The Return of Protectionism

[Bender]

I've seen people use the Loan Star card at HEB...

what are those?

[Winehole23]

If Americans don't have the motivation to exceed in 'smarter' jobs, like engineering and science, then they deserve to die off. Americans need to get smarter than the Chinese, because it's not feasible that our economy will drop to a level where $2 an hour would be acceptable to an American worker, so Chinese will always have the edge in 'menial' jobs. If you're one of the smart ones, you can take advantage of the lowered prices of these goods. If you're not, sucks to be you.

Just once, I'd like to see Darrin make his own argument, in his own words.

That almost never happens. I can't think of a single instance, myself.

As for the included argument, there's something to it, though for the life of me I can't see how it precludes our government from fighting for US trade interests and a decent standard of living, even for un-degreed Americans. The idea that only college graduates deserve to reap the fruits of prosperity strikes me as -- dare I say it? -- elitist and wrongheaded.

[coyotes_geek]

I know that timing is an important question, but isn't it at least possible in principle that there's some modest core of real productivity worth hanging onto, and protecting from the likes of a China?

But at what cost? I'm not saying there's never a situation where tariffs or other protectionist policies make sense. But in every situation there's a trade off that needs to be considered. Is it worth making the goods we buy more expensive just to protect domestic jobs? Depends on the situation IMO.

But if these tariffs are associated with a reduced tax rate for corporations, can't corporation then lower the price of their goods below overseas compe ors?

Also, how does protectionism remove incentives towards innovation and efficiency, if the only solution to said efficiency would seemingly be to get rid of existing labor laws? After all, there's a HUGE economic disparity in living wage between us and China, and a few bells and whistles on an American product won't necessarily make up for it.

I'm a manufacturer who employs Americans and you're one who employs Chinese. Why should I expend resources to reduce the price of my product if the government is going to use tariffs to make sure that your product is never cheaper than mine?

[LnGrrrR]

Just once, I'd like to see Darrin make his own argument, in his own words.

That almost never happens. I can't think of a single instance, myself.

As for the included argument, there's something to it, though for the life of me I can't see how it precludes our government from fighting for US trade interests and a decent standard of living, even for un-degreed Americans. The idea that only college graduates deserve to reap the fruits of prosperity strikes me as -- dare I say it? -- elitist and wrongheaded.

I believe DarrinS would counter with something along the lines of, "What's wrong with others having to learn new skills? I want my cheap electronics!"

Of course, no word on whether or not he'd be fine with buying cheap American electronics protected by tax cuts made up from tariffs.

I see DarrinS as the political forum's Yoda. He speaks in riddles and questions most of the time, and half of the things he says may or may not make sense.

[Winehole23]

But at what cost? I'm not saying there's never a situation where tariffs or other protectionist policies make sense. But in every situation there's a trade off that needs to be considered. Is it worth making the goods we buy more expensive just to protect domestic jobs? Depends on the situation IMO.

This at least is a pragmatic view: weigh the costs and benefits, instead of asserting principles dogmatically. It's not about whose principles are right, but about what's good for us. Reasonable people will disagree plenty about what this is. What I can't stand is people turning ideas out of hand because they are out of step with more "progressive" thinking.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm a manufacturer who employs Americans and you're one who employs Chinese. Why should I expend resources to reduce the price of my product if the government is going to use tariffs to make sure that your product is never cheaper than mine?

How are you going to expend resources in the idea listed in the OP?

Let's say I produce shirts and sell them for $4, and you produce them and sell at $8. In the proposed idea, the tariff would raise Chinese shirts to, say, $6 dollars. The $2 received from the tariff would then go to American companies, in the form of tax cuts, in order to reduce their overhead.

How would American companies, in the example above, have to expend extra resources? The tariff is merely to balance the playing field, it seems, between America which has certain standards, and China which does not.

As I listed above, it seems our three options are to enact tariffs, remove certain regulations, or convince people to buy American. Which of the three policies do you think we should try, or is there a fourth I'm missing?

[Winehole23]

what are those?

The Lone Star card is like food stamps; HEB is a supermarket.

[DarrinS]

what are those?

Loan Star cards are food stamps on a credit card.

[Winehole23]

I see DarrinS as the political forum's Yoda. He speaks in riddles and questions most of the time, and half of the things he says may or may not make sense.

This is too generous by half, but the comparison to Yoda isn't a bad one.

[DarrinS]

For WH and Lngrrrrrr (?? # of r's)


A very small percentage of our population works as farm laborers these days. All the people that once worked on farms had to go do something else, right?


Would our country have made more or less progress in your opinion if most of us were still farm laborers?

[DarrinS]

This is too generous by half, but the comparison to Yoda isn't a bad one.

Do you remember the story about the Hooter's waitress that entered a contest, thinking the grand prize was a new Toyota and it turned out to be a "toy" Yoda?

[MannyIsGod]

Can someone explain to me why a guy on an assembly line making widgets justifies $25/hour, medical benefits, and a pension?

Because he can get it? How the do you slap capitalism in the face with one hand while patting it on the back with the other?

[Winehole23]

A counterfactual. IMO our present situation isn't analogous.

I don't think our fortunes should be blindly placed at the altar of progress; still less do I accept that de-industrialization is a historical inevitability, and still less an absolute necessity.

Wasn't industrialism the basis of our power and prosperity in the 20th century?

What will replace it, given the poor state of American education, our crushing debt and the increasing instability of the USD, i.e., our purchasing power and standard of living?

