BALANCED TRADE

[maple_leafs182]

Contrary to what some free market types might think,I'm not a Marxist...

I don't believe in state controlled economies or totalitarian ideologies or anything like that...

But I also think the current global model of economics is not sustainable and is doomed to failure...

The question is when???

Both capitalism and state socialism are flawed. Neither system take in to consideration what the basic fundamental needs for human life are and then try to meet those needs.

I advocate a resource based economy.

[dre]

That depends on what kind of a farmer you are. In the farming community there is a big debate in the farm media concerning left/right issues. If you are a farmer and are doing well, your not going to qualify. Given that all industries receive subsidies in one form or another, which I don't necessarily agree with. Personally I think the subsidies are a waste of tax money unless there is a healthy return to the govt, but the farm lobby which is comprised of a lot of leftist farmers demands a lot of govt intervention.

It has been far more beneficial to me to incorporate, drive truck from time to time in the winter, dust crops, and do custom work to pad my income than to wait around the mailbox looking for a govt check. Those checks don't offset anything and piss off the city people.

Those subsidies have been slashed and are going down. It could be worse, we could be europeans. Unless your wanting to talk about govt farm insurance. Or is it ontario chicken, egg, dairy farmers and that gong show.

but the farm lobby which is comprised of a lot of leftist farmers demands a lot of govt intervention.

[dre]

That's precisely right. In some industries, usually union dominated industries, workers priced themselves out of jobs, and out of competitiveness. They were used to having to only really compete with North American and European workers. Workers who themselves were also unionized. Now they have to compete worldwide. With more companies offering the same goods and services. Now their artificially high salaries, but even more so benefits are like achors around the necks of the businesses they work for. Unfortunately, many unions refuse to acknowledge economic reality. They like to pretend it's still the 1950s and 1960s. Where most of the world's goods and services were produced by essentially 6 or 7 Western countries.

In some industries, usually union dominated industries, workers priced themselves out of jobs, and out of competitiveness.

The problem is theres a billion people in the world that will work for less than 1 dollar per hour to stave off starvation and malnutrition. Many of them for MUCH less.

So by your half-baked logic even a guy making THREE dollars an hour will have "priced himself out of a job".

Youre gonna be in for a rude awakening one day soon. And you and all the other people that believed the "service based economy" scam, better realize you got exactly what you asked for.

[blueblood]

???

[Oleg Bach]

I told a friend that is working as an economist in the the Congo...Not to allow traders to do buisness unless the agree not to try to get something for nothing...there must be fair trade..which is balanced trade - stealing is not trade.

[August1991]

This is why management, economics, and commerce classes should be mandatory for high school graduation.

I smell a lecture about the sun, moon, and light coming from august...

I'm going to enjoy this

I'm kind of bored of the Sun/Moon metaphor/argument. Let me try something different.

Absolutely...

Drive costs down (see wages and benny plans) by

1.Slowly chip away at labour legislation by neutering the labour movement in high wage sectors...

(see things like RTW legislation...'Cause it's all about the "individual freedom")

2.Threaten labour force with loss of jobs if they don't take less money and lower benny's....

3.Up and move potential employment to low wage sectors

4.Replace high wage manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs and temp service jobs...

The vicious cycle of free market wealth redistribution goes round and round until that wealth is sent back upwards into the hands of the few...

Welcome to the new take on European Mercantilism under the guise of "Individual Freedom"...

Thanks Friedrich...Thanks Uncle Milty...

Jack, in general, we make people richer when we give them more choices. How does having the opportunity/choice to trade with people on the other side of the world make anyone worse off?

Where would you rather live: in a small town with one Walmart or in a small town with a Walmart and a Zellers? How does the Zellers make you poorer? In your view, when China and India open their doors to trade with us, that somehow makes us poorer. WTF?

And Jack, do you view life as a zero-sum game? In your view, is it possible for people in China to prosper - and people in North America to proper simultaneosly too?

Edited March 29, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

...the government won't let Chinese workers come in and put all the Albertan workers onto the unemployment line.

Why not ? Why is what's good for the Ontario economic goose not good for the Alberta gander ? Oh yes... politics not economics.

It doesn't matter. Low wages are coming to Alberta as soon as these companies find a way to bring workers over. It will happen, and anybody making more than twice the minimum wage can't really complain that they can't compete.

[dre]

I'm kind of bored of the Sun/Moon metaphor/argument. Let me try something different.

Jack, in general, we make people richer when we give them more choices. How does having the opportunity/choice to trade with people on the other side of the world make anyone worse off?

Where would you rather live: in a small town with one Walmart or in a small town with a Walmart and a Zellers? How does the Zellers make you poorer? In your view, when China and India open their doors to trade with us, that somehow makes us poorer. WTF?

