Say Anything Blog

Rob: You have to ask yourself: “Who are the protectionists really protecting?”
They are protecting unions from competition, and they are protecting themselves from public awareness that their taxes and regulations are making us uncompetitive in the world market.
As is usual for lefties, they want to “protect” themselves from the political consequences of their economic ignorance.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I agree, trade can be good. as long as is conducted by the people that actually made the goods.

But people who selectively quote Adam Smith forget that he also said people must be able to move. You, by supporting wall building on our southern border, are being a protectionist. If capitol and industry can move about then labor should be able to move as well. Smith made this clear in wealth of nations:

‘Whatever obstructs the free circulation of labour from one employment to another, obstructs that of stock likewise; the quantity of stock which can be employed in any branch of business depending very much upon that of the labour which can be employed in it. Corporation laws, however, give less obstruction to the free circulation of stock from one place to another than to that of labor. It is every-where much easier for a wealthy merchant to obtain the privilege of trading in a town corporate, than for a poor artificer to obtain that of working in it.’

In this “global” economy, labor needs to be able to move from country to country. If that isn’t practical, then you see the problem with free trade theory. At least Adam Smith’s anyway. 

Protection isn’t the left, btw (as Robert108 said). Marx was an internationalist, completely opposed to economic nationalism. (He praised free trade).

Adam Smith believed in the labor theory of value as well. (I went to Smith’s grave in June. Not much there actually, I was expecting more).

Protectionism is American as apple pie. (see American school of economics) This protectionism was a Republican idea. The southern Democrats relied on international trade of their slave labor cotton.

Neoliberal policies work well to control other countries. We “kick away the ladder” so to speak. The best thing for up and coming countries is to opt out of trade agreements, build up their military, and up their tariffs to scare away superior products. In other words, exactly what we did (this thinking didn’t escape conservative idols like Reagan. He didn’t want Emerson radio corporation to battle Sony when VCRs started coming out.  The Cato institute has a good analysis on this)

Graeme: To say that Adam Smith advocated mass invasion is simply ridiculous.  Of course, he meant mobility within a country, not from country to country.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

This goes back to the Kathy Lee “scandal”. Remember the wailing&gnashing of teeth over the “sweatshops” making her line of clothes? Turned out that the factory had the highest wages in the country, workers had healthcare in shop, their children went to classes provided by the company, and the working conditions were of higher standard than any company in the rest of the country. Closing that down made those people’s lives substantially worse. Good Job, leftards.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Excellent post Graeme. It seems clear that the protectionist that started this thread doesn’t grasp economics.

Also, as a military tactic, moving too much of a country’s production capability overseas could be a mistake…

But I guess that out-sourcing the army to China makes sense. Americans getting killed is bad for votes, and probably costs more too.

Robert108: Bullshit. You are making that up.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

But I guess that out-sourcing the army to China makes sense. Americans getting killed is bad for votes, and probably costs more too.

Talk about BS and “making it up”.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Robert108: That sentence of mine you quoted wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. My example of out-sourcing the army to China was a clear exaggeration. 

My point was that in war-time, real wars, not just beating up small countries, wars like WWII, nearly the entire countries manufacturing capability manages to get used for military production (with Britain and the Soviet Union being two of the most extreme examples in WWII).

If America becomes a heavily service-based economy, the current fashion, then obviously peak manufacturing output will suffer.

I am basically playing devil’s advocate on this issue since I am not a nationalist at all, don’t care much for armies.

But Graeme’s point that free-trade requires free immigration is an excellent point.

http://www.amatecon.com/etext/cftoi/cftoi-ch01.html

Trade restrictions and immigration restrictions are one of the most abominable features of American society today. They have brought impoverishment to millions of poor people—both domestic and foreign. And they violate one of the most fundamental precepts of a free society—the right to do what you want with your money and your life. The times call for leadership—and the American people should lead the world by forcing their government officials to unilaterally lift all trade and immigration controls—and, ultimately, by constitutionally prohibiting American government officials from ever imposing them again.—Jacob G. Hornberger

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

But Graeme’s point that free-trade requires free immigration is an excellent point.

Losing national sovereignty to a horde of parasitical invaders isn’t beneficial at all. We’re simply allowing the socialist countries to outsource their economic failure.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I must be going crazy, but where in Rob’s post did you see him advocate labor immobility?

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Tim Bukher: Rob seems to be against open-borders based upon his other threads. Check out the ones on the `security fence’, as well as others.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

I think that if Graeme spent a little more time actually considering what my position on illegal immigration is he might have actually had a point.

I’m not for restricting people at the border.  Graeme, for the convenience of his article, assumes that I’m for building a border wall to keep everyone out.  That’s not true.  I’m for a tall wall with a wide fence.

I say let everyone through the border that wants to come through the border, as long as they can pass basic tests for health and security concerns.  Which, of course, is perfectly in keeping with Adam Smith.

Though I’m not sure why I should listen to an avowed socialist quote Smith back to me.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob seems to be against open-borders based upon his other threads. Check out the ones on the `security fence’, as well as others.

Again, go and actually read my posts about the security fence.  I take the “tall fence, wide gate” philosophy, which I’ll grant isn’t necessarily shared by all my friends on the right.

I say let ‘em all in as they’re good for our country, as long as basic checks for health and security are made.  What I’m not in favor for is millions living in the shadows here and avoiding the responsibilities of citizenship the rest of us must deal with.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

It seems clear that the protectionist that started this thread doesn’t grasp economics.—(A very wrong) Me

Sorry Rob. You may be more liberal than I thought.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

We want our flags produced as cheaply as possible because most of the world lives on mere dollars a day and if they have to be made in the USA, it makes it cost prohibitive for the radical Muslims to buy them and burn them.

American Imperialism and corporate greed again.  When the world burns our flags or drinks our Coca Cola, we want to exploit them by taking their money back.  Libya is thinking about making their own brand of American flags now.

To say that Adam Smith advocated mass invasion is simply ridiculous.  Of course, he meant mobility within a country, not from country to country.

Find where he says that. He always understood that it would be easier for industry and capital to move about, so he made a point to say it was crucial for labor to do so as well. In this global economy, that means open borders.

I’m not for restricting people at the border.  Graeme, for the convenience of his article, assumes that I’m for building a border wall to keep everyone out.  That’s not true.  I’m for a tall wall with a wide fence.

Tall wall with a wide fence, ok, my mistake. The point is, it is hard as hell to immigrate to the U.S. