Yea LoneSnark, the local farmers market does actually have excellent tomatoes and believe it or not farmers markets are sprouting in heavily urbanized areas.

However, loosing manufacturing and textiles is not a major loss to the US, if at all and this has led to the increase in amassed American Wealth. However, this has not led to the increase in wealth among the middle class (stagnant to shrinking in America) or a reduction of poverty levels in America. In fact, most people point to the fact that more people have microwaves and TV's now then ever while not bothering to point out the correlation between increased consumer spending and way over blown consumer debt.

RD on the other hand, isn't just arguing against protectionism but he's making broadbased retarded comments such as (paraphrased) "we don't agriculture" and "fire teh engineers!!111." Lets for a moment consider two things happening America right now:

1) Trickle of R&D and manufacturing to other countries
2) Reduction in the amount of scientists and engineers enrolled and graduating
3) A technical workforce approaching retirement age
4) Massive foreign investment in foreign government sponsored research and development.

This isn't just a villager picking up a needle and decimating Fruit of the Loom, this is a subtle shift globally in information power. I mean you can argue we've survived and advanced for decades and therefore there's no big deal here but there is a massive difference in the economic development of Asia forty years ago and today.

We're essentially banking on the fact that we, Americans, will continue to find more creative ways to make money. Thats all and dandy, but in the past forty years this has worked we've also been busily exporting Americana as a whole and I think global understanding of the American economic machine and how it works is far more advanced then Japan circa 1980.

12/8/2006 8:24:36 PM

Look the problem is American sense of entitlement.

The have nots think they should have.


The have nots are have nots because they dont have what it takes to be haves.

They should be thankful we give them enough money to shut up and smoke/drink/inject and EAT instead of starve.

Thats the problem with liberals is they think everyone should have wi-fi, cell phones, and vacation homes.

If they can eat for free and fuck without repercussions (i.e. we pay for their babies) why do we owe them anything more?

For the most part you have three choices in America.

1) Bust your ass and amass millions upon millions.

2) Work part time and amass a few million.

3) Be lazy and have your entitlements.


Whats the problem here? I'd be happy with option #2 or option #3

IF you can't find your niche then go create your own socialist/failing nation. Or join a subsistent plantantion and farm yourself to death. Work your fucking balls off until you bleed and when you get wrecked by bad weather/extentuating circumstances just throw your hands in the air and die.



Otherwise, stop stealing my money.

12/8/2006 8:35:33 PM

Quote :

"However, loosing manufacturing and textiles is not a major loss to the US"

Especially since it is not taking place:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/

"Barring resource constraints America cannot be impoverished by foreign trade because American labor and business is not competing with foreign labor and business. On the contrary, American labor is competing against other American laborers.

American television makers are competing with American airplane makers. This is thanks to a floating exchange rate. If America made bad airplanes then Mexico would buy airplanes from Europe and Americans would not have pesos to buy televisions from Mexico.

So saying Mexicans make cheaper televisions is insufficient, Americans need a source of pesos to afford Mexican televisions. Pesos that they can only get by selling goods to Mexicans, such as airplanes. This is because if at the current exchange rate both Mexican televisions and Mexican airplanes are cheaper than American counter parts, then Americans will buy a lot of both, flooding Mexico with US dollars, driving down the value of the dollar and making Mexican goods more expensive in comparison. This trend will continue until either US televisions become cheaper or US airplanes become cheaper. As it happens, the US is better at making airplanes, so Mexico's airplane makers will go bankrupt and Americans will buy all their televisions from Mexico. This is an over-simplification, but the point is the competition is not between Mexican labor and American labor, but instead between American airplane makers and American television makers. If American television makers got better at their job then they would bankrupt the American airplane makers, causing a revival in Mexican aviation."

[Edited on December 8, 2006 at 10:08 PM. Reason : edits for texts!]

12/8/2006 10:00:43 PM

You posting that same old argument, Snarkie. You must really like it. I'm little dubious, as your example doesn't at all relate to reality. (Getting pesos is not a problem.)

Even if it's true, the mechanism for preventing competition between the US and Mexico is artifical. It's government imposed. With a universal currency, your argument would go out the window.

