America wants a Modern America, not a Duck Dynasty America

No, unfortunately it's our dumbasssed Springer society

 

LOL. Oh, that's good.

 

For most of the country, it makes him look bad. We all (should) know that his words won't force GM to make bad decisions. Most will say it's a loss for him. However, we can't know what he's actually thinking. It might be that he's trying to score political points with Ohio and unions.

But who knows?

 

Attacking the head of the local union isn't the way to score political points with those boys.
It looks a lot like he's spouting a fascist attitude toward state control of production sources, to me. And I don't mean in any ideological sense, since I don't think he's at all intellectually driven.

 

Democrats want a modern America powered by 15th century windmills, a land where guns are banned and its survival of the fittest, every man/woman/child is subject to the barbarism of those younger/quicker/ or stronger than them. No thanks...

 

Does the whole NAZI!, FAASCIST!, RACIST, WHITE-SUPREMACIST!, MISOGYNIST!, WHATEVEROPHOBE! meme still play in Leftiland?

 

Trump's war on trade hasn't helped the middle class and we can use GM as an example for that. Import tariffs led to, in part to why the Lordstown plant is now idling.
GM profits were up 25% in 2018. It isn't the tariffs on steel, its greed by GM. Being a liberal, I would assume you would be irate at this point. Besides that, should Americans just shrug their shoulders as our trade deficit with China is at an all time high? Or should we allow China to continue to get rich off stolen US intellectual property?

Ask any affected Sears worker in the last couple years is they think Trump has helped the middle class, especially after we've found the tax returns are coming in short this year, ballooning the national debt, if Trump has actually helped the middle class.
Sears went bankrupt because people are shopping online not because of anything Trump did. As far as smaller tax returns, that absolutely sucks!
Two extra years of high school? There was a time when students graduated after four years of high school ready for work or college. They didn't need 6 years of high school. Kids don't graduate from college these days with any marketable skills. Most of them can't even write a decent paragraph. Two more years isn't going to help that. College used to be for the highly intelligent who majored in STEM subjects or Business. Today anyone can go to college whether they have the intellectual capacity or not. Students graduate with degrees in Human Services, Black Studies, Gender Studies, Community Organizing and the like--nothing the world needs to move forward.
My vision of the future is the scenario that is most likely imo. Your utopian views are just wishful, naïve thinking. Sorry.

 

The land that I live in is full of all kinds of people. Most of them are decent people, who would not tell their childeren to act like Donald Trump (even if they voted for him). Since I live in a semi rural Republican county, and I am active in politics, I know what most of the elected officials really think of Trump too.

I don't know anyone who is guilt ridden, except for some of the more rabid racist of my acquainence.

 

I quit reading at the bolded sentence. I had no idea that import tariffs are the reason Chevy Cruise sales have been so bad for the last 3 or 4 years.

 

Protectionism is always bad, even for developing countries and economies. The only area protectionism is appropriate is in the area of military technology. Keeping your best weapons systems' proprietary technology out of the hands of real and potential enemies is a good idea. Milton Friedman showed how even if your trading partners use unfair trading practices, embargoes, tariffs, etc., you (the free trade country) still are better off if you keep your trade free and your tariffs low or nonexistent. I'm guessing your claim is that protectionism allows local industry to develop free from competition with foreign goods, but that only creates inefficiency in the market. If your local industry cannot compete with foreign goods, your economy would be better off to buy the foreign goods and direct the local capital to some other industry. Steel is a good example of this. Nearly every country in the world subsidizes the local steel industry because they want a local source of supply. (That, and they're still fighting WWII, at least mentally.) But this is a horrendous waste of resources. Steel can be obtained far more cheaply from the advanced nations than it can be produced locally, meaning all the money being poured into local steel foundries could be used for something more useful, such as more advanced farm machinery, etc. Protectionism misdirects capital into inefficient and uncompetitive industries and starves what could be efficient and competitive industries of that capital. Protectionism didn't make America into a world-class productive economy, its relative isolation and its inventive people did that. Starting in the 19th century, most of the world's new technologies originated in the UK and the US. The free market ensured that new inventions could create wealth for their inventors and America's distance from Europe ensured that local products were always cheaper than imports. That didn't start to change until after WWII. If a developing country asked me how to develop faster, I would recommend as a start getting rid of restrictions on trade. If you want to grow economically, protectionism is a bad way to do it. (Take note, Trump.)

 

It seems to be the only thing left in their playbook. AOC, whatever her faults, is playing a different tune, the Pied Piper tune of socialism, which doesn't play well to the masses but is very appealing to the sit-on-their-ass types that populate the Democratic party.

 

I’ll keep the steaks coming.

 

Evidence shows otherwise, from the Anglo-Saxon countries to the tiger economies.

This amused me as this is the one area where we know crowding out effects can dominate (i.e. the military investments lead to reduced economic growth).

This is nonsense, but please go with it. Where did he show that? Present the reference.

Dynamic comparative advantage shows otherwise. You have to attack orthodox economics, given the infant industry hypothesis merely needs reference to the economies of time (i.e. learning by doing)

The rest of your post was noise.

 

Protectionism harms consumers, who have to pay higher prices than otherwise.

 

You're either mischaracterizing or misreading the evidence.

