TheAgitator.com
Wow.
Sunday, May 9th, 2004If you have an hour to kill, check out this eye-popping discussion thread between the kids at Catllarchy and the Buchananite protectionists at a site called American Joblog.
This is what we’re up against, folks.
53 Responses to “Wow.”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Radley, I’d be curious to know what you think of this.
Radley, your link is broken. At the end of “.html” you have an extra “a” so it reads “.htmla”
Remove the “a” and the link works fine.
The final irony is that the coordinator has started banning people at the same time as asking us questions in the forum, presumably to give the impression that we can’t answer them.
The forthright honesty of the protectionist lobby is a valuable lesson to us all.
Yep, Bernard is right: After I was accused of being a liberal, a communist, a socialist, unamerican, a foreigner, a troll, ignorant of economics (I’m an econ major), and told that my arguments are worthless until I have a graduate degree in economics, I and my co-blogger Jonathan were banned from posting altogether. Pretty shameful, but I expect nothing less from protectionists.
Also, “Pete” even praised Lenin in that thread. These are just socialists by a different name.
How many Agitator readers will be voting with them in common cause this November?
Something I haven’t heard mentioned yet that I think is relevant is the fact that the lovely labor conditions we now have in the US were not always so happy. We used to have child labor, sweatshops, strike busters, etc. It seems to me that this is usually how it went in most of the nations that now have good labor practices. The workers aquired skills, formed unions and what not and got conditions changed. Yet we will not allow this progression in other countries since our foriegn policies keep the process from starting.
Did anyone notice how “Pete” kept referring to the people of the Third World as “lesser beings”, at least in the eyes of his opponents?
I think Bush was grandstanding with his ’some people think people of color can’t govern themselves…’ bit, but people like “Pete” give a good example of how some on the Left try to stifle debate by calling their opponents racists.
Good call, Lark. I take you one further, why shouldn’t these laws (our ancestors have fought so hard for) apply to everything sold in this country that is made elsewhere? To turn it around even farther, c. alphonse, shouldn’t Americans demand these conditions elsewhere, especially for things being sold in this country? I mean, if we do actually view each other equally, shouldn’t people everywhere, that we don’t bomb, be afforded the same rights? Why shouldn’t labor costs be global? How is that not a level playing field, since that’s what free market people strive for.
It wasn’t that great a debate, its only real purpose being to highly the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of anti-”sweatshop” activists’ arguments.
Pete Johnson kept using the word “slave” incorrectly, evidetnly defining it as a person who works for what Pete Johnson considers low wages. The correct term for this kind of person is actually “low wage worker” or simply “worker,” but Pete Johnson keeps calling it slavery. Which it isn’t.
It’s guys like this that made me a libertarian, since they highlight how government often simply impedes: left alone, Cambodia will probably fully industrialize and become economically first world in about 60 years. With Pete Johnson & co. standing in the way, it’ll take them 100.
My head hurts. I couldn’t even get halfway down the thread.
Micha et al…bravo, though I think your considerable efforts were wasted.
Some people you just can’t reach…
Adam S,
“Why shouldn’t these laws our ancestors have fought so hard for apply to everything sold in this country that is made elsewhere?”
Because our high standard of living did not come about as a result of any laws imposed from above by government in order to protect workers’ “rights.” Rather, our high standard of living came about as a result of technological advance, the expansion of the division of labor, and most fundamentally, (relatively) free trade. Had the government imposed a minimum wage of $5.00 in the year 1900, we would most likely be in the same economic condition as Bangladesh right now, if even that.
Some people you just can’t reach…
In real life, people mostly engage in discussion with those merely on the fence.
On the internet, we go right for the haven of our arch-nemesis. Perhaps to make the fence-sitting lurkers aware of the multiple sides of an issue… perhaps for fun.
Have you ever seen a person admit to the fallacy of their own arguments when confronted with more logical ones?
Me neither.
Have you ever seen a person admit to the fallacy of their own arguments when confronted with more logical ones?
I do. All the time. See here
Wow is right. I can’t continue. I got a few pages down, and just…wow. Here’s my favorites:
Micha: You pretend that there is no other option than to pay slave or subsistence wages simply because you are talking about Third World people. That’s like saying: âThose dogs should be happy with the bone we throw them because it is a bigger bone than their former owner threw to them.â
You conclude that if we banned the products of slave labor from our market: “Then a lot of poor people would be out of work, and a lot more children would be on the streets rummaging through garbage and engaging in prostitution.”