12/8/2006 11:07:33 PM

Alright GoldenViper, how do you get pesos?

Presumably you have in mind going either to a Bank or a currency trader and giving him dollars in exchange for pesos. But where did they get the pesos? They are not allowed to print them, only the Mexican government can do that. So the currency traders had to find someone on the other side of the border that wanted dollars in exchange for pesos. They do this by changing the exchange rate: if too many Americans want pesos then they start bidding against each other for the finite supply of pesos chasing dollars in Mexico, driving down the dollar and up the peso. As the peso rises American goods become relatively cheaper from the perspective of both Mexicans and Americans, so fewer Americans ask for pesos and more Mexicans ask for dollars.

Now, you suggested a universal currency. Again, follow the money. Let us imagine two states in North America, South Carolina and North Carolina. Here the exchange rate is fixed, the dollars are identical. So what happens to us is deflation and inflation.

"If North Carolina has twice the productivity of South Carolina, and a fixed exchange rate, then the correction is more painful. South Carolinians buy North Carolina's goods, but not vice versa. In effect, South Carolina is importing goods and exporting dollars. With no central bank to inflate South Carolina's money supply dollars become scarce and thus more valuable, prices begin to fall. Conversely, North Carolina is awash in cash, prices begin to rise. Eventually, when the relative price ratio is 2/1, cross border trade equalizes because South Carolinian goods are too cheap to ignore, and North Carolinian goods are too expensive to afford."

12/9/2006 12:15:32 AM

you know what you want to get rid of farmers in america go ahead. I have the knowledge and power to grow my own food to feed myself if doubt many of you can say the same thing. Be careful what you wish for one day you might just get it.

12/9/2006 1:41:10 PM

Aside from a purely theoretical standpoint, I see no people saying we should actively get rid of all american farmers. What I do see people saying is we should cut off government support for farmers who are unable to sustain themselves on the income provided by farming.

12/9/2006 2:20:57 PM

Well the funny thing with farming is that it can be done cheaper in different countries. Hands down in brazil you can pay a labor 5 dollars a day to work for 10 hours while it would cost you over 10 times that amount here. They have no restrictions on their farming procedure in brazil the land is dirt cheap and you can buy it for under a $100 a acre. If you want to see corpertate farming at its best eliminate the the small middle man. What you will end up with is a Wal Mart of a producers. Look at the swine industry as a classic example. You can not be a small farmer of swine in NC any more the packers/buyers do not want to deal with a producer who sells 30 or 40 hogs every 2 weeks they want a huge opperations. Like wise you have seen over a 20 cent increase in pork prices over the past few years. You will have a hard fight to get rid of agiculture folks because its the number one industry in NC. All of the people who think that RTP is the greatest thing for our state need to go look into the agriculture sector and see how much money agriculture supports this state. Take away part of that and see what happens.

12/9/2006 4:25:47 PM

^wow, you managed to make a post where more than half of it was intelligible. Congrats, sweetheart.

Quote :

"Take away part of that and see what happens."

GLADLY. It means that there will be more people available to do other, more profitable work. You are one of those idiots who hates when automation eliminates the need for jobs, aren't you?

12/9/2006 4:49:17 PM

Quote :

"Getting pesos is not a problem."

Christ it is upsetting when people don't know anything about foreign exchange markets. They think there is some big Monopoly-style banker somwhere who changes money for us out of the goodness of their hearts. Apparantly, somewhere someone has the ability to create the money independent of the governments.

Also, the people who correctly argue that we would be screwed if all our trading partners ganged up on us and refused to trade during a war do have a point. However, they tend to forget that there is no way in hell that we can defeat every country on the planet simultaneously anyhow, so if we've gotten ourselves involved in a conflict with enough countries to cause that problem, we couldn't survive anyhow. The best thing to do is to prevent any political changes in the world that could lead to a massive embargo involving most of the world's major countries. Hence, we fight radical theocracy and revolutionary communism in order to prevent that.

It is a hell of a lot easier than beefing up the military to the point that we can take on every other country at the same time, and supporting economic pursuits that waste our resources. Of course, farming isn't a waste of resources in general, but those that need to be supported to do it ARE wasting our resources.

