Sure.
Start with a quick walk through of international trade:
Job losses due to mix of technology AND trade:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...r-coming-back/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/29/news...acturing-jobs/
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474393...me-trade-deals
(one of the better attempts, although their methodology didn't control for some confounding variables):
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...acturing-jobs/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveden.../#33da16e04320
Hard to draw a bright line in terms of proportion of manufacturing job losses to cause:
1. It is certain that not all such losses are due solely to trade.
2. It is certain that even the job losses due to trade are not due entirely to free trade agreements (advantages that would overcome most tariff regimes)
Tried to find something that would point you in the right direction took a bit of effort. My understanding is based on a course I took in grad school on international economics, and involved a lot of graphs and theory that I can't easily type out.
Found this though:
http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/iba/files/summary.pdf
5. The proposition that trade is beneficial is unqualified. That is, there is no requirement
that a country be "compe ive" or that the trade be "fair." In particular, we can show that three
cominonly held beliefs about trade are wrong. First, a country gains from trade even if it has
lower productivity than its trading partner in all industries. Second, trade is beneficial even if
foreign industries are compe ive only because of low wages. Third, trade is beneficial even if a
country's exports embody more labor than its imports.
6. Extending the one-factor, two-good model to a world of many commodities does not
alter these conclusions. The only difference is that it becomes necessary to focus directly on the
relative demand for labor to determine relative wages rather than to work via relative demand for
goods. Also, a many-commodity model can be used to illustrate the important point that
transportation costs can give rise to a situation in which some nontraded goods exist.
7. While some of the predictions of the Ricardian model are clearly unrealistic, its basic
prediction-that countries will tend to export goods in which they have relatively high
productivity-has been confirmed by a number of studies.
It can be summed up as: Countries do best when they do what they do best. If someone can make it cheaper, everyone benefits from trade.
Do a bit of research on your own for "The Ricardian Theory of Comparative Advantage"
http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.co...fwk-61960-ch02
That is close to what I remember being taught, and am attempting to outline/explain here.
I hope this helps a bit.
Actually this was taken from Real Clear Politics website which plenty of you were quoting from this election cycle and is in response to GOP fighting and Trump not being "king". Imo, he's the one holding the cards (at least now) and they're at first going to dance to his tune/agenda.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...trump_now.html
Here is how I am planning to explain it to my (much more conservative) drinking buddies:
Imagine a jar of pennies.
Four people have four theories as to how many pennies are in the jar:
1> 1,000
2> 100,000
3> 1,000,000
4> 1,000,000,000
There are 841 pennies in the jar, per a count that is not known by any of the four guessers, who all very firmly believe their guess is right.
Are all of these answers equally wrong? Why or why not?
Does the level of belief affect the truth of how many pennies in that jar? What does that say about beliefs?
[edit: my friends are not dumb, they just don't spend as much time reading about critical thinking and logic as I do, so I am hoping to help them sharpen their critical thinking skills]
Email gate is turning into a John Wayne Gacy style ass em and bury em pedo scandal. I can't even read about it anymore
Sort of.
Imagine:
10,000 people lose jobs to trade, replace jobs that pay 20,000 year less. Cost: -200,000,000
300,000,000 people get to buy imported replacements for items once per year one dollar cheaper: Benefit: +300,000,000
Net to economy: +100,000,000
That's it in a nuts , and with math simplified somewhat to make things even. Concentrated losses, and very distributed benefits, even to those who lose jobs. Sure doesn't feel fair to the 10,000, though.
For the rubes anxiously waiting for Trump to go after the Clintons, his latest comments are interesting
On Crooked Hillary:
On Bill "the abuser" Clinton:
Anyone who knows how to praise Trump and stroke his ego is golden in the man's eyes. Next up, Bill to talk to Trump about immigration reform and how Trump can become a hero to Hispanics.He couldn't have been more gracious. He said it was an amazing run. One of the most amazing he's ever seen. He was very, very, really, very nice.
I mean, this is a very talented family. Certainly, I would certainly think about that (taking advice from Bill).
It will. Ill stretch out for a good read from your links when I get back home tonight. Thx bud.
Only reason he won't go after Clinton is because obama has already said that he will pardon her. I like how we pivoted so fast from trump will never win to trump not keeping campaign promises. Could you at least let the guy get sworn in before you talk ?
And you lack the critical thinking to determine who Laura Ingraham is too apparently. This is what you get when you combine access to a search engine with a lack of secondary level critical thinking skills.
"Comet Ping Pong"what now
Don't be coy. You posted on this topic.
All that is happening is the left is actually hearing his proposals for what they actually are instead of the nazi bull version they pretended to hear.
Never believe your own bull .
If we gotta hold him to the bar Barry set as far as keeping his campaign promises, that bar should be pretty low, IMO...
So you're saying idiotic and intellectually lazy thinking keep the same dems that voted Obama from voting Hillary?
Trash has already backed off his beloved wall, gonna be wall and some fence.
Probably a fence and some wall
Most probably, it's gonna be nothing.
All y'all Trash fellators sucked down some real gud con/ job.
we're talking mostly about swing voters -- the people less inclined to pledge their allegiance to one party. And yeah, a enough to swing the election probably had that same mindset.
if he actually shoots down the TPP, I'll accept he is a legit outsider. otherwise he is just as much of a corporate shill as hillary, he has the house and the senate so no excuses.
since i no longer live in the US nor plan to, I hope he does build the wall, it will make the f35 seem like a good investment.
It sounds like there will be a lot of compromise with the promises.
Reality gonna bite Trash's blue-pill-dependent tiny REAL HARD
Having "promised" not to touch Medicare or SS, Don the Con Trash is now fully agreeing with Ryan to privatize Medicare, ASAP, in his first big step in ing over Trash's voters. There will be many more steps.
SS up next. and CURRENT SS people, Trash's voters will get screwed by the Repugs implementing a new CoL SS adjustment that wil cause SS beneficiaries to fall behind inflation, getting poor as they age.
Expect both Medicare and SS qualification ages to be raised towards age 70.
Paul Krugman Exposes Trump's Most Blatant Bait-and-Switch Lie
The champion of working people is setting about destroying every safety net.
“I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” he declared.
, the team Trump is assembling is gunning for en lements.
"The transition team’s point man on Social Security is a longtime advocate of privatization," he writes,
"and all indications are that the incoming administration is getting ready to kill Medicare, replacing it with vouchers that can be applied to the purchase of private insurance. Oh, and
it’s also likely to raise the age of Medicare eligibility."
he’s going to destroy a program that is crucial to that class?
think of what would happen if Medicare didn’t exist. Some older Americans would probably be able to retain health coverage by staying at jobs that come with such coverage. But this option would by and large be available only to those with extensive education:
Labor force participation among seniors is strongly correlated with education, in part because the highly educated are healthier than the less educated, and in part because their jobs require less physical effort. Working-class seniors would be left stranded, unable to get the health care they needed.
Why do Republicans want to destroy successful government programs? Precisely because they are successful government programs, and they can't have that.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/paul...and-switch-lie
Here's an Obama rule helping the working class the Don the Con will certainly revoke, so he can screw Ms of this conned voters.
New overtime law goes into effect Dec. 1, affects millions of workers
http://fox59.com/2016/11/18/new-over...ns-of-workers/
So pledging your allegiance to a party prevents you from being intellectually lazy? Sounds backwards.
No, I didn't write that. You incorrectly concluded that somehow though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote