# Happy to export jobs?



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Many folks on here have expressed the opinion that it matters little to them if goods once made in one place, say the US or Europe are now made in cheap labour countries as long as the quality is good.

I want to posit the view that this attitude is immoral. Immoral because it breaks the so called "Golden Rule" which is " do unto others as you would have done to you"

I want to argue that you can only be easy and at peace about production being moved to save on labour costs if you wouldn't mind your job being exported,

I know its a market out there - but one of the reasons jobs have been exported is the refusal of people to pay a fair price anymore for goods in the west - we all want it cheap! 

How would you like it if people began to refuse to pay your labour rates and wanted you on the cheap? I guess non of us would like it very much.

If so then we should all be concerned about those whose skills are needed but are nevertheless being replaced by workers on poverty wages elsewhere.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Leather man,

So you feel its better to deny employment to people in developing countries and to have people pay more for goods than they otherwise would. Curious logic and a bit heartless as well.

Karl


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Sounds like Karl's back. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

KenR said:


> Sounds like Karl's back. :icon_smile_wink:


Yep! It does!

No its not heartless - why should one person gain be at the expense of another person's pain! Why cannot jobs be created in poorer countries - perhaps with our help without taking skills and jobs away where we are,

Anyway that's not my point! Karl you've missed it. My point is that what you are happy for others to suffer you should be happy for yourself to suffer.

It seems to me that most people want cheaper goods and services until its THEIR goods and services people want cheaper = hypocrisy and immoral position.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Leather man said:


> Many folks on here have expressed the opinion that it matters little to them if goods once made in one place, say the US or Europe are now made in cheap labour countries as long as the quality is good.
> 
> I want to posit the view that this attitude is immoral. Immoral because it breaks the so called "Golden Rule" which is " do unto others as you would have done to you"
> 
> ...


I disagree that people with skills are being replaced by workers on poverty wages elsewhere. People without skills are. So are people that have not kept their skills up-to-date or marketable.

I'm confused by the stated conclusion that prices aren't fair for goods in the West. A person that doesn't believe in capital market equity should be arguing that the West is paying comparatively MORE for goods right now, shouldn't they?

All one has to do is look at Toyota USA to see that exporting jobs is a fraudulent term. It's far more important that we are not exporting net capital.

If we blindly followed the 'exporting jobs' crowd we might have a few more jobs, but most of us would be at much lower incomes and lower quality of life.

People that truly have marketable skills that are not constructing their own barriers (such as refusing to move) are in short supply in the US market and are still able to demand larger salaries. What there is a glut of, is huge unemployment lines of people that think they are worth 75,000 / year to assemble goods or fill out forms such as mortgage applications. Many of these people have been working under a delusion that they are in Financial Services or something, but have never actually analyzed the utility they can provide. They are not capable of analysis, advice, or decision-making. They have no to few relative credentials and they prospering under a false economy. Not to pick on them, but it's just an example of the whiney stories I am hearing. I know people that went from nothing to being realtors and making huge salaries and now they are crying because they have no work. Well, that's how sales is. It always has been feast or famine; whether it is cars or houses or anything else. In sales schools they used to teach to put that extra money away for the slow times, but today people not only spend their peak they spend beyond their peak on credit. There's nothing government can do to help people like that.

I'm highly unsympathetic to anyone that can even use the phrase "export a job" with a straight face.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> why should one person gain be at the expense of another person's pain!


Exactly. Why should domestic producers gain at the expense of the pain of the *foreign producers*? The "poverty" of the foreign producers would only be made worse if your country were to enact, for example, some law restricting the amount of goods the foreigners can sell in your country, or price controls, or locking them out of domestic markets altogether (all of which have been enacted using the exact kind of anti-freedom sentiment you are espousing, usually backed by a large dose of anti-foreigner and nationalist propaganda).

And why should domestic producers gain at the expense of the pain of their *customers*? The foreign producers, in your example, are producing goods that consumers are willing to buy, at prices they prefer to pay. If you force your customers to pay you the higher price, then every extra dollar you get is money they didn't have to spend, that could have been saved buying goods at a lower price, and therefore could have been used to improve their lives in some other way.

Do you think you _own_ your customers? Do you think you have a right to their business? Or do you have to earn it? Do you have the right to force them to pay you the price that you would prefer that they pay? Do you think you have the right to force them to pay more for goods they can get for less elsewhere? Do you think you are entitled to enjoy an uninterrupted level of business and income, even when someone else is doing the same job at a better price?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

As I am getting near graduation with my engineering degree, I have been looking at potential employment.

As I look, there is almost a 2:1 ratio of jobs to applicants it seems. There are massive numbers of jobs just waiting to be filled in the engineering field. Companies like Google are begging Congress to allow more skilled workers into the country. There were more applications for a skilled labor green card than there were spots the day they started accepting applications this year.

I agree with ksinc. It is unskilled labor that is on its way out here in America.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Well it is not true that only unskilled labour is being exported. Take the shoe industry for example - one example alone suffices - Clarks - if you know the story you will realise ksinc is just plain wrong. If you don't I can tell you. Or what about Dyson or VW and on and on.

I am glad your engineering qualification will stand you in good stead - but it wouldn't in Europe - and hey since engineers are much cheaper in India -why don't we export enough engineering jobs ( as we have with ship building) so you cannot get a job - and we can all say how much the consumer has benefitted!

You are all missing the point.


----------



## The Sartorial Executive (Apr 19, 2008)

Leather man said:


> Well it is not true that only unskilled labour is being exported. Take the shoe industry for example - one example alone suffices - Clarks - if you know the story you will realise ksinc is just plain wrong. If you don't I can tell you. Or what about Dyson or VW and on and on.