You aren’t even considering that if that if we were to ban those products, the greedy corporations might consider paying the third world workers a decent livable wage so that they can have a market for their products in the third world. I guess paying a decent wage is out of the question huh? Say no more.
It’s painfully obvious (aside from their mistaken belief that “wealthy” corporations have a responsibility to be “humanitarian”), that these anti-globalists have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Here, Pete makes the assertion that, if products made in “sweatshops” were banned in the US, then these evil corporations would be forced to pay these third-world workers what would be a fair wage in the US, which would probably be 50-100 times what the mean living wage in their country is. In fact, if the corporations were forced to pay these workers “fair American” wages, then there’d be no incentive to go there in the first place. Then, those workers lose, because they have to go back to worse-paying jobs. We lose, because the cost of our products goes up.
Meanwhile, when pressed to give a dollar wage amount that he would deem fair, he merely says, “A fair wage is what an American was paid to do that job when the factory was in America.” WHERE in America? As “T” pointed out, wages vary quite a bit around this country. If the nike factory was in the middle of SanFran, it’d have to pay its workers more than if it was in the rural southeast. This has to do with costs of living in that area. Extrapolate that, and take it to Cambodia.
Then, he goes on to mention some superfluous story about how some kid wanted his sneakers personalized with “sweatshop” on the back, and eeeeevil Nike wouldn’t do it. Yes, folks, this is the best they can do.
Just fucking SAD.
Micha,
I agree, the labor conditions weren’t some gifts from some benevalent leader or boss. They were fought for.
Personally I wouldn’t consider our standard of living “high.” Inflated, yes. But not “high.” There aren’t enough resources for the entire world to live as we do. Enter carrying capacity.
Could you maybe explain how the “free market” has helped working conditions (the condition of labor) in this country. Thanks.
Oops, I stopped my italics one paragraph too late…
here’s another fav: “Have you thought about what slavesourcing does to the American worker? There is NO job that can’t be slavesourced.
As Jesse Jackson said: “It’s not that we make so much, it’s that they make so little.”
Oh, yes, free traders post quotes from Adam Smith, Pete posts one from…JESSE JACKSON? HAHAHA! So, let’s take a look at that Jackson quote. Couldn’t wealthy Americans say the same thing about middle-class and lower-class Americans? Does that mean that a janitor should get paid as much as an aerospace engineer? Does that mean that a computer programmer living in the middle of Los Angeles should make exactly the same amount as a computer programmer in Ohio, even though their costs of living differ immensely?
Bloody fool. This guy Pete is a piece of work!
I was going to join the argument and then a good wind picked up outside my window. So I thought I could make better use of my time by pissing into it.
Thanks to everyone that took the time to “debate” that guy. If there is a significant amount of people in the country that are as blind as he is then we are in deep trouble.
Ben,
he is more of a threat to freedom and liberty than most people, for he has strong convictions. Most people in this country, I would wager, don’t know alot about the topic, and if pressed on the issue, would say something like “duh, sweatshops are evil, and ‘merkans losin they jobs to da stinky Indians is bad!” But they don’t really think about the issue, they don’t have strong convictions. This guy is dangerous, because he is equally uninformed (er, misinformed) and he has strong convictions surrounding that.
Adam S. –
You make the classic zero-sum error when you state that there are not enough resources to go around, for you ignore the most important resource we have; the adaptability and ingenuity of individual people, which enables them to overcome resource limits …
… that is, as long as they are not discouraged from exercising their own initiative by those who say that they can never get ahead — because they say that resources are limited, or they say evil corporations run the world, or because they say that these people are too backwards or dumb to do so without the the help of those who consider themselves intellectually superior.
2> Free-market principles have been particularly applicable in the technology fields I work in — and they have prouduced an economic environment where I have been able to select from several employers over the years … enabling me to improve my own economic status over time, as well as providing me escape paths if/when my present job goes bad, or goes away.
The problems with the protectionist viewpoint are:
A> It tends to renforce what I call the wealthist stereotype — that the wealthy and corporations can bear any burden without ill effect upon society as a whole, simply because they appear to have deep pockets.
B> It ignores the responsibility of the individual worker to stay competitive and valuable to the market.
