America wants a Modern America, not a Duck Dynasty America

No you don't. You've got naff all. We know that comparative advantage means there are trade gains. However, we also know that comparative advantage is a dynamic concept and therefore supports infant industry protection.

You didn't manage to read Chang's article? Tut tut!

 

No you don't. You're just pulling that out of your ass with cherry picked examples for support.

 

Let's go through it slowly; I'm here to help. Do you agree that your position is based on comparative advantage? Do you agree that first mover advantages mean more mature companies will have lower costs?

 

we should be upgrading our economy every two years.

 

At least, some good news.

 

No, and no. Many mature companies have considerably higher costs than new start-ups. Look at GM and its crushing health insurance and pension costs. Look at many existing companies and their out-of-date systems, factories, and machinery. When you start from a false premise, in this case the belief that existing companies have an advantage, you reach false conclusions. Almost all technological breakthroughs come from outside the corporate world.

 

This is comical. You don't even realise that the free trade argument is derived from comparative advantage?

This is also comical. You don't seem to know that about the importance of variable costs and how that determines price.

 

Oh no its not. Its not the only criteria to call them fascist or nazis. When their bigotry is coupled with expressions of fascistic policies then its entirely appropriate to make the connection.

Just like it would be appropriate to call an advocate of government control of the sources of production and distribution of that production a bunch of damn socialists. And if coupled with suppression of civil rights and freedoms its appropriate to call them a bunch of scumbag commies.

 

"Another source of "unfair competition" is said to be subsidies by foreign governments to their producers that enable them to sell in the United States below cost. Suppose a foreign government gives such subsidies, as no doubt some do. Who is hurt and who benefits? To pay for the subsidies the foreign government must tax its citizens. They are the ones who pay for the subsidies. U.S. consumers benefit. They get cheap TV sets or automobiles or whatever it is that is subsidized. Should we complain about such a program of reverse foreign aid? Was it noble of the United States to send goods and services as gifts to other countries in the form of Marshall Plan aid or, later, foreign aid, but ignoble for foreign countries to send us gifts in the indirect form of goods and services sold to us below cost? The citizens of the foreign government might well complain. They must suffer a lower standard of living for the benefit of American consumers and of some of their fellow citizens who own or work in the industries that are subsidized.

No doubt, if such subsidies are introduced suddenly or erratically, that will adversely affect owners and workers in U.S. industries producing the same products. However, that is one of the ordinary risks of doing business. Enterprises never complain about unusual or accidental events that confer windfall gains. The free enterprise system is a profit and loss system. As already noted, any measures to ease the adjustment to sudden changes should be applied evenhandedly to domestic and foreign trade."

From Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman

http://www.proglocode.unam.mx/sites...a/Milton y Rose Friedman - Free to Choose.pdf p. 56

 

You're making me laugh at least! The US is number 1 for WTO dispute settlement guilt.

 

If you mean the US subsidizes US products at the expense of the taxpayer and foreign producers, I agree with you, we should stop doing that.

 

Comparative advantage is only one side of the coin. There are others.

Scrapping minimum wage would also create comparative advantage, agreed?
But that doesn't necessarily mean we want it.

 

I don't think Friedman would have objected to tariff taxes in place of domestic taxes.
He would have recognized both of them carry an economic disincentive, and the government's got to collect taxes from somewhere.

 

Correlation does not imply a direction of causation. It may be that countries with lower GDP are more likely to use protectionism, rather than that protectionism causing lower GDP.

Very poor people don't have cars. Does that mean that someone very poor should get a car because it will make them like richer people? Of course that's not necessarily the case.

The way richer people/countries do things may not necessarily work for poorer people/countries.

 

Ironically Springer himself is not a dim guy, but that's another story.

 

Something tells me those irresponsible people who borrowed from them weren't on the right.

 

We probably would have been successful with Chinese people but then we'd probably be living in a totalitarian state with strict rules that didn't care about freedom or individual rights.

Like bees in a beehive, or ants in an ant colony.

 

Then why don't you simply support land value and natural resource taxation?
(Geolibertarian/Georgist argument)

 

I don't believe it's fair to expect normal people in common debates to know what all this economic terminology means.
You're really kind of speaking a different language and then complaining that they're dum when they don't understand you. If you were really so smart you could make your argument clear and concise without using opaque economic words.

Yes, I just happen to understand the concept, but not everyone is familiar with it, nor will they take the effort to be if you can't explain it in more than two sentences.

 

No amount of regulation will ever be enough for them.

 

Who says you get to define what a "modern America" is?

Did someone die and make you boss?

 

Just another demonstration that progressives don’t really believe in diversity or tolerance. Same song, another verse.

 

Pension problems are something large companies bought for themselves. This doesn't point to an advantage in being new - it's an advantage in not attempting to get away with stealing from employees.

There are all sorts of behaviors large companies can use in order to prevent those with similar ideas, but less resources from competing.

Manufacturing companies buy product shelf space and exclusive contracts. That's true for high tech. We have copyrights and patents used as weapons preventing others from competing using those ideas. Large companies can do this more easily, as they have the resources to find and prosecute these issues.

Man - I'm going to stop here. Besides the large numbers of these methods ... I've used them.

 

Of course not that is part of the way in which they exercise their power. Please note regulations are usually enforced in civil court where standard of proof are far lower.

 

No, we don't. We are a Republic.