These are all private or publicly owned companies, with shareholders, and are global players. At the end of the day it is for them to decide where to manufacture. If they get it wrong and quality declines the customers will look elsewhere. If your skills are being off-shored, then it is time to get new skills. the markets will not adapt to you, you must adapt to the market.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Leather man said:


> Well it is not true that only unskilled labour is being exported. Take the shoe industry for example - one example alone suffices - Clarks - if you know the story you will realise ksinc is just plain wrong. If you don't I can tell you. Or what about Dyson or VW and on and on.
> 
> I am glad your engineering qualification will stand you in good stead - but it wouldn't in Europe - and hey since engineers are much cheaper in India -why don't we export enough engineering jobs ( as we have with ship building) so you cannot get a job - and we can all say how much the consumer has benefitted!
> 
> You are all missing the point.


No, I am not wrong. I fully appreciate the authority of your declarative pronouncements. 

However, you conveniently misstated what I said. I said people without skills *or people that have failed to keep their skills up-to-date and marketable.*

There are lots of skilled or semi-skilled people that have had their jobs eliminated either by machines or by foreign competition. I know many technologists who have lost jobs because once they acquired a marketable skill they failed to maintain its marketability.

No, we're not ALL missing the point. Wouldn't that be odd if we ALL were? We are operating under a different and more correct paradigm; one that distinguishes _competitive advantage_ from _comparative advantage_.

Your own paradigm is demonstrably flawed. Take your term "export jobs." When the number of jobs goes up, do we say we are "importing jobs" or do we say those jobs were created? We clearly say they were created. Governments and politicians often try to take credit for creating them, but they are clearly created when capital is put to work. However, when jobs go away you want to say they are being "exported." They are not exported. They are eliminated. Jobs may be created somewhere else, even by the same companies, but those jobs are created by the movement of capital. Capital seeks the highest returns. This is not something sinister. It's like water running down hill. If Carville/Clinton was really thinking he would have said "It's the Cost of Capital, Stupid!" instead of "It's the Economy, Stupid!"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The Sartorial Executive said:


> These are all private or publicly owned companies, with shareholders, and are global players. At the end of the day it is for them to decide where to manufacture. If they get it wrong and quality declines the customers will look elsewhere. If your skills are being off-shored, then it is time to get new skills. the markets will not adapt to you, you must adapt to the market.


Succinct.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The jobs issue is not a zero-sum game. Just because a job is created overseas does not necessarily mean someone is denied a job here. 

As for the morality issue, I think it is dangerous to start complicating our economic process with personal morals or the "golden rule". Many a dictator have gone down that road only to bring a nation to ruin. Do unto to others......Well, what I want others to do unto me is to offer me goods and services at the lowest price with minimal to no compromise in quality.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Leather man said:


> Many folks on here have expressed the opinion that it matters little to them if goods once made in one place, say the US or Europe are now made in cheap labour countries as long as the quality is good.
> 
> I want to posit the view that this attitude is immoral.....


I'm not sure how a personal attitude towards product origin can be considered immoral but if the attempted point is that some practices of the current capitalist global economy are "immoral" then one has forgotten that morality is not really a measure in economics. Profit, capital markets and the trade of goods and services are things of balance sheets and ledgers. They are not measured by moral considerations.

Now, however, the effects of all this business can certainly produce things considered immoral and this has been a great concern in the western world since the advent of the industrial revolution. For example, glancing back through old newspapers, one can easily see that nineteenth century conservatives were among the loudest critics of capitalism and all it produced, seeing market exchange and industrial production as grave threats to established social and religious traditions.

I think the way to ensure consideration of the moral issues this all entails is through the political process, not conflating economics with morality.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Leather man said:


> Well it is not true that only unskilled labour is being exported. Take the shoe industry for example - one example alone suffices - Clarks - if you know the story you will realise ksinc is just plain wrong. If you don't I can tell you. Or what about Dyson or VW and on and on.
> 
> I am glad your engineering qualification will stand you in good stead - but it wouldn't in Europe - and hey since engineers are much cheaper in India -why don't we export enough engineering jobs ( as we have with ship building) so you cannot get a job - and we can all say how much the consumer has benefitted!
> 
> You are all missing the point.


Actually, the *engineers* in India are payed pretty well.

You can't look at "just one example." Because if you do that you could go, "look GM is exporting work to China or Mexico." But that would ignore Honda and Toyota bringing jobs to the United States. You can't view macroeconomics and the global economy through the lens of microeconomics.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I think the way to ensure consideration of the moral issues this all entails is through the political process, not conflating economics with morality.


I disagree. While economic issues certainly can be analyzed in a _wertfrei_, value-neutral way, economic activity is ultimately just human behavior, and human behavior can also be interpreted according to its moral and ethical dimensions.

Leather Man is saying that he wants to violate your basic human right to do business on a voluntary basis with anyone who is willing to do business with you, or at least he's saying that exercising this basic right is somehow immoral. I think everyone here can think of a few examples where, in politics, some despised behavior is first touted as being immoral, soon followed by the suggestion that the government "do something" to ban it. After all, it's wrong, so it must be stopped!

Infringing on people's economic liberty is just as immoral as trampling their freedom of speech, their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. We have the right to free association. I own my property. Some other guy owns his property. I choose to trade some of my property for some of his property, on terms that WE find mutually agreeable. But Leather Man wants to step in and tell me that I can't do business freely with foreigners.

If I was unclear earlier, that kind of attitude has been implemented before. It is being implemented in various forms all over the world right now. It's as old as the hills. It is the sentiment that underlies the idea of economic autarky -- the idea that a country should be economically independent, that domestic producers should be protected from foreign competition. When you take this idea to its logical extension, you find this protectionist agenda has been one of history's most powerful motivating forces. It is the economic theory behind such lovely ultra-nationalist regimes as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, Maoist China, Spain under Franco, Romania under Ceausescu, the USSR for nearly 100 years, etc.