12/9/2006 5:45:26 PM

Quote :

"The have nots are have nots because they dont have what it takes to be haves. They should be thankful we give them enough money to shut up and smoke/drink/inject and EAT instead of starve. Thats the problem with liberals is they think everyone should have wi-fi, cell phones, and vacation homes. If they can eat for free and fuck without repercussions (i.e. we pay for their babies) why do we owe them anything more? For the most part you have three choices in America. 1) Bust your ass and amass millions upon millions. 2) Work part time and amass a few million. 3) Be lazy and have your entitlements."

Why is it that people like you always see the government as stealling "your" money? How much of that money would you have if you had no one to buy your services or product? I prefer to think of the government as a corporation that provides a service, our country, for a price, taxes. The government then has the right to spend that income where it sees fit in order to increase it's revenue. If you don't like the price the american government charges, or you don't like how it invests that money, well not only are you a consumer of it, you're also a stockholder, and you get to vote to help it make decisions. Now if you still don't like it, and you're just going to whine about it "stealing from you" when it charges a price for it's services, then you can take what the goods it's given you, and purchase services from any other government you want.

[Edited on December 9, 2006 at 6:15 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2006 6:13:28 PM

Quote :

"Now, you suggested a universal currency. Again, follow the money. Let us imagine two states in North America, South Carolina and North Carolina. Here the exchange rate is fixed, the dollars are identical. So what happens to us is deflation and inflation."

So North Carolinians are only competing other North Carolinians, huh? These divisions are arbitrary. Where is the line drawn? Am I only competing with other folks in Cary? The Triangle? My own house?

Your examples don't prove Americans are only competing with other Americans. It's going to take a lot more than the existence of exchange rates to convince me global economic competition is a myth. Sure, trade imbalances eventually get corrected. So what? Mexican televisions are still competing with American televisions, even in your example. During the period of cheap Mexican televisions flooding the market, U.S. television makers will be hurting. How is that not competition?

Quote :

"Christ it is upsetting when people don't know anything about foreign exchange markets. They think there is some big Monopoly-style banker somwhere who changes money for us out of the goodness of their hearts. Apparantly, somewhere someone has the ability to create the money independent of the governments."

Go to hell, n00b. I know getting pesos is easy, because I've gotten them before. It wasn't hard.

12/9/2006 8:55:18 PM

Skokiaan thats a stupid arguement. Quit doing something that helps a economy just so you have the possibility to create something new. Great idea thats like taking your life savings playing the lottery and wishing you win it. Good now you just train those farmers who are 55 a new job. I bet your one of those assholes who is banking on social secruity. Don't worry NC will loose alot of its farmers over the next decade. The average age of farmers in NC is 55. Once again people that don't farm or have never been around it do not understand how difficult it really is. If you hate subsidies why aren't you complainning about the money being poured into Florida, New Orleans and other places after hurricanes hit?? Why give them money right they new that a hurricane will hit and destroy their property?? so screw them right. we don't need them living there when we have so much land they could live some where else.

12/9/2006 9:37:32 PM

^^ wow dude, get a clue.


^ laughable. Do you not realize you are promoting poverty in other nations by not allowing them to compete in the market place fairly? You are giving money to our farmers to buy digital cable at the expense of starving villagers.

Spending money to rebuild New Orleans isnt stupid at all. Think of it as nationwide insurance. If NC gets wrecked by a Hurricane, the govt will help rebuild it too.

There is no justification to just give farmers money for no reason. It hurts the country and it hurts other countries. The only person it helps are the lazy ass farmers who are too stubborn to get a job that this country has a need for.

You really have no grasp of economics at all. Familiarize youself with TRACS and sign up for a course sometime so you dont embarrass yourself in future conversations.

Quote :

" I prefer to think of the government as a corporation that provides a service"

If any corporation was as ineffiecient as the government then they would be snuffed out by competition.

What other corporation's #1 goal is wealth redistribution by the way, Im curious.

