well as your own judgments of yourself. "I didn't perform well in college," or "If I take up tennis, I won't do well," or "Look how successful she is. I'm not successful." The goal is to be able to challenge these types of automatic negative thoughts when they come up with questions like the ones below: 1. Is there substantial evidence for my thought? 2. Is there evidence contrary to my thought? 3. Am I attempting to interpret this situation without all the evidence? 4. What would a friend think about this situation? 5. If I look at the situation positively, how is it different? 6. Will this matter a year from now? How about five years from now? Any questions, comments, or thoughts are welcome

Oh okay I see what you mean now. Yeah that's definitely what happened there. It made me feel more anxious. It's definitely an uncomfortable thing when someone points it out. I'm not sure this is about bullying though rather than recognizing that I have some qualities I need to change if I am to have an enjoyable life.

@ Sima: I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate please?

Steve ... thank you for pointing that out. I'm clearly at the beginning so I may not be phrasing things and wording things exactly correctly. I'm not broken ... but I am shaped by my experiences. I'm working away from the deep seeded inner belief that I was broken. It's a process. My second session went very well. I'll be posting some of my exercises and reviews of each session here as well. I'll throw some more threads up tonight.