Protectionism is an affirmative, unequivocal economic harm, which is bad enough, but it is also a breeding ground for all kinds of rather horrid philosophies about world politics. So, if Leather Man wants to debate this issue in terms of morality, please, let's.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Phinn said:


> I disagree. While economic issues certainly can be analyzed in a _wertfrei_, value-neutral way, economic activity is ultimately just human behavior, and human behavior can also be interpreted according to its moral and ethical dimensions.


Good catch.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Phinn said:


> I disagree. While economic issues certainly can be analyzed in a _wertfrei_, value-neutral way, economic activity is ultimately just human behavior, and human behavior can also be interpreted according to its moral and ethical dimensions....


I'm not sure we actually disagree if I'm following you here. So if A is ultimately just B and B can "be interpreted according to its moral and ethical dimensions" why have a different set of measurements for A that leaves out the moral and ethical measures used for B, which is its ultimate nature? (Value-neutral measures seems highly convenient or at least a suspect way for some economists to avoid considering the full consequences of their prescriptive advice.) If this is the case then morality should definitely be a necessary measure in economics, and one sees this a lot these days in groups that calculate the "real cost" of a t-shirt, carbon footprints, the "true cost" of importing peaches from Chile, the burden on states from immigration, and the total impact economic activity has on human affairs as well as the planet.

I don't think I made myself that clear in my earlier posting. I'm all for considering the moral dimensions of human activity but I think it a half-measure to treat science-based economics as part of a moral dimension -- unless one is willing to see it through. Leather man's goals may not be agreeable but his inclusion of the moral dimension seems inescapable if one accepts the ultimate nature of economic activity.

I'd also certainly agree that protectionism is a very hard thing to deal with and breeds alarming consequences, even beginning with the protected monopolies enforced by state arms granted to the Dutch East India Company in the early 17th century. The world is and has been linked in so many ways and the 21st century seems to be proving that total economic independence is a quaint yet still dangerous fiction. The solutions still seem to me to be political as that is the sphere that defines the one in which economics operates.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

+1,000,000 Leatherman.

Ksinc, did the US textile industry really cave because of the awesome skillz of cheap foreign labor? Really?

Impose a moderate revenue tariff on all imported goods to replace the income tax, and for third world countries offering a cost of living too low to be offset by productivity losses there should be a hefty additional tariff in order to allow those companies contemplating relocating to more properly calculate the effect of those lost jobs on the common good.

Alternatively, every one in America could work at the Gap. 

That would be sweet.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Apthorpe said:


> +1,000,000 Leatherman.
> 
> Ksinc, did the US textile industry really cave because of the awesome skillz of cheap foreign labor? Really?
> 
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't tariffs in the textile industry lead to the Civil War? :devil:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't tariffs in the textile industry lead to the Civil War? :devil:


The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was certainly a key contributor to the Great Depression.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Quay said:


> I'm not sure we actually disagree if I'm following you here. So if A is ultimately just B and B can "be interpreted according to its moral and ethical dimensions" why have a different set of measurements for A that leaves out the moral and ethical measures used for B, which is its ultimate nature? (Value-neutral measures seems highly convenient or at least a suspect way for some economists to avoid considering the full consequences of their prescriptive advice.) If this is the case then morality should definitely be a necessary measure in economics, and one sees this a lot these days in groups that calculate the "real cost" of a t-shirt, carbon footprints, the "true cost" of importing peaches from Chile, the burden on states from immigration, and the total impact economic activity has on human affairs as well as the planet.
> 
> I don't think I made myself that clear in my earlier posting. I'm all for considering the moral dimensions of human activity but I think it a half-measure to treat science-based economics as part of a moral dimension -- unless one is willing to see it through. Leather man's goals may not be agreeable but his inclusion of the moral dimension seems inescapable if one accepts the ultimate nature of economic activity.
> 
> ...


+1 I've often wondered why the ethical/moral dimension is bracketed out as if it were some alien entity, rather than a fundamental of human existence.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? Anyone?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> Ksinc, did the US textile industry really cave because of the awesome skillz of cheap foreign labor? Really?


I didn't mention a specific case; nor did I characterize the quality of the foreign "skillz."

Overlooking that; Yes, I think the US textile industry does seem like a perfect example of the cost of and return on capital seeking it's maximum spread.

As we discuss all the time in the other forums here, probably 90% of consumers are either unable or don't care to differeniate between foreign lowest-cost-provider quality and USA quality-made clothes.

I think most people that work in business just have a totally different view on "jobs." My view is there's only two kinds of people in the world Entrepreneurs and Laborers. I don't believe in "jobs" or "job security." In my paradigm, a job is something you bid, you work, and you complete. Jobs, by definition, are designed to end. Many people have this perception of "jobs" that is very self-defeating. We have this resurgent populist paradigm being advanced that a job represents a permanent reservation that is being held for people. That it is someone else's responsibility to provide these jobs. That's just nuts IMHO.

Jobs are bi-product of the activity of entreprenuers. If someone wants to be on the tail-end of the dog that's fine, but then they shouldn't complain when the dog runs away or dies. All dogs eventually do that and you get a new one. I think it's a good thing people are coming to realize the old paradigm about jobs was never a good one and never really viable; like social security, for example. ADD: To clarify that, I mean that I saw a politician extolling Social Security by saying "It's worked for 50 years!" as though that meant anything in the real world. Ma-Bell worked for 50 years too!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I realize I didn't address the tariff question directly. I think most tariffs start out as protectionist ideas that backfire. I consider them addressed in the comment I made regarding the need to distinguish competitive from comparative advantage. That either makes sense to you, or it doesn't.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I think the US textile industry does seem like a perfect example of the cost of and return on capital seeking it's maximum spread.