Quote :

"If you don't like the price the american government charges, or you don't like how it invests that money, well not only are you a consumer of it, you're also a stockholder, and you get to vote to help it make decisions"

The obvious difference here being that I cant "sell" my stock in the American gov't if I dont like what its doing with my money.


The government does steal money. Thats exactly what it does. It steals. Sometimes they spend it wisely, sometimes they dont. Either way they take the money from whoever they want.


Another favorite of mine is people worrying about other countries not investing in our securities. You are probably the same idiots who support our heavy corporation taxes. If you'd shift the tax onto comsuption instead of income, then there would be increased incentive to save. I know this is basic stuff that you just never think of, but when someone lays it out for you in plain English you should attempt to comprehend it.

[Edited on December 9, 2006 at 9:40 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on December 9, 2006 at 9:46 PM. Reason : a]

12/9/2006 9:40:34 PM

Farm subsidies mainly go to the richest farmers. Snarkie pointed that out earlier. (We don't disagree on everything, sadly.)

They also hurt farmers in developing countries. I think it's fair to say that's it's harder to be a farmer in Africa than it is here in NC.

Quote :

"I know this is basic stuff that you just never think of, but when someone lays it out for you in plain English you should attempt to comprehend it."

I got something for you:



Trust me, you're going to need it.

[Edited on December 9, 2006 at 9:53 PM. Reason : ladder]

12/9/2006 9:48:20 PM

Quote :

"So North Carolinians are only competing other North Carolinians, huh? These divisions are arbitrary. Where is the line drawn? Am I only competing with other folks in Cary? The Triangle? My own house?"

It is a bit deeper than I wanted this discussion to go, but in the long run your economic prospects are entirely determined by your productivity. Flooding Cary or your own house with cheap labor will not make your children poor, no matter how many you add (barring hard-resource constraints), but I digress.

Quote :

"Your examples don't prove Americans are only competing with other Americans. It's going to take a lot more than the existence of exchange rates to convince me global economic competition is a myth."

And your assertion that Mexico makes cheaper televisions does not mean they are competing directly. There is competition, but again you are not completing the circle. American Television Makers are going bankrupt, but Boeing is expanding production. If you stopped all cross border trade, then American Television Makers would be saved, but Boeing would remain small. Conversely, Mexican Television Makers would also remain small, but Mexican Aviation would see a revival (assuming Trade with Europe is also blocked).

My question is, why are you not upset for the Mexican Aviation industry? Also, what would happen if, tomorrow, a company started in Mexico making magical aircraft that burn no fuel and never crash? Well, American airlines would scrap all their Boeing orders, so would Mexican airlines, and buy these new Mexican aircraft. Because Mexico became flooded with dollars chasing airplanes, the Peso would go way up relative to the dollar, lets say by a factor of two. To Americans, Mexican TVs now cost twice as much. To Mexicans, American TVs now cost half as much. Suddenly, Mexico's Television Makers would all go bankrupt in the face of cheap American imports, all because Mexico's Aviation Industry became successful.

Quote :

"During the period of cheap Mexican televisions flooding the market, U.S. television makers will be hurting."

They are not hurting, they all went bankrupt in the 80s. Their bankruptcy was the correction needed: from now on, America buys TVs from overseas.

12/10/2006 12:59:46 AM

Quote :

"Flooding Cary or your own house with cheap labor will not make your children poor, no matter how many you add (barring hard-resource constraints), but I digress."

Depends. The only thing I can do is unskilled labor. (I'm a CHASS major.) Without an employer, I don't have any productivity. If everyone else is willing to work for a buck an hour, I'll work for a buck an hour or not work at all.

Quote :

"And your assertion that Mexico makes cheaper televisions does not mean they are competing directly."

What the fuck are you talking about? My assertion? The whole Mexican televisions thing is entirely your example and assertion. I was just working with what you put out there.

Quote :

"There is competition, but again you are not completing the circle."

So there is competition between labor (or whatever) in difference countries? That doesn't agree with what you said earlier, but maybe it's a clarification. I'm not arguing with your overall point about trade, only with ridiculous suggestion that US companies are only competing with other US companies. One of the big benefits of imports is competition. They can lower prices, which is good for consumers.