And Jack, do you view life as a zero-sum game? In your view, is it possible for people in China to prosper - and people in North America to proper simultaneosly too?

Where would you rather live: in a small town with one Walmart or in a small town with a Walmart and a Zellers? How does the Zellers make you poorer? In your view, when China and India open their doors to trade with us, that somehow makes us poorer. WTF?

Its pretty simple really. When you trade with countries where workers are treated literally like cattle and have absolutely no representation in the political process, youre putting our own workers at a huge disadvantage.

And thats pretty much exactly whats happening here.

Now... Im not an anti globalist, and I think its inevitable that this is the direction we are going to go. But we could be a LOT smarter about it. And as citizens we should have been a little bit smarter than believing in the "service based economy" myth/lie/fraud/scam, and the whole idea that we dont need to be productive, but can instead make a decent living selling importered crap to ourselves.

Stupid things happen to stupid people it would seem.

[August1991]

Its pretty simple really. When you trade with countries where workers are treated literally like cattle and have absolutely no representation in the political process, youre putting our own workers at a huge disadvantage.

It seems odd, dre, that your argument is based on the welfare of people in China or India.

By all accounts, in the past 20 years or so, hundreds of millions of people in China and India have seen their lifestyle move from dire poverty to somewhat tolerable. Their children can dream of possibilities that their parents could never have done.

I travelled in China shortly after the arrival of Deng Xiao Peng when ordinary foreigners were first allowed in the country. The change in some 25 years is truly remarkable. True, the change is centred in certain urban areas but it's arguably the greatest change of the past half century. The end of the Cold War will be forgotten before people forget the industrialization/modernization of India and China.

----

Now then, did the rising incomes/wealth of people in China and India come at the expense of workers in the West? Are we poorer so that Chinese or Indians can be richer?

Edited March 30, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

It seems odd, dre, that your argument is based on the welfare of people in China or India.

By all accounts, in the past 20 years or so, hundreds of millions of people in China and India have seen their lifestyle move from dire poverty to somewhat tolerable. Their children can dream of possibilities that their parents could never have done.

I travelled in China shortly after the arrival of Deng Xiao Peng when ordinary foreigners were first allowed in the country. The change in some 25 years is truly remarkable. True, the change is centred in certain urban areas but it's arguably the greatest change of the past half century. The end of the Cold War will be forgotten before people forget the industrialization/modernization of India and China.

----

Now then, did the rising incomes/wealth of people in China and India come at the expense of workers in the West? Are we poorer so that Chinese or Indians can be richer?

[Pliny]

Gotta right the wrongs of the Keynesian Golden Age,right???

We're still in a Keynesian society and have been since at least 1933, Jack. It's a redistributive society. It is not correct that we have been living in a free market society, if we were you wouldn't see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Recent developments have created emerging markets and the poor there are getting richer. Something that isn't arguable and you should be applauding but somehow are complaining about. Meanwhile, we in North America are maintaining our redistributive society, replete with Keynesian theory, and see only the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Why is that?

[Michael Hardner]

Meanwhile, we in North America are maintaining our redistributive society, replete with Keynesian theory, and see only the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Why is that?

Are you talking about relative poverty or absolute poverty ?

[Pliny]

Are you talking about relative poverty or absolute poverty ?

Rich and poor are comparative so they are relative. Absolute poverty is absolute poverty and is where Jack feels he is headed.

[Michael Hardner]

Rich and poor are comparative so they are relative. Absolute poverty is absolute poverty and is where Jack feels he is headed.

Ok - so your contention is that the move towards free markets improves relative poverty ?

I can't think of any examples where that has happened. We have moved that way in N. America over 30 years - relative poverty increased. The Chicago School experiments in South America in the 1970s and 1980s did the same thing.

What examples can you provide ?

[dre]

Meanwhile, we in North America are maintaining our redistributive society, replete with Keynesian theory, and see only the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Why is that?

Because we dont have a "redistributive soceity". We have a "concentrative society".

[dre]

We're still in a Keynesian society and have been since at least 1933, Jack. It's a redistributive society. It is not correct that we have been living in a free market society, if we were you wouldn't see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Recent developments have created emerging markets and the poor there are getting richer. Something that isn't arguable and you should be applauding but somehow are complaining about. Meanwhile, we in North America are maintaining our redistributive society, replete with Keynesian theory, and see only the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Why is that?

It is not correct that we have been living in a free market society, if we were you wouldn't see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Sure you would. What do you base that conclusion on... its ass backwards.

[Pliny]

Ok - so your contention is that the move towards free markets improves relative poverty ?