Agreed, but that does not necessarily mean that those jobs are lost to American workers because they failed to keep their skills with regard to the job in which they were employed. Unless your point is that we should all work for the service industry.



ksinc said:


> As we discuss all the time in the other forums here, probably 90% of consumers are either unable or don't care to differeniate between foreign lowest-cost-provider quality and USA quality-made clothes.


Agreed. We should help them to better themselves by raising the price on the foreign lowest-cost provider.



ksinc said:


> I think most people that work in business just have a totally different view on "jobs." My view is there's only two kinds of people in the world Entrepreneurs and Laborers. I don't believe in "jobs" or "job security." In my paradigm, a job is something you bid, you work, and you complete. Jobs, by definition, are designed to end. Many people have this perception of "jobs" that is very self-defeating. We have this resurgent populist paradigm being advanced that a job represents a permanent reservation that is being held for people. That it is someone else's responsibility to provide these jobs. That's just nuts IMHO.
> 
> Jobs are bi-product of the activity of entreprenuers. If someone wants to be on the tail-end of the dog that's fine, but then they shouldn't complain when the dog runs away or dies. All dogs eventually do that and you get a new one. I think it's a good thing people are coming to realized the old paradigm about jobs was never a good one and never really viable; like social security, for example.


This is all very interesting, but if you think that in a representative Republic the jobless and economically marginalized will eat sand and smile and be glad that the activity of entreprenuers is making entreprenuers wealthy, I would like to introduce you to the problem of the few and the many. Entreprenuers who feel their talents are insufficiently appreciated by American consumers should free to sell their wares to the wealthy men and women of Zimbabwe. The failure of policy makers to appreciate the tension between those who create wealth and those who work for it results in social programs like social security, when the economically marginalized reject your interesting view of jobs and just take your money instead.

There are two kinds of people in the world, but I had thought they were those who use the door and those who wear spurs.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? Anyone?


1. Economically, they're a disaster. Let's say we have Producer A and Producer B. Producer A charges more than Producer B for the same good. If Producer A has higher costs of production, that's another way of saying that it has inferior, less efficient production methods. The tariff on the goods sold by Producer B is designed to make it *appear* to the consumer that Producer A is not, in fact, inferior, but is actually more economically efficient than Producer B.

As a result, the tariff diverts money away from (superior) Producer B and toward (inferior) Producer A. This is a net loss of economic efficiency for the economy as a whole, which is a nice way of saying that tariffs create economic waste.

2. Morally, tariffs are no different than robbery. Who benefits from a tariff? The domestic producers. Who loses? Everyone else.

A. Consumers lose. They are forced to pay inflated prices. That is a net loss of money that consumers could have spent on other things. They are paying for a tariff and to keep an inferior producer in business, when they could be spending it on things to improve the quality of their own lives.

B. Every business _other than the one protected by the tariff_ loses. The inflated price that consumers pay is economic waste. In the absence of the tariff, other businesses would have gotten some of tariff-payor's money, but because of the tariff, they never get it. The productive activity of the economy as a whole declines.

C. Foreign producers (and their employees) lose. They are deprived of business that they would have rightfully earned by selling goods that consumers prefer to buy (i.e., at a better price).

Spare me any pretense of concern over the poverty of foreign workers. The tariff _robs_ them. In other words, tariff supporters are stealing from poor people. In the absence of the tariff, the foreign producers make and sell the good in question because it is the best course of action from among all of their existing alternatives to make a living. The tariff shuts them out of a market where they can compete, and therefore it deprives them of potential source of income that they not only rightfully earned but, in many cases, desperately need.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Not a response to "the tariff bill". 

What do you suppose brought the textile industry to move from the Northeast to the South ? Why spend all that money to build new factories a thousand miles away? 
I don't think there were tariffs involved for fabric produced in Georgia and imported into Manhattan. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to keep the mill in Massachusetts?

Am I missing something?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> Agreed, but that does not necessarily mean that those jobs are lost to American workers because they failed to keep their skills with regard to the job in which they were employed. Unless your point is that we should all work for the service industry.


No, it means the jobs were eliminated because the capital was put to work somewhere else. Those people didn't find replacment jobs because they failed to keep their skills marketable. The fact they are unemployed proves their skills are not wanted, at the price they demand, in the location they demand. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.



> Agreed. We should help them to better themselves by raising the price on the foreign lowest-cost provider.


No, we should help them to acquire skills that are in demand or if they insist on that type of work, help them move to where that type of work is in demand at the price they demand.



> This is all very interesting, but if you think that in a representative Republic the jobless and economically marginalized will eat sand and smile and be glad that the activity of entreprenuers is making entreprenuers wealthy, I would like to introduce you to the problem of the few and the many. Entreprenuers who feel their talents are insufficiently appreciated by American consumers should free to sell their wares to the wealthy men and women of Zimbabwe. The failure of policy makers to appreciate the tension between those who create wealth and those who work for it results in social programs like social security, when the economically marginalized reject your interesting view of jobs and just take your money instead.
> 
> There are two kinds of people in the world, but I had thought they were those who use the door and those who wear spurs.


The problem of the few and the many is that the many are largely uneducated and unskilled. If you want to help the many start there. They are economically marginalized because they have been duped into dependency by the kabal of politicians, unions, and teachers.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No, it means the jobs were eliminated because the capital was put to work somewhere else. Those people didn't find replacment jobs because they failed to keep their skills marketable. The fact they are unemployed proves their skills are not wanted, at the price they demand, in the location they demand. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
> 
> No, we should help them to acquire skills that are in demand or if they insist on that type of work, help them move to where that type of work is in demand at the price they demand.
> 
> The problem of the few and the many is that the many are largely uneducated and unskilled. If you want to help the many start there. They are economically marginalized because they have been duped into dependency by the kabal of politicians, unions, and teachers.


5 Star response!


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Phinn said:


> 1. Economically, they're a disaster. Let's say we have Producer A and Producer B. Producer A charges more than Producer B for the same good. If Producer A has higher costs of production, that's another way of saying that it has inferior, less efficient production methods.


If we are defining higher cost of production to mean "inferior and less efficient methods" then I suppose you are correct. However, we see in the US, for example, costs associated with various industry regulations, income taxes, and a higher cost of living. If superior and inferior can be determined by the efficiency of setting the price there would be no debate. Free traitors assume that protectionists don't understand markets. But it might be that persons with concern for things like the good of community and nation care less about whether price has been set efficiently. There is certainly a middle ground between a control economy and anarcho-capitalism. As was evidenced by the rise to power of the great commercial Republic of America.



Phinn said:


> 2. Morally, tariffs are no different than robbery. Who benefits from a tariff? The domestic producers. Who loses? Everyone else.
> 
> A. Consumers lose. They are forced to pay inflated prices. That is a net loss of money that consumers could have spent on other things. They are paying for a tariff and to keep an inferior producer in business, when they could be spending it on things to improve the quality of their own lives.
> 
> B. Every business _other than the one protected by the tariff_ loses. The inflated price that consumers pay is economic waste. In the absence of the tariff, other businesses would have gotten some of tariff-payor's money, but because of the tariff, they never get it. The productive activity of the economy as a whole declines.


This is only true in an theoretical anarcho-capitalist system. In the real world there are real social costs borne (frequently inequitably) by consumers and businessess when some former consumers are not receiving wages to buy goods. From a policy perspective I would prefer the cost of government be borne by consumers and ksinc rather than by income earners.



Phinn said:


> C. Foreign producers (and their employees) lose. They are deprived of business that they would have rightfully earned by selling goods that consumers prefer to buy (i.e., at a better price).


Are you a communist?



Phinn said:


> Spare me any pretense of concern over the poverty of foreign workers.


I will.



Phinn said:


> The tariff _robs_ them.


They should get better governments.



Phinn said:


> The tariff shuts them out of a market where they can compete, and therefore it deprives them of potential source of income that they not only rightfully earned but, in many cases, desperately need.


If they are shut out of the market how did they rightfully earn it? Why so generous with foreign workers and so miserly with those down the street. Charity starts at home, friend.

In sum, the Austrian economics is fine, as long as it's limited to discussion of the efficiency of a particular market. But as an anarcho-capitalist political ideology it's a bit scary. No offense. Politics is the art of the possible. It's a practical business that moves forward through the hard work performed by fallen men weighing various incompatible and competing concerns in the impossible task of serving the common good. If markets left to their own devices could magically and perfectly serve political ends (i.e., the common good) that would be totally cool. Unfortunately, no tool can serve all functions.

Let's let markets do what they do well and leave the policy making to men.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> Let's let markets do what they do well and leave the policy making to men.


Yes, because men are fair and honest, right?


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Fair enough, ksinc.  But there are real costs of re-educating those young enough to gain skills, relocating to Indonesia those who don't want to learn new skills, paying to care for those too old to transition, eliminating the problem of the few and the many, and immanetizing the Eschaton. Costs that will be paid by somebody. Unless the magical market will just pay those costs using its magical powers. Can you explain to me how you know that it is better to impose $X in income taxes to pay for those costs if you could impose $X-Y in tariffs and avoid paying them? Income taxes distort comparative advantage. Are you suggesting that the magical market will cause all boats to rise and governments to fade away? I think I've heard something similar before. Where was that?


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Yes, because men are fair and honest, right?


They are not. Which is another reason why political policies that encourage avarice are a bad idea. It's better for all concerned that men's passions be thwarted, not encouraged.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> They are not. Which is another reason why political policies that encourage avarice are a bad idea. It's better for all concerned that men's passions be thwarted, not encouraged.


Yes, but thwarted by other men's passions? No.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

ksinc said:


> No, it means the jobs were eliminated because the capital was put to work somewhere else. Those people didn't find replacment jobs because they failed to keep their skills marketable. The fact they are unemployed proves their skills are not wanted, at the price they demand, in the location they demand. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
> 
> No, we should help them to acquire skills that are in demand or if they insist on that type of work, help them move to where that type of work is in demand at the price they demand.
> 
> The problem of the few and the many is that the many are largely uneducated and unskilled. If you want to help the many start there. They are economically marginalized because they have been duped into dependency by the kabal of politicians, unions, and teachers.


Now your first para is rather heartless don't you think?

Also this idea that people with skills will get jobs is frankly ridiculous - there are many skills in short supply yet employers still close factories, businesses etc in the West - because skilled labour is cheaper elsewhere - having skills has little to do with it nowadays - unless your profession is still based in the West - one day for example doctors might find it hard to get work because there are so many trained in India - here in the UK because of a government cock up - junior doctors couldn't find work last year - but that was because too many were trained from overseas - mainly developing countiries - I can forsee the day when the rather smug smile from people who now boast of keeping their skills up to date will be wiped off their face.

Get off the moon and come down to earth!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> Fair enough, ksinc. But there are real costs of re-educating those young enough to gain skills, relocating to Indonesia those who don't want to learn new skills, paying to care for those too old to transition, eliminating the problem of the few and the many, and immanetizing the Eschaton. Costs that will be paid by somebody. Unless the magical market will just pay those costs using its magical powers. Can you explain to me how you know that it is better to impose $X in income taxes to pay for those costs if you could impose $X-Y in tariffs and avoid paying them? Income taxes distort comparative advantage. Are you suggesting that the magical market will cause all boats to rise and governments to fade away? I think I've heard something similar before. Where was that?


Thank You.

Yes, but one-time costs, not recurring costs; such as entitlement programs.

Yes, cost/return of/on capital is usually compared net of tax.