OTOH, free-trade/free-market economics leverage both liberty and consequence, harnessing the human nature of all involved to produce the best performance for both individuals and society as a whole.
We’ll that’s two hours gone by my watch.
Great thread though, just as things start to wind down, JTK shows up and has another run at them. Beauty.
Yeah, as an early poster on that thread all I can say is wow. I go to lunch and came back with over 100 posts or so after my last one. I gave up at that point as well.
I particularly like how my random choice of Nike turned into a condemnation of the company. Frankly I didnt care what company it was, I just choose one out of the blue becuase I happened to look down and see my feet while thinking about it.
Sad.
It became painful seeing the numerous contradictions in the protectionist posts, along with the outright denial when their fallacious arguments were crushed.
Adam, your question about working conditions hasn’t been picked up yet. I’m happy to take a stab.
The free market gives workers the level of comfort they are willing to pay for. If a company can recruit better and more loyal workers by improving the working environment at the opportunity cost of increasing wages, then employer controlled working environments will improve (but average wages will worsen). If, by reducing the amount they spend on working conditions and increasing wages a company can recruit better workers, employer controlled working conditions will worsen (but average wages will improve).
Thus, as usual, the free market gives people what they want. Some european workers choose to have longer holiday allowance and better working conditions, but they pay heavily in terms of disposable income.
Likewise, in third world countries workers are willing to work in poorer conditions because they desperately need to earn as much as possible. However, as the country becomes wealthier, the ‘pay/conditions’ choice leans further toward working conditions and workers vote with their feet. This is why working conditions have begun to improve sharply in China since they started to open up their borders. Trade has increased, wealth has flowed in and workers have more choices.
The Real World: Protectionist Style
No, this is not about everyone’s favorite MTV reality [sic] show. Instead, it’s a neat little Nozickian thought-experiment about the fairness of outsourcing and sweatshop labor. In the now infamous discussion thread, Evan Williams suggests …
just a typical liberal using emotion to try to achieve their agenda.
you think pete gives a rats ass about the poor kids in cambodia?
he is just pissed because the concept of losing an american job to someone over seas is foreign to him.
he can’t see the forest for the trees.
Um, Michael, Pete is not a liberal. In fact, he frequently used that word as a pejorative, and it appears you do as well.
I think there’s a lesson to be learned here about the use and abuse of political labels, but I’m not sure what that lesson is.
I think there’s a lesson to be learned here about the use and abuse of political labels, but I’m not sure what that lesson is.
It is that labels too often follow parties, whereas parties never seem to follow ideologies associated with the original concept of the labels.
Gee, that was confusing.
My apologies.
You make the classic zero-sum error when you state that there are not enough resources to go around, for you ignore the most important resource we have; the adaptability and ingenuity of individual people, which enables them to overcome resource limits …
You put too much faith in humanity. Just like we put too much faith in our soldiers not to fuck around with prisoners in Iraq.
… that is, as long as they are not discouraged from exercising their own initiative by those who say that they can never get ahead — because they say that resources are limited, or they say evil corporations run the world, or because they say that these people are too backwards or dumb to do so without the the help of those who consider themselves intellectually superior.
I agree with you on one level. (on another level, our development has come at the cost of their conditions, let’s not forget that. third world poverty was not an innate condition that their societies were born into. on another nother level, we have such an advantage being in this developed world. yes, we are born with a competitive advantage in this country. we’re all born on third and thought we hit a triple. where we all differ is how we believe we should offer a helping hand to those developing countries. civil discourse and democracy will work out a compromise to everyones opinions and solutions.)
Buckminster Fuller called this “humanity’s option for success.”
But that was not my point. My point is, if the goal of economic development across the globe is to reach a level of development such as this country’s, it is not possible unless drastic changes in the way we do things occur. This country consumes 33% of the world’s resources and produces 50% of the worlds waste every year. We’re what, 5% of the world’s population? And that is still with 1/8th of our population going to bed hungry every night. Progress indeed.
The Earth cannot provide enough resources for everyone to live as we do. Take that whatever way you want. It’s just a fact.
Here’s a perfect libertarian idea I heard today at a conference on developing sustainable community’s. (yall can correct me if it’s not) Gil Friend from Natural Logic (www.natlogic.com) proposed this:
The government should eliminate taxes on personal income. Income is good. It’s what we want. Proportionally, the government should raise taxes on natural resources. Natural resources we can all attest that we need, that future generations will need. You want resource efficiency? Tax resources. Let’s see how innovative humanity can be.