Our future prosperity has already been pawned to bail out insolvent banks and unfunded liabilities, and the true depth of wealth destruction in the current recession has yet to fully sink in. On what basis will the purchasing power of the American consumer be revived?

That strikes me as the more pertinent question. Upon what real stores of value will we rebuild our failed economy? More financialized bs will only sink us deeper when the debt bubble pops again, because there was not enough real productive value (i.e., stuff that people want to buy from us) underneath it. Again.

[baseline bum]

I think DarrinS has an argument; he just knows it sounds somewhat callous put into actual words.

DarrinS's argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this:

If Americans don't have the motivation to exceed in 'smarter' jobs, like engineering and science, then they deserve to die off. Americans need to get smarter than the Chinese, because it's not feasible that our economy will drop to a level where $2 an hour would be acceptable to an American worker, so Chinese will always have the edge in 'menial' jobs. If you're one of the smart ones, you can take advantage of the lowered prices of these goods. If you're not, sucks to be you.

Wow. Who would have ever guessed Darrin would copy the philosophy of the American public school system, which is great for the top 10-25% who can handle AP and dual credit, but fails miserably with the middle 50%?

[MannyIsGod]

If you're still trying with Darrin WH I don't know what to tell you. He's never had any interest in actually forging a discussion here.

[DarkReign]

Ours is a post-industrial economy and has been for quite a long time.

Youre completely ing blind if you dont see the problem with a country that has no means to manufacture, much less an incentive to do so.

Your at ude would have brought this Union to its knees years ago...all for a cheaper product, comrade.

[DarrinS]

Because he can get it? How the do you slap capitalism in the face with one hand while patting it on the back with the other?

More power to the union guy for getting his "due". Just don't when those same people bring down GM.

That's all I'm saying.

[MannyIsGod]

In any event, I sadly think Darrin has the right premise while being incorrect at the same time even if he doesn't understand why. We should of course be moving towards an economy that is less reliant on old manufacturing jobs and more cutting edge. The sad fact is that we're not going there because our population is unskilled in the trades that matter for that type of an economy and its not getting better.

We're not preparing our children to keep the US at the forefront of innovation, science and technology. The graduates we produce are not in the right fields and are not good enough to move this economy forward and completely away from manufacturing jobs. As much as we'd like to move into the future we're just too ing stupid to do it.

[LnGrrrR]

For WH and Lngrrrrrr (?? # of r's)


A very small percentage of our population works as farm laborers these days. All the people that once worked on farms had to go do something else, right?


Would our country have made more or less progress in your opinion if most of us were still farm laborers?

I'm not disagreeing you that the spoils go to the winners. However, if we can ins ute tariffs to protect American jobs, without significantly affecting our ability to buy goods at low prices, why shouldn't we enact that?

(My question is not rhetorical; I'm interested in hearing the pros and cons. The OP seemed to have a good idea, and I'm looking for cogent arguments against it.)

[Winehole23]

If you're still trying with Darrin WH I don't know what to tell you. He's never had any interest in actually forging a discussion here.

Yeah. I don't know what to say. Sometimes people change. But it's pretty rare.

I have a feeling Darrin isn't as shallow, or as oblivious, as he lets on. But it's just a hunch. I have nothing to base it on.

It's a personal foible. I don't like giving up on people. I suppose I'd save myself some grief if I did every now and then. It's hard for me to do.

[MannyIsGod]

More power to the union guy for getting his "due". Just don't when those same people bring down GM.

That's all I'm saying.

Then just don't when other companies overseas don't have to pay huge legacy costs because the government provides health care either. You always want to paint the world into this simple picture where a move is either right or wrong based upon how it fits into your re ed paradigm which doesn't even consider so many factors.

You and complain about GM and its so called legacy costs and completely ignore the fact that other companies overseas don't have to pay those legacy costs because the society as a whole upholds the burden. GM wasn't competing with 3rd world countries paying their employees 2 dollars an hour, they were competing with Japan.

[LnGrrrR]

More power to the union guy for getting his "due". Just don't when those same people bring down GM.

That's all I'm saying.

Why not blame management for accepting the deal? Why should the workers be the ones to give up the promises they fought for? And if they choose to fight to the point where they destroy the very company they work for? Well, that's their right, as I see it.

[Winehole23]

Why not blame management for accepting the deal? .

Because he likes bogeymen, cliches and very simple stories.

[ChumpDumper]

More power to the union guy for getting his "due". Just don't when those same people bring down GM.

That's all I'm saying.

Those Cooper Tire workers in Georgia were not members of a union.

[DarkReign]

Elitist Liberals and Conservatives?

Say it isnt so

Right, I mean, you could totally take every line worker, construction worker and shop-rat job and replace it with Engineering jobs!

Man! Why didnt someone else think of this?!

You guys are totally onto something, there...

Let me think it through though...

So out of the, oh I dont know, 20 to 30 ing million Americans who do these "menial" jobs, we can sooooo expect there to be an engineering position in some other company just waiting for them, right?

I mean, thats the nd game, correct?

And pray tell, sages of sanctimony, what happens when the market is flooded with supply, but demand is lowered?

Ohhhh, your fancy engineering degree holds no water any longer because, apparently, some genius thought it a great idea to just eliminate the need for "menial" labor and make everyone a professional!

Therefore, for every engineering job, there will be something to the tune of 1000 people vying for it.

Oh yeah, you guys got this cracked. It was tough, but you solved it in two forum pages and a whoooooole lot of ignorance and elitism. How is the view from the Ivory Tower, btw?