I use no terms like magical market. The market is a network of prices, nothing more; as Smith et al have consistently maintained. I have no idea where you heard that one. Perhaps someone misquoting/mischaracterizing a similar idea regarding a growing GDP?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Yes, because men are fair and honest, right?


And the markets work too? yeah right! - I agree with you about people however.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Leather man said:


> Now your first para is rather heartless don't you think?
> 
> Also this idea that people with skills will get jobs is frankly ridiculous - there are many skills in short supply yet employers still close factories, businesses etc in the West - because skilled labour is cheaper elsewhere - having skills has little to do with it nowadays - unless your profession is still based in the West - one day for example doctors might find it hard to get work because there are so many trained in India - here in the UK because of a government cock up - junior doctors couldn't find work last year - but that was because too many were trained from overseas - mainly developing countiries - I can forsee the day when the rather smug smile from people who now boast of keeping their skills up to date will be wiped off their face.
> 
> Get off the moon and come down to earth!


You conveniently overlook the other factors then later recognize them. It's interesting. I think if you will reread what I said you will see that I said, demand for the skills, in a location, at a price, that is competitive.

Yes, Life is difficult. Often heartless. Night before last we caught a stray dog that has been in the neighborhood for over a year and put him in our fenced in back yard. We found a little girl that wanted him and before her Mom came home from church he dug out and got away again. It broke her heart and ours.

The best thing we can often do is realize the actual situation and seek real solutions rather than wallow in the self-pity and blame game.

I am not on the moon, friend. And I have made great effort to acquire and maintain marketable skills. It's an ongoing journey and not a destination. I'm doing it even now.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Leather man said:


> And the markets work too? yeah right! - I agree with you about people however.


Markets do work, if you understand that all they do is communicate prices.

When you start expecting markets to do something else then you are going to be disappointed.

Perhaps look at what it is you expect to be provided?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> If we are defining higher cost of production to mean "inferior and less efficient methods" then I suppose you are correct.


I am correct, because there is no other definition.



> However, we see in the US, for example, costs associated with various industry regulations, income taxes, .


I am against those. Solution: repeal them.

Your response, however, is to compound the evil by enacting even more regulation to supposedly compensate for prior regulation. And people wonder why the State grows and grows!



> ... and a higher cost of living


The discrepancy between the cost of living in the US versus India is part of the comparative advantage that ksinc mentioned.



> Free *traitors* assume that protectionists don't understand markets.


Traitors. Lovely. The polite portion of the conversation is over.

BTW, the problem is that protectionists don't understand economics. Or morality.



> But it might be that persons with concern for things like the good of community and nation care less about whether price has been set efficiently. There is certainly a middle ground between a control economy and anarcho-capitalism. As was evidenced by the rise to power of the great commercial Republic of America.


I have already shown that the good of the community experiences a net loss with the enactment of tariffs. Only the protected industry benefits. And it benefits at everyone else's expense. Which is exactly like the economics of crime! Funny, that.



> Are you a communist?


Are you confused about what a communist is?



> If they are shut out of the market how did they rightfully earn it? Why so generous with foreign workers and so miserly with those down the street. Charity starts at home, friend.


A. Friends don't call me "traitor."

B. They are shut out of the market by governmental tariffs. That's the point. They earned the business by producing a good that consumers want to buy at the price that is better than what other producers are offering. That's why people like you want to enact the tariff in the first place -- because the foreigners are earning the business of consumers you want to have, and will take by force if necessary. The fact that you are confused on this point explains a lot.



> In sum, the Austrian economics is fine, as long as it's limited to discussion of the efficiency of a particular market. But as an anarcho-capitalist political ideology it's a bit scary.


You acknowledge the truth of the economic analysis, but are afraid of the consequences. There's a word for that, too.



> No offense.


None taken.



> Politics is the art of the possible. It's a practical business that moves forward through the hard work performed by fallen men weighing various incompatible and competing concerns in the impossible task of serving the common good. Unfortunately, no tool can serve all functions.


I don't give a rat's a*s about politics. What you are talking about is _government_. And government is not the "art of the possible." That's Woodrow Wilson's filthy propaganda. He's the man who gave control over our money to a cartel of foreign banks and then used it to fund our excursion into an unnecessary war halfway around the world against a country that posed no security threat to the US. Great guy, that one.



> If markets left to their own devices could magically and perfectly serve political ends (i.e., the common good) that would be totally cool.


Political ends are, by definition, those which people want but can't obtain by cooperation or voluntary trade, so they resort to force. Much like other forms of thievery and crime. Bank robbers want money, but can't get it by cooperation and voluntary compliance. So they steal it.

The only difference between bank robbers and protectionist tariff supporters is that most ordinary criminals have the basic decency to _admit_ that they are criminals. In contrast, governments that steal (and cheerleaders for governments that steal, like yourself), insult you by telling you that the theft is for your own good, that you ought to be more compliant in acquiescing to the theft, that you are a "traitor" if you even object to the theft. In other words, they drape their criminality in the pretense of legitimacy, all while prancing around patting themselves on the back for their good-heartedness.



> Market's do not serve political ends.


Markets serve no ends. They are just people communicating about prices for the exchange of goods and services.

Market _behavior_ serves a very simple end -- mutual benefit. This is why it is good and moral and just and economically beneficial.

Tariffs, in contrast, are a way of forcing people to stop engaging in the peaceful, voluntary transactions that both parties want to engage in.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

I apologize for the traitor comment, Phinn, and the "magical" comments, ksinc. The ad hominems are window dressing and shouldn't be taken seriously. And, anyway, among libertarians I thought "traitor" would be a compliment referring to a man who stands up against thievery.

Clearly we come from different perspectives regarding the necessity of governance. I believe man by nature is social and made to live in community. Community of its nature requires rule. Hopefully it is more self rule than not. I generally believe in limited government, particularly at the federal level but, frankly, think that the imagined utopia of a purely voluntary community is a pipe dream. Unless it's a community of one trapped on an island by his lonesome. And even he will eventually dispute with himself.