Quote :

"They are not hurting, they all went bankrupt in the 80s. Their bankruptcy was the correction needed: from now on, America buys TVs from overseas."

They were hurting before they went bankrupt, then. Something must have driven them to bankruptcy. Sounds like competition to me.

12/10/2006 1:15:36 AM

Quote :

"If any corporation was as ineffiecient as the government then they would be snuffed out by competition."

Then start the process, go live in mexico.

Quote :

"The obvious difference here being that I cant "sell" my stock in the American gov't if I dont like what its doing with my money."

Your "stock" is the things you have been given by the american economy, you can sell whatever you like.

Quote :

"The government does steal money. Thats exactly what it does. It steals."

No, they don't steal any more than an apartment complex steals. You chose to continue living there, if you don't like what they charge, go somewhere else.

Quote :

"Either way they take the money from whoever they want."

That's their right, if you don't like it, vote for a change, if that doesn't work and you still don't like it, go live whereever the hell you want.

12/10/2006 1:22:36 AM

Quote :

"So there is competition between labor (or whatever) in difference countries?"

Between "labor" as in the whole of the American labor force, no, there is no competition from Mexican "labor". When trade starts, some workers are helped (Boeing employees, Mexican TV Makers) and some workers are hurt (Mexican airplane makers, American TV Makers). Overall, the workers helped are helped far more than the hurt workers are hurt.

This is because the "hurt" workers eventually become the helped. They'll either find jobs or they'll make jobs. And when they do, they'll become part of the "helped" team, enjoying more stuff with less effort.

And the reason Trade helps is not that it creates competition (it depends on the market). No no, America does not compete anymore, all our TV makers left or went bankrupt. What this is is efficiency maximization. Through a long chain of events, America is able to acquire more TVs with less effort by making non-TVs and trading them with Mexico for TVs. To put it another way, America's export industries will use less labor than would have been required to make America self sufficient. This surplus labor can then be gainfully employed producing surplus stuff for domestic consumption.

And this is not really the point, either. You didn't complain when Zenith drove its competitors out of business in the 60s. Some States had TV industries in the beginning, but lost them and their workers lost their jobs. They were inefficient and lost to honest competition. We could have saved them with trade barriers between the states, but when NAFTA rolled around in the 90s, what would we say? Is it all-right for Americans to put Americans out of work, but wrong when Mexicans do it? The fact is, America and Mexico should have never had trade barriers, NAFTA simply fixed a mistake made in 1930.

[Edited on December 10, 2006 at 2:10 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/10/2006 2:02:59 AM

Quote :

"I knew a lot of families in the textile industry growing up in rural NC. We called them "poor people"."

bwahahahah roflroflroflololololololololol

12/10/2006 3:21:01 AM

My grandmother worked in the textile industry. She was poor at the time. When it closed she went to work in J.C. Penny for awhile. After that she started her own business and never looked back.

12/10/2006 11:49:52 AM

RallyDruham I have taken business and econ courses i have a minor in both. You can't have a world economy without the entire world participating. Sadly alot of country's do not wish to participate. Secondly no country in africa can produce the level and quality of agriculture than the US can. Your arguement is to assist in developing other countries to compete with us?? The idea of a open free global economy is a great IDEA! making it prectical however is not, if it was we would already see it. You say farmers subsides are killing the economy well then why don't we increase the price of agriculture a bushel of corn is about the same price it was 25 years ago. You can explain supply and demand all you would like but you have yet to offer me a reason of security. How many out breaks of Avian Influenza have been reported in America?? how many have been reported in other country's??? You can say that no country would ever attack us if we buy from them. Look back to WII and Japan no one really thought they would attack the US. When it somes to the basic needs of human beings Food and shelter you can't use economic theory to explain things.

12/10/2006 2:51:30 PM

Well, there is a strong argument that Japan would not have attacked the U.S. given its economic dependence. However, that dependance was scrapped when America embargoed Japan, thus removing the only remaining hinderance to war. Worse than that: not only did Japan no longer have a good reason to maintain Peace, but the crushing effects of the embargo necessitated Japan's invasion of British East Asia to acquire materials no longer available from America.

