Free Trade = Prosperity

[bobevenson]

Let me try to explain the general principle. For instance, some domestic manufacturers complain that China hurts them by exporting products at less than the cost of production, or manipulates its currency to lower prices. That's like candle makers saying the sun hurts them by giving away free light.

[Arising_uk]

Let me try to explain the general principle. For instance, some domestic manufacturers complain that China hurts them by exporting products at less than the cost of production, or manipulates its currency to lower prices. That's like candle makers saying the sun hurts them by giving away free light.

So you're saying domestic manufacturers aren't hurt by China selling goods at less than the cost of production? That the manipulation of currency markets is a good thing?

[bobevenson]

Let's cut to the chase, if China wants to give us free products like the sun gives us free light, more power to them, along with a heartfelt "thank you."

[Arising_uk]

Let's cut to the chase, if China wants to give us free products like the sun gives us free light, more power to them, along with a heartfelt "thank you."

No argument there but will you still take them if they are tariffing your goods?

I thought your 'AEP' was about social cohesion so what will you do with the unemployed?

[bobevenson]

A) They can have sky-high tariffs or boycott our goods all together. It doesn't matter what they do.

B) Getting free goods doesn't create unemployment. Obviously, it's dumb to make goods that are free for the asking.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, there are people who would like to tax the sun for putting candle makers out of business.

Since when did the sun put candle-makers out of business?

It's a classic economic argument you wouldn't understand.

If it's a "classic economic argument" then that doesn't say a great deal flattering about economists if they are posing such arguments. It would probably qualify as a fallacy of relevance, possibly an ad hominem or missing the point (ignoratio Elenchi), depending upon how they are using it.

[bobevenson]

Thinking Beyond Stage One
By Walter Williams
Published July 6, 2016

A recent ruling by the U.S. Department of Commerce dramatically increased tariffs on some Chinese steel products, such as cold-rolled steel, which is used to make appliances, cars and electric motors. Tariffs were raised by 500 percent on some other Chinese steel products. President Barack Obama and the major 2016 presidential aspirants, particularly Donald Trump, believe this measure will protect jobs in the U.S. steel industry. There is no doubt that steel industry jobs will be saved. But there is an ignorance and/or incapacity of being able to think beyond stage one when evaluating public policy. Measures to protect steelworker jobs pay attention to only the seen effects of public policy; they ignore the unseen. In other words, they look at only the visible beneficiaries of public policy and ignore the invisible victims.

U.S. steel companies want to restrict steel imports so that they can sell more steel to American companies and charge them higher prices. That means more employment and greater profits for those in the steel industry. We can think of those observations as the seen, or stage-one, effects of import restrictions.

Daniel R. Pearson has written a Forbes opinion article, which is titled "The U.S. And China Are Both Wrong On Steel" (http://tinyurl.com/h28undm) and gets us beyond stage one. In the May 23 piece, Pearson argues, "The real cost of import restrictions is the harm they do to manufacturers of value-added products that use steel as an input." Primary metal manufacturing — which includes steel, copper, aluminum, magnesium, etc. — added about $60 billion of value to the economy in 2014. The steel-using manufacturers generated $990 billion of value for the economy; that's more than 16 times more. Primary metal manufacturing employment was 400,000, while steel-using manufacturers employed 6.5 million people, also 16 times greater.

Politicians have criticized Carrier for its decision to move 2,100 air conditioning jobs from Indiana to Mexico. Carrier is affected by import restrictions on steel, copper tubing and aluminum extrusions and can escape those U.S. government-imposed costs simply by moving production across the border.

Pearson suggests that the United States should send China this message: "Thank you for transferring so much wealth from China to the United States by selling low-priced steel. It's helping to keep our large manufacturing sector globally competitive."

Another example of failing to think beyond stage one is with the tariff and quota protections given to the U.S. sugar industry. Chicago used to be America's candy capital. Today it's a mere shadow of its former self. Brach's used to employ about 2,300 people; now most of its jobs are in Mexico. Ferrara Candy Co. has also moved much of its production to Mexico. Wages are indeed lower in Mexico, but wages are not the only factor in candy manufacturers' flight from America. After all, Life Savers, which for 90 years manufactured in America, moved to Canada, where wages are comparable to ours. By moving to Canada, it became more competitive because it saved itself a whopping $10 million a year in sugar costs.

The question that should be put to those calling for restrictions on imports is: In an effort to save jobs in one industry, do you care about or even know of its cost and disastrous effects in other industries? When Congress enacts a miracle for one group of Americans, such as steel producers, it creates a non-miracle for another group, such as steel-using producers. Should Congress then create a miracle for the steel-using industry to offset the effects of its miracle created for steel producers, such as giving them handouts or their own tariffs? I'm betting that it wouldn't work. Lawmakers would run into the same problem described in Marcus Cook Connelly's play "The Green Pastures," in which G0D explained to the angel Gabriel, "Every time Ah passes a miracle, Ah has to pass fo' or five mo' to ketch up wid it." Congress should keep in mind God's further lament — that "even bein' God ain't no bed of roses" — and get out of the miracle business.

Dr. Walter Williams is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.

[Arising_uk]

A) They can have sky-high tariffs or boycott our goods all together. It doesn't matter what they do.
...

Hmmm...if you only buy from someone and can't sell to them what does that do to your balance of payments?

B) Getting free goods doesn't create unemployment. Obviously, it's dumb to make goods that are free for the asking.

And that's what I'm asking you, what would you do with the unemployed to help them gain work after being made unemployed due to being under-cut by cheaper production elsewhere?