The better route for libertarians is to keep the people relatively happy so they don't take more than they already have. Telling middle aged men previously employed in factory jobs that, while their factory skills are perfectly fine the new economy would like them to be lawyers, bankers or retail clerks, is a good way to ensure that the OASDI wage base will be uncapped.

Given that there will be government and that the government will take from you what its citizens want to be taken, it strikes me as preferable to hit consumption, cause prices to be higher and encourage investment at home rather than taxing income.

Also increased prices allow the public to better understand the cost of regulation. If regulation that the public wants generally makes it difficult for a particular industry to flourish in the US, those employed in that industry bear the cost (assuming consumers can buy the product cheaper from foreign unregulated producers). Impose a tariff on the good to make the foreign product as expensive as the domestic product burdened by the regulation, and the public is given the opportunity to reap the fruits of their policy proclivities.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> I apologize for the traitor comment, Phinn, and the "magical" comments, ksinc. The ad hominems are window dressing and shouldn't be taken seriously. And, anyway, among libertarians I thought "traitor" would be a compliment referring to a man who stands up against thievery.
> 
> Clearly we come from different perspectives regarding the necessity of governance. I believe man by nature is social and made to live in community. Community of its nature requires rule. Hopefully it is more self rule than not. I generally believe in limited government, particularly at the federal level but, frankly, think that the imagined utopia of a purely voluntary community is a pipe dream. Unless it's a community of one trapped on an island by his lonesome. And even he will eventually dispute with himself.
> 
> ...


Apology accepted.

While perhaps you can take a static example saying x+y=z, human nature is such that someone is then going to try to better his self-interest and then your model is broken. The planned economic approach was long ago proven to only work on paper.

In the best case scenario you would only create a black market economy of "real" prices.

Take something like the SEC or the Fed, for example. I think they are pretty quick, fairly flexible, and creative. The best minds at Goldmans' et al are constantly three steps ahead of them and their regulations. We see it all the time in examples like quant funds and these securitizations.

Your theory is well-meaning, but it just doesn't work. Sorry.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Without question government cannot keep up with innovation motivated by self interest. But the impossibility of quashing that innovation is the best argument for allowing government regulation. It can't quash innovation, it attempts a just result, and it keeps the many from taking my money. Everyone wins except the second place innovator. But if you're not first you're last.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> Without question government cannot keep up with innovation motivated by self interest. But the impossibility of quashing that innovation is the best argument for allowing government regulation. It can't quash innovation, it attempts a just result, and it keeps the many from taking my money. Everyone wins except the second place innovator. But if you're not first you're last.


I disagree.

If you know your intended consequence is not possible, it is not best to do it anyway because you mean well. Can you give an example of where this has worked to a positive net benefit?

I think your search for cosmic justice just continues unsatisfied, but as Phinn pointed out the policies amount to theft. So you are not getting the intended consequence of justice while you are creating more injustice.

Have you read _The Law_ by Bastiat?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

My only concern is who defines "just."

I do agree that if the top of our society is smart, they will make sure that those on the bottom have bearable lives, even if it conflicts with some economic theories. Do we really want a society like what they have in South America, where the political instability leads to all kinds of problems?

I generally agree with as little government intervention as possible and also agree that tariffs usually cause more problems than they cure.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I disagree.
> 
> If you know your intended consequence is not possible, it is not best to do it anyway because you mean well. Can you give an example of where this has worked to a positive net benefit?


If this were the standard of action it would be paralyzing. Examples of positive net benefit are speed limits, SEC disclosure rules, requirements that home inspectors disclose all defects of a house they are evaluating, Interstate 80, Yellowstone National Park, maybe World War II, the various scientific developments that have come out of Defense Department spending, etc., etc.



ksinc said:


> Have you read _The Law_ by Bastiat?


Yes. For a better treatment of the law I recommend Thomas Aquinas. Although Bastiat can be forgiven as he is French and French people, at least to the extent they live in France, have good reason to fear themselves.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> If this were the standard of action it would be paralyzing. Examples of positive net benefit are speed limits, SEC disclosure rules, requirements that home inspectors disclose all defects of a house they are evaluating, Interstate 80, Yellowstone National Park, maybe World War II, the various scientific developments that have come out of Defense Department spending, etc., etc.


Those are clearly not the type of solutions you were previously proposing.

Speed limits are not redistribution; neither are disclosure rules.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> Yes. For a better treatment of the law I recommend Thomas Aquinas. Although Bastiat can be forgiven as he is French and French people, at least to the extent they live in France, have good reason to fear themselves.


The only problem with TA is he mixed his morality/religion with political philosophy.

As was said above, who decides what is just and what is the way to get it?

In your circumstance you always end up with infallible and/or corrupt man trying to correct the injustice of another man.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Those are clearly not the type of solutions you were previously proposing.
> 
> Speed limits are not redistribution; neither are disclosure rules.


Fair enough, but I thought they were analogous. They certainly don't take money from one person and give it to some one else, but they do take money and they do limit freedoms, increase transaction costs, etc.

I am sure you are aware of studies claiming that tariffs or subsidies or this economic program or that economic program worked or did not work. Most are unhelpful given the complexity of the economy. On the radio the other morning a policy wonk was criticized regarding the economy in various African nations and while restrictions on capital and investment had been reduced over the last 10 those economies have gotten worse. To which the wonk responded the reductions were not enough (and perhaps he added the predictable, "those economies would be much worse off today if those reforms had not be implemented"). If some medicine makes the patient sick, more medicine will make him healthy. Which reminded me of James Burnham's observation that when communists were presented with the economic failings of their policies they would argue it was only because their economies were not yet socialist enough.