The reduced economic growth due to military investments are minor compared to the reduced economic growth caused by being invaded.

In Free to Choose. I don't have a copy of the book handy that I can give you chapter and verse.

Not sure what you mean by "orthodox" economics, but free market capitalism generally favors free trade across borders as well as within borders. Looks like this "infant industry hypothesis" came from a German-American economist named Friedrich List (https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Friedrich_List.html), hardly what one would call an orthodox economist, at least in the United States. In fact, most of those who quote him come from the Heterodox economics group. Neoclassical economics, the reigning "orthodoxy", takes barely any notice of List.

You mean you couldn't counter my claims.

I'm not a fan of the IMF, but here's the deputy director of that organization talking about tariffs as protection:

"[It is claimed that] Tariffs can dampen imports, boost net exports (the difference between exports and imports, or the trade balance), and so boost GDP, other things being equal.

Economists, however, have generally been skeptical. Since the time of Adam Smith (or maybe even before), open and competitive markets have been seen as most likely to maximize output by directing resources more productively. Tariffs, on the other hand, encourage both the deflection of trade to inefficient producers and smuggling in order to evade them; such distortions reduce any beneficial effects. Further, consumers lose more from tariffs than producers gain, so there is deadweight loss. And the redistributions associated with tariffs tend to create vested interests, so harm tends to persist."

"Some economies today are using commercial policy seemingly for macroeconomic objectives. Can we say something about what the likely practical consequences of such actions are likely to be? In a recent study covering the vast majority of developed and developing countries in the world, and half a century’s-worth of macroeconomic data, we examined the responses of six key macroeconomic variables to changes in the tariff rate: real GDP, productivity, the unemployment rate, the real exchange rate, the trade balance and inequality.

We found that tariff increases have adverse domestic macroeconomic and distributional consequences: these effects are robustly and statistically significant, and are large enough in an economic sense to merit the attention of policymakers.

We also found that output (GDP) falls after tariffs rise because of a significant decrease in labour productivity. When firms in the import-competing sectors receive protection, resources are reallocated within the economy to relatively unproductive uses, and this is harmful to the added value generated by the economy. That is, the wasteful effects of protectionism lead to a meaningful reduction in the efficiency with which labour is used, and thus to a fall in output."

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/why-tariffs-spell-trouble-for-economic-growth/

It's not enough to point at Japan and say, "See, protectionism works." You also have to include the dozens and dozens of African nations that pursue the same protectionist policies in your analysis and recognize that Japan succeeded despite their protectionist policies, not because of them.

 

Only when appropriate and merited.

And even you have to admit there's quite a few far right bigots around here.

 

Just to add, it cost Japan a massive national debt - 220% of gdp to succeed despite their protectionism.

 

The republicans I know support trump

As for white liberals being driven by guilt its becoming standard proceedure in the democrat party

 

That's a pretty low bar to set for calling people fascist Nazis.

 

That's delusional, not just for trying to blame Trump for the events in Christchurch which is sickening but for your sneering at rural Americans, the Bill Mahler effect. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason people voted for Trump is folks like you have this sort of attitude towards them?

 

That's a very poor effort! Its on a par with "no, my daddy is bigger than yours" playground attempt. The infant industry hypothesis is well understood, referring to market failure created by 'first mover advantages'. To attack it you have to also attack the notion of comparative advantage (itself just a reference to opportunity costs); or assume perfect knowledge. And of course the evidence is clear-cut. See, for example, Chang

Again evidence shows otherwise. The only debate is the source of the economic costs. Keynesians, for example, refer to the effectiveness of civilian expenditures in demand management. Personally I prefer analysis into crowding-out effects and how the military sector guarantees increased inefficiency. Its also a bad idea to refer to war, given the military industrial complex actually increases the risk of 'accidental' warfare (i.e. war against the national interest, but in the interest of specific pressure groups and economic players)

Another weak effort!

This made me laugh. You're ultimately saying that you don't really know any economics. Orthodox economics is of course neoclassical. For trade analysis, it develops from the likes of Smith and Ricardo. However, it subsequently had to go further in order to try to understand trade patterns. New Trade Theory, via dastard liberals like Krugman, focused on explaining intra-industry trade. Part of that is of course the realisation that comparative advantage is a dynamic concept. It is pretty obvious stuff: average costs reduce through accumulated outcome (e.g. learning by doing).

At least you're consistent in your weak comment! Numerous elements of orthodox economics comes from heterodox ideas. They're good at stealing (e.g. efficiency wage analysis arguably is stolen straight from Marxist economics). However, none of this is reliant on heterodox schools of thought. As I said, its basic understanding of comparative advantage!

As I said, it was just noise. As was the rest of your latest post.

 

America wants a Modern America, not a Duck Dynasty America.

Speak for yourself. I would like to see us go back to how we were in the 1950's.

 

Mondern America: The Socialist Ideal.
Don’t know whether to laugh or weep.
Brothers! You reap what you so

SEATTLE IS DYING


How long before the infection spreads? Are Cuba and Venezuela a preview of America’s future? (Hint: It is if AOC makes her “Green Dream” a reality.)

 

I have a study across most of the world's countries that says protectionism is bad for GDP. Whaddayou got? Anything other than theories that don't amount to a hill of beans?