This is not to say the Embargo was not justified, but there is no denying that it limited Japan's options: War with America or surrender in China.

Some argue that instead of the embargo America should have stepped up efforts to arm the Chinese insurgents and let Japan ruin itself in Asia, given enough time the Japanese people (and their Emperor) would tire of the war and, after sufficient losses, pulled back with no need to embroil the whole Pacific ocean into WW2 or shed a single American life.

12/10/2006 3:15:24 PM

If you want to end subsidies then end them. You don't have to worry with eliminating subsidies there are less and less farmers each year and less and less land being put into production agriculture. The govenrment gives taxes breaks and insentives to company's to start business's in there state and also to keep their factory's and jobs in america. The subsides are doing the same thing Govnerments are doing each day.

12/10/2006 3:25:22 PM

Quote :

"Between "labor" as in the whole of the American labor force, no, there is no competition from Mexican "labor"."

Okay, but there's clearly competition within certain markets. Assuming both exisit, Mexican TV makers will compete US TV makers.

Quote :

"They'll either find jobs or they'll make jobs."

Or die off.

Quote :

"And the reason Trade helps is not that it creates competition (it depends on the market)."

Is competition a bad thing to you, Snarkie? It's starting to sound like it is.

Quote :

"What this is is efficiency maximization."

And competition is part of that process. US TV makers didn't go bankrupt because some magic spell. It was competition.

Quote :

"Some States had TV industries in the beginning, but lost them and their workers lost their jobs. They were inefficient and lost to honest competition."

Yes, exactly. So why the hell are you going out your way to deny competition?

Quote :

"The fact is, America and Mexico should have never had trade barriers, NAFTA simply fixed a mistake made in 1930."

In theory, I completely agree. In practice, it's quite a bit more complicated.

12/10/2006 3:38:10 PM

Quote :

"Or die off. "

Has never happened before and I know of no rational reason why smart capable human beings surounded by every conceivable resource could not survive, but you go ahead and say that.

Quote :

"Is competition a bad thing to you, Snarkie? It's starting to sound like it is."

In economics the purpose of competition is the pushing of prices towards production costs. When we say "increased competition" we mean prices were previously too high and the introduction of more "competitors" increased the tendency towards production costs. However, prior to trade liberalization, competition in the U.S. TV market may have already been fierce, and after adjustments we may even have fewer competitors than before (all U.S. producers are gone, after-all). So the purpose of trade liberalization is not "increased competition" since there is no way to know before hand what the impact upon "competition" will be.

Either way, this contention is purely semantics. Your definition works just fine: "Trade Liberalization increases competition, so all U.S. producers go bankrupt."

Quote :

"In theory, I completely agree. In practice, it's quite a bit more complicated."

Why? Every year over a million americans lose their jobs. What is the big deal about increasing this number by 1%, as NAFTA has? If it is your contention that Americans can be killed (or irreparably harmed) simply by losing their job then why are we wasting our time on international trade when its impact is so tiny? What about the other 99% that are being surplussed by basic labor market churn?

12/11/2006 12:19:11 AM

Quote :

"Has never happened before and I know of no rational reason why smart capable human beings surounded by every conceivable resource could not survive, but you go ahead and say that."

Unfortunately, not all of us are smart and capable. Maybe "die off" was too strong, but not everyone finds another job. Some people just stay unemployed.

Quote :

"However, prior to trade liberalization, competition in the U.S. TV market may have already been fierce, and after adjustments we may even have fewer competitors than before (all U.S. producers are gone, after-all). So the purpose of trade liberalization is not "increased competition" since there is no way to know before hand what the impact upon "competition" will be.So the purpose of trade liberalization is not "increased competition" since there is no way to know before hand what the impact upon "competition" will be."

Okay, I guess I'm starting to see your point. International trade may not always increase overall competition in the long run, but it does allow competition between companies that couldn't compete without it.

Quote :

"Why? Every year over a million americans lose their jobs. What is the big deal about increasing this number by 1%, as NAFTA has?"

I'm not at all worried about what NAFTA has done or is doing to the US. I'm worried about its impact on Mexico, especially on Mexican farmers.