If we agree that men respond more or less rationally in the aggregate to economic incentives and disincentives, then it stands to reason that behavior can be modified by economic policy. Whether there is a net good is a matter of opinion, some of which are more right than others.

Who decides the right mix? That's why we have politics.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> Fair enough, but I thought they were analogous. They certainly don't take money from one person and give it to some one else, but they do take money and they do limit freedoms, increase transaction costs, etc.
> 
> I am sure you are aware of studies claiming that tariffs or subsidies or this economic program or that economic program worked or did not work. Most are unhelpful given the complexity of the economy. On the radio the other morning a policy wonk was criticized regarding the economy in various African nations and while restrictions on capital and investment had been reduced over the last 10 those economies have gotten worse. To which the wonk responded the reductions were not enough (and perhaps he added the predictable, "those economies would be much worse off today if those reforms had not be implemented"). If some medicine makes the patient sick, more medicine will make him healthy. Which reminded me of James Burnham's observation that when communists were presented with the economic failings of their policies they would argue it was only because their economies were not yet socialist enough.
> 
> ...


Actually, I'm unaware of a study showing a tariff was a net positive. I'd enjoy reading one and that is why I asked for an example.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Leather man said:


> Many folks on here have expressed the opinion that it matters little to them if goods once made in one place, say the US or Europe are now made in cheap labour countries as long as the quality is good.
> 
> I want to posit the view that this attitude is immoral. Immoral because it breaks the so called "Golden Rule" which is " do unto others as you would have done to you"
> 
> ...


I want to buy American products but the labor unions have not changed withe the times. They thought management was bluffing when they said the were going to loose their jobs if their wasn't more flexibility from the union. I had two friends that lost their jobs because they thought their union representation was not living in the real world.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

there have been many examples of markets that tried to control competition through restrictions, in the end everybody in that market suffered. the best example is india - a great country, with huge potential. for 40 years it tried to keep out imports, and as a result it never developed any quality in its manufacturing, and consumers had very little goods, at poor quality. as soon as it opened up its markets, things changed over night. 


as others have said - it comes down to what things are really worth - I feel very badly for people anywhere who want to work and feed their families, but we also have to consider that a person who does basic manufacturing will probrably not be able to own a house with a yard and 2 cars. is somebody across the world will do the same work and will live in a 25 sq meter apartment and ride a bike to work, then that is the standard of living available for a worker with that skill set. you either have to be willing to work at that lifestyle, or gain more marketable skills.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Actually, I'm unaware of a study showing a tariff was a net positive. I'd enjoy reading one and that is why I asked for an example.


Pick up a copy of Pat Buchanan's book _The Great Betrayal_. His bibliography contains such studies. There are also a number of Asian econmists engaged in this work (although their economies are obviously at a different state of maturity than the US economy). I believe there were also some studies done by Canadians when NAFTA was being negotiated arguing that because the increase to GDP estimated to arise from NAFTA was so small it was not worth the social cost of job dislocation resulting from the flow of capital south. In the west this work is obviously contrarian so there is less of it, but it exists.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> . . . or gain more marketable skills.


What does this mean? What are these skills? Can anyone obtain them? For example, a 50 year old man currently employed in manufacturing? What are you going to do with that segment of the population after you unemploy them? How much is it going to cost in dollars? What will be the social cost of not doing something with him? Are those costs offset by the dollar you saved buying flammable children's clothes from Asia?

The common response to these questions, which is, "No, you just don't understand. The market just works," is less than satisfying.

Don't get me wrong. The global economy and free flow of capital benefits me greatly. Today. But I'm pretty sure in 20 years unemployed poor people are going to storm my house and kill and eat me. That concerns me a little bit. Maybe the answer is I use the money I'm making today to buy more guns and build a moat. That is an answer, I suppose.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Apthorpe said:


> What does this mean? What are these skills? Can anyone obtain them? For example, a 50 year old man currently employed in manufacturing? What are you going to do with that segment of the population after you unemploy them? How much is it going to cost in dollars? What will be the social cost of not doing something with him? Are those costs offset by the dollar you saved buying flammable children's clothes from Asia?
> 
> The common response to these questions, which is, "No, you just don't understand. The market just works," is less than satisfying.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. The global economy and free flow of capital benefits me greatly. Today. But I'm pretty sure in 20 years unemployed poor people are going to storm my house and kill and eat me. That concerns me a little bit. Maybe the answer is I use the money I'm making today to buy more guns and build a moat. That is an answer, I suppose.


no, those are very fair questions. I can give you two pretty good examples of possible solutions

1. in my company, which manufactures 100% with union labor in chicago, in the 1980's we eliminated 8 jobs. at the time, we decided to start manufacturing our own packaging material, a low tech job, which would provide 8 low tech jobs for approx 20 years, until these 8 men retired. the last just retired last year. but this is a privatly owned company, and a decision was made by the owners that keeping the people employed was worth the money it would cost.

2. I used to use a tailor who was pretty old. occasionally I would buy from him things that I didn't need, during months when he needed the money. to suport his skills. but, again, Iw as a private citizen using his money as he saw fit.

now, if you say to me - you can buy your kids sneakers and food and the stuff they need at an afordable price, and some 50 year old guy from wisconsin who never really tried to get a good trade and wasn't willing to move to where there were jobs, and was paid way over the level he should have been paid for 30 years will be out of a job; or you can let your kids not have new sneakers and have them eat less good food and this same guy will be able to continue to live at the level of a doctor in turkey then I know how I am voting.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I didn't mention a specific case; nor did I characterize the quality of the foreign "skillz."
> 
> Overlooking that; Yes, I think the US textile industry does seem like a perfect example of the cost of and return on capital seeking it's maximum spread.
> 
> ...


5 star posting.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> 5 star posting.


Wow, I'm on a roll! Thank You!


----------