I can't think of any examples where that has happened. We have moved that way in N. America over 30 years - relative poverty increased. The Chicago School experiments in South America in the 1970s and 1980s did the same thing.

What examples can you provide ?

Are you kidding me? China has moved toward a free market. Has relative poverty improved?

Government in North America has had myriad social programs to decrease poverty. It never has. It will take no repsonsiblity for it's failure and the left makes the claim that it is the move towards a free market that is to blame.

I do not see a move toward the protection of private property in the governments of North America.

I see a solidification of what government considers it's share to distribute and redistribute as it feels. You are evidence of that.

How's Chile's economy today? Probably the most stable in South America. But, the Chicago school is still a monetarist form of capitalism where the government controls the economy through money creation and other Keynesian economic instruments. Milton Friedman thought that there were benefits to government controls over the economy and he developed many ways for government to intervene in wealth distribution and redistribution. He apologized in his final years for enabling government intervention in the economy as much as he did.

Despite the "failure" of the Chicago experiment in Chile, the citizens of Chile have more respect for private property than some of their neighbours.

Essentially, the only reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is that government has to protects it's revenue base but can't openly say it is doing so and promotes the idea it gets it's revenues from the rich to give to the poor and it funds the programs, however ineffective, to demonstrate that fact.

In a free market it may happen that some will get rich but unless they are continuously innovative and can stay ahead of economic competitiveness they will not remain so, and it dones't mean they are making others poor. They could get government to make rules that protect their wealth though and government will do so for a price.

[Pliny]

Sure you would. What do you base that conclusion on... its ass backwards.

I often have things ass backwards, don't I?

[dre]

I often have things ass backwards, don't I?

Ok... and what do you base that conclusion on?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you kidding me? China has moved toward a free market. Has relative poverty improved?

Has it ? You tell me.

Government in North America has had myriad social programs to decrease poverty. It never has. It will take no repsonsiblity for it's failure and the left makes the claim that it is the move towards a free market that is to blame.

Relative poverty improved in the 20th century (in the US for example) thanks to social programs.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty#cite_note-4

Government programs in the 1950s and 1960s were very effective:

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.[5] However, prior to the Great Society efforts to combat it, the poverty rate was declining at a very fast rate (see the chart in Criticisms section above)

I do not see a move toward the protection of private property in the governments of North America.

I see a solidification of what government considers it's share to distribute and redistribute as it feels. You are evidence of that.

What government has implemented such protections and how would that manifest itself specifically in policy ?

Essentially, the only reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is that government has to protects it's revenue base but can't openly say it is doing so and promotes the idea it gets it's revenues from the rich to give to the poor and it funds the programs, however ineffective, to demonstrate that fact.

Poppycock. Power and wealth accumulate when government steps aside. That's the natural way it happens, law of the jungle or whatever you want to call it.

In a free market it may happen that some will get rich but unless they are continuously innovative and can stay ahead of economic competitiveness they will not remain so, and it dones't mean they are making others poor. They could get government to make rules that protect their wealth though and government will do so for a price.

Protect their wealth how ? It seems that some laws are acceptable, and those tend to be the ones that protect those with access to government.

[Pliny]

Has it ? You tell me.

Seen any photos of Beijing lately?

My kids were there and enjoyed the different food and cultural experience but most of the others on their tour preferred to eat at MacDonald's.

Relative poverty improved in the 20th century (in the US for example) thanks to social programs.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty#cite_note-4

Government programs in the 1950s and 1960s were very effective:

Yes things improved so much that we no longer have poverty. Why is any one asking why the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer? Seems illogical with such a great success of social programs.

Poppycock. Power and wealth accumulate when government steps aside. That's the natural way it happens, law of the jungle or whatever you want to call it.

Yes, Government either steps aside or demands a piece of the action and that is the problem. It does have the mandate of justice but can't deliver justice if it colludes with power and wealth. There isn't a problem with power and wealth unless it is oppressive and utilizes force. Government is the only agency in society that is granted authority to use or delegate the use of force. The law of the jungle would be an anarchy without social rules of respect for the sanctity of person and property. Perhaps if we could all morally and ethically individually police ourselves with regard to that then the presence of government would be superfluous but we get into situations where we wish to live the good life and abandon mores and ethics to do so. Individuals in government that do that same thing of abandoning mores and ethics will mark the beginning of the descent of that society - it is when justice takes off it's blindfold.

Protect their wealth how ? It seems that some laws are acceptable, and those tend to be the ones that protect those with access to government.

You answer the question yourself.