Great Utah Phillips quote:
We the American people are enormously wealthy. You know that? Who owns all of
those trees in the national forest? This is not a rhetorical question. We do!
Who owns all of that offshore oil you read about in the newspaper, huh? We do!
Who owns all of those minerals under the federal land? We do! It’s public
property, you know. But we elect people to go to Washington - who are those
assholes? What have we gotten ourselves into now? They go to Washington, they
lease off what we own - public property - to private companies, to sell us back
our own stuff for the sake of a greasy buck!
What are your thoughts on the above idea (not Utah’s, he’s just for entertainment)? I think it’s kind of neat. Just think of all the incentive to not use resources. Or to use them more effectively.
Bernard,
The market lies. Adam Smith was a big proponent of complete and accurate information. We’re currently not at that level.
The price of gasoline in this country is 1/6th of what it truly costs. Your tax dollars go into incentives to companies for their infrastructure needs. Your tax dollars go into the defense fund needed to protect shipping lanes in order to get the oil here. You pay for it when you and your kids develop chronic asthma from constantly breathing pollutants and air mixtures that combine when combustion from gasoline engines produces nasty by products. You pay for it in infrastructure taxes because our sprawling development fails to keep a human scale and everyone relies on cars to get them everywhere.
The market does not take into account externalities that truly make the price of something.
I’m not sure yet how this relates to labor. Give me some time to think about it.
Although, the price of shoes hasn’t gone down with the associated cost of labor to produce shoes. You say 25 cents/week is a living wage for people in bangladesh to make shoes and eat and feed and clothe themselves. IS that reflected in the price of shoes here? Can you explain that to me? Well, I’m learning here.
Adam:
I’ll have to go out on a limb here and say Gil’s idea is crap. That seems to me like an even more regressive idea than income tax; it would raise the cost of natural resources for companies, which of course would pass that cost on to consumers. Yeah, I’m not an economist, and I can’t do any mathematical proof of this, but, man, it just seems wrong-headed to me.
Also, I would like to see how you arrived at the gas costing 1/6th of what it should number. That sounds like an activist sound bite that has no hard data behind it, but I could be wrong…
Oh, and your comment about the market lying because there isn’t complete and accurate information…
Your solution seems to be to obfuscate complete and accurate information even more. Sorry if that idea makes no sense to me.
I dunno, it seems like it would help us shift away from the material focus of our economy. The throw-away society would no longer be feasible, resources would be too valuable. Obviously this would lead to major upheaval, but what if our society hard started out this way.
Who cares about passing the buck on to consumers? If prices went up people wouldn’t buy their stuff. Or they would learn to do more with less. They would try to find a company who could provide a less expensive alternative. That company would have to be smart enough to do more with less while still producing the same quality, or else people wouldn’t buy it.
Any way it is just an idea.
Cost of gasoline:
http://www.progress.org/cobb01.htm
I don’t see how revealing true costs obfuscates complete and accurate information.
I’ve heard the argument several times about individuals not being able to afford what they produce. Where does this argument originate from and is it just the “pauper wage” fallacy?
Adam:
Sorry, guess I misread one of your posts. Somehow I got the idea that you thought subsidies and/or tariffs were somehow good. Going to check out the link, thanks.
Checked out that link, it’s awfully short on content, being a synopsis of another paper. Is there something more concrete?
Micha Ghertner: Yep, Bernard is right: After I was accused of being a liberal, a communist, a socialist, unamerican, a foreigner, a troll, ignorant of economics (I’m an econ major), and told that my arguments are worthless until I have a graduate degree in economics, I and my co-blogger Jonathan were banned from posting altogether. Pretty shameful, but I expect nothing less from protectionists.
1) A College Degree does not make you an expert on anything.
Once upon a time there were plenty of Individuals with advanced degrees in phrenology (reading the bumps on peopleâs head to determine their personality).
2) Are you asserting youâve never banned anyone from Catallarchy?
Does that make you a protectionist or a hypocrite? Maybe you are just trying to protect (hide) your hypocrisy?
Micha Ghertner: Because our high standard of living did not come about as a result of any laws imposed from above by government in order to protect workers’ “rights.” Rather, our high standard of living came about as a result of technological advance, the expansion of the division of labor, and most fundamentally, (relatively) free trade. Had the government imposed a minimum wage of $5.00 in the year 1900, we would most likely be in the same economic condition as Bangladesh right now, if even that.