Not free bob, just cheap compared to the home-made version.

I think Williams article about right although there are other reason than economic to retain the capability of an industry. For example, if one relied upon all steel imports and shut all your steel mills and works, what happens in the future if you need to go to war with your supplier? We're doing this over here, very soon no capability to produce steel and if we ever need to go on a war footing we're going to be in serious trouble.

[bobevenson]

The only thing that Williams left out was the higher prices everybody pays, courtesy of the government. As far as our ability to wage war, which all of you people seem to criticize us for anyway, I believe that's the function of our Department of Defense, not politicians catering to crony capitalists.

[Arising_uk]

So you think the defense dept should be a steel manufacturer?

You haven't answered about the unemployed nor about the balance of payments deficit?

[Gary Childress]

Thinking Beyond Stage One
By Walter Williams
Published July 6, 2016

A recent ruling by the U.S. Department of Commerce dramatically increased tariffs on some Chinese steel products, such as cold-rolled steel, which is used to make appliances, cars and electric motors. Tariffs were raised by 500 percent on some other Chinese steel products. President Barack Obama and the major 2016 presidential aspirants, particularly Donald Trump, believe this measure will protect jobs in the U.S. steel industry. There is no doubt that steel industry jobs will be saved. But there is an ignorance and/or incapacity of being able to think beyond stage one when evaluating public policy. Measures to protect steelworker jobs pay attention to only the seen effects of public policy; they ignore the unseen. In other words, they look at only the visible beneficiaries of public policy and ignore the invisible victims.

U.S. steel companies want to restrict steel imports so that they can sell more steel to American companies and charge them higher prices. That means more employment and greater profits for those in the steel industry. We can think of those observations as the seen, or stage-one, effects of import restrictions.

Daniel R. Pearson has written a Forbes opinion article, which is titled "The U.S. And China Are Both Wrong On Steel" (http://tinyurl.com/h28undm) and gets us beyond stage one. In the May 23 piece, Pearson argues, "The real cost of import restrictions is the harm they do to manufacturers of value-added products that use steel as an input." Primary metal manufacturing — which includes steel, copper, aluminum, magnesium, etc. — added about $60 billion of value to the economy in 2014. The steel-using manufacturers generated $990 billion of value for the economy; that's more than 16 times more. Primary metal manufacturing employment was 400,000, while steel-using manufacturers employed 6.5 million people, also 16 times greater.

Politicians have criticized Carrier for its decision to move 2,100 air conditioning jobs from Indiana to Mexico. Carrier is affected by import restrictions on steel, copper tubing and aluminum extrusions and can escape those U.S. government-imposed costs simply by moving production across the border.

Pearson suggests that the United States should send China this message: "Thank you for transferring so much wealth from China to the United States by selling low-priced steel. It's helping to keep our large manufacturing sector globally competitive."

Another example of failing to think beyond stage one is with the tariff and quota protections given to the U.S. sugar industry. Chicago used to be America's candy capital. Today it's a mere shadow of its former self. Brach's used to employ about 2,300 people; now most of its jobs are in Mexico. Ferrara Candy Co. has also moved much of its production to Mexico. Wages are indeed lower in Mexico, but wages are not the only factor in candy manufacturers' flight from America. After all, Life Savers, which for 90 years manufactured in America, moved to Canada, where wages are comparable to ours. By moving to Canada, it became more competitive because it saved itself a whopping $10 million a year in sugar costs.

The question that should be put to those calling for restrictions on imports is: In an effort to save jobs in one industry, do you care about or even know of its cost and disastrous effects in other industries? When Congress enacts a miracle for one group of Americans, such as steel producers, it creates a non-miracle for another group, such as steel-using producers. Should Congress then create a miracle for the steel-using industry to offset the effects of its miracle created for steel producers, such as giving them handouts or their own tariffs? I'm betting that it wouldn't work. Lawmakers would run into the same problem described in Marcus Cook Connelly's play "The Green Pastures," in which G0D explained to the angel Gabriel, "Every time Ah passes a miracle, Ah has to pass fo' or five mo' to ketch up wid it." Congress should keep in mind God's further lament — that "even bein' God ain't no bed of roses" — and get out of the miracle business.

Dr. Walter Williams is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.

Is this from a physical written source or a website? If it's a website would you include the link, please?

[bobevenson]

Is this from a physical written source or a website? If it's a website would you include the link, please?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp

[Hobbes' Choice]

Free trade= inequality.
It leads to extreme poverty and an imploding economy as downwards pressure on wages leads to reduced demand; and competition leads to a downwards pressure on the number of businesses producing monopolies that leads to upwards pressure on prices, lower demand and unemployment.

This is why free trade has always been resisted.

[bobevenson]

Free trade= inequality. It leads to extreme poverty and an imploding economy as downwards pressure on wages leads to reduced demand; and competition leads to a downwards pressure on the number of businesses producing monopolies that leads to upwards pressure on prices, lower demand and unemployment. This is why free trade has always been resisted.

No, free trade has always been resisted due to vested interests.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Free trade= inequality. It leads to extreme poverty and an imploding economy as downwards pressure on wages leads to reduced demand; and competition leads to a downwards pressure on the number of businesses producing monopolies that leads to upwards pressure on prices, lower demand and unemployment. This is why free trade has always been resisted.

No, free trade has always been resisted due to vested interests.

This describes you; "I'm-ok-Jack-so-everyone-else-can-get-stuffed fascist fuck "