12/11/2006 12:37:44 AM

Odd, maybe I missed it, but I think this is the first time you've mentioned Mexican farmers... Either way, Mexico is where America was a few decades ago. Most of these farmers need to be driven from their land and put to work in the productive sectors of Mexico's economy. But this has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with Mexico's broken-ass form of corporatism. If it isn't the Government then its the criminal organizations stiffling competition and impoverishing the whole of Mexican society. Fox was elected to fix some of this crap, but after a few assasination attempts by the criminal organizations and a back-room revolt by the entrinched elites all his efforts came to nothing. Here's praying the next President manages to do something.

12/11/2006 12:52:18 AM

Quote :

"Odd, maybe I missed it, but I think this is the first time you've mentioned Mexican farmers..."

It is my first explict mention of them in this thread, yes. However, my first post alluded to them: "The worst part is what our farm subsidies do to farmers in other countries."

Quote :

"But this has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with Mexico's broken-ass form of corporatism."

Having to compete with subsidized corn is pretty rough on Mexican farmers. It's not coincidence that the EZLN took up arms the day NAFTA went into effect.

12/11/2006 1:07:05 AM

Lots of people took up arms the day NAFTA took effect.

But I agree with you, all subsidies should be dropped, just as all trade barriers should be dropped. But they have not been dropped, so it is a little unfair for everyone (particularly Americans).

That said, if the Mexican economic system was not so broken then these displaced farmers could get jobs elsewhere, just as our farmers are currently capable of doing.

12/11/2006 10:27:37 AM

Well, another problem is that labor isn't free to move. Displaced farmers could get jobs here, but we've made that much harder than it should be.

12/11/2006 3:56:55 PM

Kind of irrelevant. Not everyone in Mexican can move to America, and any "economic model" which relies upon doing so to raise Mexicans out of poverty is rediculous. We need to fix the Mexican economic system, that is the only way to save everyone. And fixing the Mexican economic system has nothing to do with trade, borders, or caring.

12/12/2006 1:05:04 AM

It's not our government's job to provide for the welfare of other countries. It's a noble endevor but it should not come at the cost of our own citizens.

12/12/2006 1:46:15 AM

I kinda did forget to mention that it had "nothing to do with us."

12/12/2006 1:59:57 AM

Quote :

"Kind of irrelevant."

Not at all. If you have free movement of capital, you should have free movement of labor too.

Trade barriers on labor are as bad as ones on goods and services. But no one every talks about the protectionist laws that prevent foreign professionals, for example, from taking high-skill jobs in America.

12/12/2006 10:50:20 AM

Well, "Bad" is a strong word. While we like free trade, I would never suggest that a lack of free movement of goods/capital would make the United States poor. While a lack of international integration hurts, big countries only require free movement of ideas to get and stay wealthy. If God magically fixed the Mexican economic system but did away with the free movement of everything (goods, capital, labor) then Mexico would still industrialize and become wealthy.

That is why I said Mexican poverty has nothing to do with trade. Trade can make rich people richer and poor people slightly less poor, It cannot make poor people rich. The same goes with free movement of labor: it would help the average Mexican, but emigration does not break up legal and extra-legal cartels.

12/12/2006 4:03:44 PM

Having free movement of goods and capital but no labor is rather blatantly unfair.

Quote :

"That is why I said Mexican poverty has nothing to do with trade."

Well, it certainly seems that NAFTA hasn't helped. Real GDP growth per capita has been pathetic since 1994.

Quote :

"he same goes with free movement of labor: it would help the average Mexican,"

Sounds good.

12/12/2006 5:07:21 PM

No, no, no.


Free movement of labor is not the same thing as free movement of goods and capital.


Free movement of labor is a bad idea because of gov't entitlement programs.

12/12/2006 5:23:42 PM

Wait, so if the # of textiles produced here hasn't gone down, then where are all the mills now? are they hidden somewhere?

12/12/2006 5:26:10 PM

Textiles jobs have left the South.

Just as they left the North 100 years ago.

Just as they left England 200 years ago.


Just as they are leaving China now.


Shitty jobs will always move to the shittiest places.