Suppose that you want (or need) to purchase some product, and suppose that You know that I (the Serpent) happen to sell the very product you need. Not only that but of all the other Individuals who sell this particular product, I have the best quality, and also the lowest price.
Wouldnât you buy that product from me? Wouldnât I give you the most value at the lowest cost?
Suppose that years later you discovered that the reason I was able to provide the best product at the lowest price is because I was a thief, and I was never producing any products just stealing them from some one else.
Would it bother you at all? Or doesnât it make any difference to you?
I mean, regardless of how I acquired the product, you obtained it legally (morally) ⦠correct?
So paying someone a very decent wage (for that area) is the same as stealing from them? Interesting…
Dave: So paying someone a very decent wage (for that area) is the same as stealing from them? Interesting…
Who said that?
⦠connecting imaginary dots in your head?
What I asked was If you need to buy something (some item) are the only things you need to consider the price and the quality?
Is that moral? Ethical?
Some people here seem to have determined that this is definitely the case.
Me personally ⦠I am a little more open minded on the subject. I havenât quite decided yet â¦
Well, you tried to make that connection in your previous post, actually, trying to make an analogy between sweatshops and stealing.
No, I asked if it matters whether the goods you purchase are obtained (produced) âmorallyâ or not, just so long as you get the best quality goods at the cheapest (lowest) price.
You are the one making the connection between sweatshops and thievery.
Maybe I did read too much into it. Maybe you really didn’t mean to imply that sweatshops are nearly as immoral (or just as immoral) as stealing, but that is certainly the way it came across.
So Dave, you never answered my original question.
Suppose you desperately need to buy some product â a widget.
I have the best widgets in town, everybody tells you the same thing.
Plus my prices are better (lower) than anyone elseâs.
Of course that is because I obtain all of my merchandise via âillegalâ means, but that shouldnât be a concern to you ⦠should it?
All you care about is price and quality â right?
Look youâd probably agree with me that âmoralityâ is a âsubjectiveâ thing ⦠correct? So if morality is subjective, then arenât antiquated notions like stealing is wrong also subjective (merely a matter of opinion)?
Now are you going to let a subjective opinion get in the way of you getting good stuff for cheap?
My subjective opinion is that stealing is wrong because you take something by force. Sweatshops, while deplorable, are not wrong (in my opinion, of course)because, as I understand it, there is no force involved.
So in this case, yeah, I would pass up the lower price and higher quality of your stolen goods (if I knew they were stolen).
You are also free to choose to pay more for the same goods made by American workers, though. The key here is the choice. Just don’t be surprised when not everyone agrees with you, or can afford to make the same choice you do.
I really like Adam S and his “return to caveman living” philosophy. I agree completely. We don’t need electicity, cars, air conditioning, appliances, computers… Everyone in the globe should be equally poor. The earth cannot possiblity support the American lifestyle on a global scale. It is unfair to all the other people in the world (and let’s not forget the plants and critters). Lets just try to be fair, live with the earth, give up all our material possetions, and live off the land. Oops. 80% of world population just died. I hope Adam S made it though.
Dave: My subjective opinion is that stealing is wrong because you take something by force. Sweatshops, while deplorable, are not wrong (in my opinion, of course)because, as I understand it, there is no force involved.
My point about the nature of morality was (is) that if morality were truly Subjective then it would be just as moral to steal or murder as it would be to not steal or murder.
Of course if morality were objective this problem would be solved; however in order for morality to be Objective there would have to be an underlying mechanic that was a part (inherent to the nature of) reality itself.
Dave: So in this case, yeah, I would pass up the lower price and higher quality of your stolen goods (if I knew they were stolen).
Suppose that instead of being stolen goods, that I ran the factory where the goods were produced, but I was cheating my employees out of their pay and promised benefits. Would that stop you from buying my goods?
Suppose that I hired people, promised them a certain rate, but when payday arrived I always had an excuse not to pay them? Or suppose that I constantly short change them?
Now admittedly I might have trouble keeping quality workers, but Iâm still selling the best quality at the lowest prices. You benefit, and I benefit. So whereâs the harm?