Those with access to government are the rich and the special interests that can collectively amass votes. The individual with his mortgage has a decreasing role in the matter of his governance and his role in the disposition of his property. If he aligns himself with an economically and socially interventionist government he becomes subject to it's whims and vagaries and the society around him seems uncaring and unfriendly as it squeals at the trough.

Progressive liberalism and their adherents increasingly get their benefit from government and weave themselves a cocoon of isolation. No talking to strangers. Trust no one. Your neighbour may be a serial killer, at best he is probably obsessive compulsive. Live in fear of poor health and ignorance if government does not provide and/or what it does provide.

We have to get away from the idea that government, and you who have bought into the idea, are trying to feed us, which is that people, as individuals, will always do their worst and the source of trust is the government. If people will always do their worst and wealth and power are only used to oppress and exploit then why is government any different? Because you have a vote? Tell me what will you vote yourself?

Not being rich and not being poor means everything is just peachy and everyone should live as such. How can we make it happen? I have an idea - we can redistribute the wealth.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Seen any photos of Beijing lately?

My kids were there and enjoyed the different food and cultural experience but most of the others on their tour preferred to eat at MacDonald's.

I'll remind you that the metric we're talking about is relative poverty. Income disparity has increased immensely in China.

Yes things improved so much that we no longer have poverty. Why is any one asking why the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer? Seems illogical with such a great success of social programs.

Deregulation and cuts to social programs have had a lot to do with it, I think, so you have to look at the big picture.

Yes, Government either steps aside or demands a piece of the action and that is the problem. It does have the mandate of justice but can't deliver justice if it colludes with power and wealth. There isn't a problem with power and wealth unless it is oppressive and utilizes force.

Power has many means - brute force and otherwise - to execute its will.

Government is the only agency in society that is granted authority to use or delegate the use of force. The law of the jungle would be an anarchy without social rules of respect for the sanctity of person and property.

What you're saying is that it's legitimate to use power to protect wealth, but not to enforce distribution of wealth.

If people will always do their worst and wealth and power are only used to oppress and exploit then why is government any different? Because you have a vote? Tell me what will you vote yourself?

Yes because government includes checks and balances on power, and something called democracy.

Not being rich and not being poor means everything is just peachy and everyone should live as such. How can we make it happen? I have an idea - we can redistribute the wealth.

Yes, we can ... because that is effective and it maximizes the ability of the people to pursue happiness. If the wealthy voluntarily donated 50% of their income across the board then we wouldn't have this problem, but they don't.

[GWiz]

What you don't mention is that most times businesses have no choice! Nowadays they have to compete against cheap imports. They can't lower the cost of their materials so that leaves just wages. They start to chip away and chip away. If there's a union the union will fight them, of course. If the union loses the workers eventually end up with poor wages. If the union wins, the company ends up with continually less sales volume, leaving less money to pay those wages.

Bill, honestly, what is it about things like, "record profits", "highest shareholder dividends", "executive bonuses", "customer service", "reliability", "quality", even "competitiveness" that you don't understand?

Shouldn't those things ALL factor in BEFORE one attacks wages and benefits of actual CANADIAN CONSUMERS as the ONLY means to achieving "profitability" (not GREED)?

BTW, you ever hear of Wal Mart (or a dozen other US/et al companies willing to "employ" Canadians in Canada)?

Do you know who Canada, same as the US, OWES that little $56,000,000,000.00 (that's $56 BILLION) deficit Harper rang up on Canadians to (hint, it wasn't the US and it's first initial is A BIG C and is synonimous with dishes)?

[GWiz]

Who says Albertan workers compete? People working in the Alberta oil fields, even unskilled workers, are earning very handsome salaries. I'm willing to bet Chinese workers could do the job at a quarter the cost or less. What you have going for you is that you don't need to worry about the oil fields being shipped to China to be worked, and the government won't let Chinese workers come in and put all the Albertan workers onto the unemployment line.

You may want to add the word YET to that statement, especially if Harper gets his majority...

It's ALL about "profitability" (read GREED) you know...

You do know who built most of North America's, including Canada's, initial railway systems right?

[blueblood]

I'll remind you that the metric we're talking about is relative poverty. Income disparity has increased immensely in China.

Deregulation and cuts to social programs have had a lot to do with it, I think, so you have to look at the big picture.

Power has many means - brute force and otherwise - to execute its will.

What you're saying is that it's legitimate to use power to protect wealth, but not to enforce distribution of wealth.

Yes because government includes checks and balances on power, and something called democracy.

Yes, we can ... because that is effective and it maximizes the ability of the people to pursue happiness. If the wealthy voluntarily donated 50% of their income across the board then we wouldn't have this problem, but they don't.

If I have to donate 50% of my wealth, why should I have to work harder than a poor person who has to give up much less?