We are HAPPY to be rid of shitty jobs. Get that through your head.



American manufacturing is at an all-time high. Thats inarguable. We just got rid of the enormous labor force burden and put them into more specialized jobs.

America is a SERVICE industry. That means you wont have fucking back problems when you retire and you can enjoy your cruise to Aruba and you can actually sit down for an extended period of time at the slot machines in the Palms Casino.

[Edited on December 12, 2006 at 5:55 PM. Reason : a]

12/12/2006 5:52:12 PM

im not going to read all of the bullshit in this thread, but I would like to mention that if farm subsidies are eleminated, some farmers will leave the markets, some will continue. the most dramatic result will be the increase in the price of food. look at the price of milk in the last few years.

12/12/2006 6:23:31 PM

^ the "price" of food might be higher.


but the cost of food will be lower.


You have no idea how much you are paying for food because the price at Food Lion does not account for the tax money that you paid that was appropriated to the farrmers as a subsidy.

So yes you might pay an extra 10 cents for an apple but you wont be wasting 20 cents of tax money on them anymore.

Food would definitely be cheaper if we eliminated subsidies, no one would be foolish enough to argue that.

12/12/2006 7:18:03 PM

Quote :

"Free movement of labor is a bad idea because of gov't entitlement programs."

Then get rid of such barriers to trade, you protectionist.

(By the way, there are various ways to get around that.)

12/12/2006 7:31:18 PM

I'd love to get rid of them but the blacks would scream ouch and the liberals would burn peoples houses down.

12/12/2006 7:37:57 PM

You could have a guest worker program that got around the problem, you know.

Of course, that has its own drawbacks.

12/12/2006 7:40:02 PM

wait, maybe my question was misunderstood.

Where in the United States did all the textile mills go if we aren't producing less than we were?

12/12/2006 7:46:04 PM

Textile jobs are disappearing WORLDWIDE. Its not an American thing.


Technology replaced a huge percentage of those jobs.

Do you want exact numbers? I can get them for you later.


American manufacturing as a whole is stronger than its ever been.

12/12/2006 7:51:33 PM

im just trying to educate myself here.

i know we still have a massive trade deficit. maybe the point that youre trying to make is that we are producing services to make up for this, not necissarily exportable goods.

12/12/2006 7:55:29 PM

Yes and no


As a whole we are producing more goods than we ever have before. The difference is that the labor force required to do so is much smaller due to improved efficiency & technology.

We are becoming a service economy because many of those manufacturing jobs no longer exist period. Yes, we have also lost some to other countries who provide cheap labor, but thats what allows us to buy these goods so cheaply. Would you really want to buy tennis shoes made by someone who makes $10/hr who has healthcare benefits, paid vacations, etc? Do you have any idea how much more expensive they would be?

The trade deficit is not a bad thing by any means. People who whine about the trade deficit are idiots for the most part who don't understand anything.

Essentially we are giving them financial assets in exchange for goods. We get all the wonderful stuff you see in Sears (electronics) and the cheap clothes you see in Walmarts and in return they get pieces of paper.

Their investment in our markets allows us to research and innovate. Innovation is what brings economic growth to our country.

Don't underestimate the importance of their investment. The personal savings rate in America is ZERO PERCENT (0%!). Without foreign investment our interest rates would be much higher and research/innovation would be more expensive (and therefore would come about slower).

The trade deficit is a good thing. When people stop wanting our pieces of paper, thats when you should get worried.



[Edited on December 12, 2006 at 8:15 PM. Reason : a]

12/12/2006 8:10:31 PM

Quote :

"the most dramatic result will be the increase in the price of food"

Even if the commodity price of wheat does move significantly, it is only a fraction of the final price of a loaf of bread. The vast majority of the end price of most grocery store items is labor: wages for the clerks, wages for the factory workers, wages for the truck drivers.

Quote :

"Where in the United States did all the textile mills go if we aren't producing less than we were?"

The best way to explain it is to say the factory jobs were outsourced here, the Factory Automation Business Directory:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Business_to_Business/Manufacturing/Factory_Automation/

12/12/2006 11:25:54 PM