Dave: You are also free to choose to pay more for the same goods made by American workers, though. The key here is the choice. Just don’t be surprised when not everyone agrees with you, or can afford to make the same choice you do.
Ohh, but I understand exactly what you are saying.
You see my brother is a third world dictator. We worked out a foolproof scheme. He is going to make our particular brand of thievery âlegalâ. That way you Americans can buy our high quality low price products without having to trouble your conscious with the notion that you have purchased stolen merchandise.
Just keep repeating to yourself that the best quality at the lowest price is all that matters.
Its not like you will ever suffer any adverse consequences if you happen to be wrong.
Willy,
Where did I write all of that?
Not a word was typed regarding any of what you just wrote.
You want worst case scenarios? Look here:
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html#report
That’s right, our DOD is aware of the probability of global climate change. Our EPA denies it exists, mainly for political/religious reasons. But thankfully our DOD is thinking things through.
For all you economists out there, Swiss Re won’t insure businesses or investments (or whatever it is Swiss Re does, I can’t tell from the drivel on their website http://www.swissre.com) without climate change programs because of the economic realities and risks associated with it. Now breathe.
Here’s the biggest shocker:
The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of our biosphere.
Ecosystem services are being calculated and researched as we bicker and banter. People are putting the basis for our lives, food, clothes, shelter and all economic function on this planet in economic drivel for economists/free market champions to understand. These are qualified scientists and researchers who have years of experience in their respective fields.
What if, for example, filling in that wetland in the lot behind your house and putting up a new house caused a net economic gain of 250 thousand dollars. Well, what if the runoff from your watershed, you know, with all the PNK’s and nutrients that wash off from all those great well kempt lawns, that used to be removed/cleansed by that wetland (as normal ecosystem function)is now diverted straight into your local stream. Now I have multiple scenarios:
1. the municipal water supply in your town comes from river x which your local stream contributes to. (I now just figured out where the root of tributary comes from, lol) well let’s say after losing that wetland and its cleansing function, the municipal water treatment plant’s incoming river water becomes unusable without vast changes made to infrastructure. tolerances on the influent are off by some amount, etc. so let’s say that money comes from your local tax dollars, and let’s say that in order to implement these necessary changes, your local municipality must raise your tax rates some amount. the buck gets passed to you, just so you can drink safe water. the dollar amount that ecosystem is worth? I dunno, however much capital improvements cost to upgrade your local MWTP.
2.let’s say you have a well and don’t give a shit about the local MWTP. but you happen to work downstream at a plant that uses water from river x. let’s say there are certain characteristics of that water that make it possible for your plant to do whatever it is it does. let’s say by eliminating that ecosystem function, the tolerable levels of stuff in river x water is hampered. or the stuff not cleaned by the wetland messes with your plants equipment. let’s say in order to deal with this new problem, major renovations and upgrades are needed. well, let’s say you’ve been taking too many days off to go fishing and in order to make the capital improvements, your boss decides she no longer needs you. She’d rather make improvements necessary for her company to succeed. Which you can all agree is her right. Now how much was your job worth to her/you?
3. and lets say that you are used to catching and eating fish in river x as a staple in your diet. good source of omega 3’s and whatnot. (and mercury, mmm we all love methyl mercury) but because the ecosystem function attached to that filled-in-wetland is now gone, the conditions that made your stream/river habitable and ideal for trout are no longer there. so not only are you out of a job but you can’t eat anymore.
adapt.
evolve.
or whats to happen if that runoff never makes it to the stream after being diverted? let’s say it sits in a detention pond and causes the west nile laden mosquito population in your area to quadruple. let’s say your retired widowed mother, who lives in the nanny pad behind your garage, gets bit and develops west nile and dies. yep, I just killed your mom.
(in actuality west nile is a joke of a problem in this country, more people die each month from influenza than die each year from west nile)
so you see our world, these ecosystems that all us tree-humpers cherish, wholly relate to the economic realities you are so imbued and enamored with.
I’m not saying we have to regress to the stone age. I’m saying we need to do things better! I’m a progressive.
Let me ask you something, given the following situation/scenario. There’s this company, and it wants to transport its goods rapidly across varying distances. (it’s funny how badly I have to break things down for libertarian/economists, worse than engineers!). Let’s say this company thinks the only way to do this is to put one box of their stuff in one truck at a time. Not because it couldn’t fit more, but because that’s the conventional wisdom. The boxes like the breathing room, or some such other externality. Let’s say this company has lots of goods that go all over the place, and at certain times lots of goods are going out and at certain times lots of trucks are returning. But only one box per truck.
