US trading away their ASSETS

It may be drivel, but it was being discussed, exactly how I stated, back in the 1970s

 

Well done!

Heckscher-Ohlin predates the 70s. Where have you been?

 

I'm searching for some relevancy.

It appears that you reluctantly agree that the trade deficits are the result of policies designed to create those deficits.

 

You constructed an argument based on ignorance of economics. You also made the choice to pretend that those in the 70s were similarly ignorant. They weren't!

It appears you can't construct a logical comment.

 

"You constructed an argument based on ignorance of economics. You also made the choice to pretend that those in the 70s were similarly ignorant. They weren't!"

Show your work!

I said: Academics openly discussed the transfer of production from the USA to third-world nations.

I said: Their stated goal was to raise the standard of living in third-world nations, and lower the standard of living in the USA.

I can't see where those statements have anything to do with ignorance, or pretending.

"It appears you can't construct a logical comment."

It appears that you want to focus on me, rather than the ideas being presented.

 

You've said nothing. Heckcher-Ohlin has been known for yonks. Ricardian comparative advantage for even longer.

How long have you not known the basics?

 

So I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you don't want any discussion, but just want to spout off.

What I'm trying to bring up isn't so much about economics as it is about global social-engineering, and how it led to the trade deficits.

 

So, on an economic sub-forum, you don't want to refer to economics? You also have been found out talking drivel, making a kid only interested in why they can't see moles look deep thinking.

 

"So, on an economic sub-forum, you don't want to refer to economics?"

Do you remember the topic title?

Is it limited to the basic premise, and ignoring the causes of that result?

"also have been found out talking drivel"

I'm not seeing that.

"making a kid only interested in why they can't see moles look deep thinking."

OK, you've certainly got me stumped there.

Last word is all yours.

 

Technically, in terms of validity, you haven't said anything. There was no notion of transfer from developed to developing country. All gain from trade.

We've of course seen the naivety of that. Given comparative advantage is a dynamic concept, the imposition of market fundamentalism on the developing world has actually been harmful.

 

Milton Friedman was an ideologue, a theoretician, a propagandist. He wasn't a capitalist putting his money where his mouth was. And it's easy to demand "free markets", knowing you're safe from ever actually having to live with one. Do you understand?

 

This thread is about the US trading away its assets. The US is an aging capitalist country. Profit is the whole story and in an aging capitalist country it becomes even more important. Thus, trade is about profits and compounded growth.

US capitalism is struggling. Capacity utilization is around 78% so there is not going to be any increase in production by corporations that can't sell what they already produce, unless overseas markets open up. And that is the major way US capitalists (who have largely become international capitalists already) can increase profits through production and sales. (There are other ways to maintain or increase profits, like stock buybacks and mergers to reduce redundancy.) But being as desperate as they are, US capitalists are going to be as ruthless as they must to exploit foreign markets and to maintain profit growth. And when those sources of profits start to dry up, they will turn on US citizens with a vengeance and the government will help them. As one writer once said, they will try to make a profit selling you the rope by which you will hang them.

So, are US capitalists trading away our assets? Sure, but they don't care. It's now part of the game.

 

understand it was not safe for 120 million human souls to live with socialist markets as they slowly starved to death.

 

Service to others is the whole story, not profits under Republican capitalism. If one company cares about service and the competitor about profits which will prevail? You learn this when you get an MBA. 1+1=2

 

China too with "one belt one road" and they are 5 times bigger than we are! Do you understand?

 

if their objective is service why could they turn on US Citizens more than Chinese or Russians?

 

Given the millions starving to death as we speak because of capitalism, do you have no shame?

 

Where are millions starving to death because of capitalism? See why we say, slow!!!

 

Are you seriously that ignorant of world affairs?

 

wonder why standard liberal is so afraid to identify the millions?? What do we learn from his fear?

 

I'm not a liberal. You've been informed of this many times.

You didn't answer the question. Given the desperate starvation problems created by capitalism, is your morality selective?

 

That of course is the strongest argument against tariffs.

But by that same argument, we would have to also eliminate the minimum wage and eliminate many pollution regulations to remain logically consistent.
Anyone who can't see why this is so hasn't given much thought to the issue.

Anyway, the Conservatives who would actually try to use this argument have now become a tiny minority, so I don't think it's worth trying to argue that point in this thread.

 

Wrong! Free trade, minimum wage protection and regulation are all consistent. Even neoclassicalists agree.

 

No.
Minimum wage means you lose the industry to a developing market, unless you can protect it.

Chinese/Vietnamese/nepalese/somali's will work for less.

So your minimum wagers lose their jobs unless..... you protect those jobs (or you get them to agree to work for the global minimum).

 

wrong of course! free trade prevents minimum wage laws in favor of free trade wages