Welcome to our current automobile dystopia. You know how many people I see alone in cars on my commute in to work? You know how ineffective this model is? It’s ludicrous.
I’m looking for people to step outside the box and re-examine situations. Big picture thinkers.
Are you willing to trade our drive-in dystopia for a walkable community where goods and services are produced and provided on a much more local scale?
Compare the price to live in Beacon Hill or the Upper West Side of Manhattan to the price to live in some subdivision. Why aren’t we building more like that? Does it cost too much? (there are lots of reasons this doesnt happen, I am being rhetorical) Obviously the price reflects the demand.
Anyway, this thread has been fun.
Serpent,
You were banned from posting at Catallarchy because you are a troll. As you have already demonstrated in this very comment thread, you are incapable of staying on topic and instead turn every single discussion into a debate over your pet topics: athiesm, determinism, etc. You are the only person who has ever been banned from Catallarchy (except for the spam-bots). We tolerate as much debate as people like in our threads, so long as they do not troll. Jonathan and I (and no doubt others), on the other hand, were banned from AmericanJobBlog simply because they couldn’t handle genuine disagreement. We did not stray off topic to discuss topics unrelated to free trade such as athiesm or determinism.
An “hour” — more like an entire day..
My head was spinning after a few posts — seemed to me that the same old arguments that had been effectively rebutted a short while ago, kept resurfacing.
Sisyphus had it easier
Adam,
You nailed it when you said evolve.
That is what we are doing. We are able to remove the polutants, have safe water, and clean air, all without having to live likes ants in the colony. Humans need space, lawns, trees. I do agree about the walking communities. Here in Florida we are building many new communities where the homes and businesses are clustered to eliminate the need to drive. These are surrounded by preserve and golf course areas that make the community livable.
Evolution is taking place. There is a big movement for sustainable development.
“If you have an hour to kill, check out this eye-popping discussion thread between the kids at Catllarchy and the Buchananite protectionists at a site called American Joblog.
This is what we’re up against, folks.”
Actually, “Buchananite protectionists” is rather inaccurate description. What you find at Rescue American Jobs and dozens of other anti-outsourcing, anti-guest worker program sites is a wide range of political views coallecing around opposition to corporate domination of American trade policy and immigration (guest worker) programs. The range of oppositions comes from Left, Right, Center and even Libertarian. If you read more about outsourcing and guest worker programs and the real world effects, you would undoubtedly know that calling opponents “Buchananite protectionists” is terribly short-sighted and narrow on your part.
Micha Ghertner: Because our high standard of living did not come about as a result of any laws imposed from above by government in order to protect workers’ “rights.” Rather, our high standard of living came about as a result of technological advance, the expansion of the division of labor, and most fundamentally, (relatively) free trade. Had the government imposed a minimum wage of $5.00 in the year 1900, we would most likely be in the same economic condition as Bangladesh right now, if even that.
Misha, I dispute this. You have completely ignored more than 100 years of United States protectionist trade policyy which created a tariff wall behind which American industry was built. The “free trade” to which you refer is inaccurate. And, as PCR has argued very cogently, some “comparative advantage” must exist for “free trade” to actually work for the benefit of the U.S. What “comparative advantage” does the U.S. and American workers now enjoy? NONE. And, it should be pointed out that the American middle class emerged as part of a deliberate national policy of subsidised education and tax policy reversing decades of policies favoring the wealthiest elites (often the descendants of the 19th C. “robber barons”.)
ITG,
Note that I said relatively free trade, not absolutely free trade. Tariffs certainly didn’t help American prosperity; this kind of mercantalist thinking was debunked over 200 years ago by the classical economists Hume, Smith and Ricardo. Is it any wonder that countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea which have engaged in free trade with little to no trade protections have enjoyed spectactular growth, while countries which have put up extensive barriers to trade are still mired in poverty?
What “comparative advantage” does the U.S. and American workers now enjoy? NONE.
You are confusing comparative advantage with absolute advantage. Even in a case where a country does not have an absolute advantage in anything compared to other countries, so long as relative production costs differ between countries, a comparative advantage exists. This is basic econ 101: everyone has a comparative advantage in something, even though some don’t have an absolute advantage in anything.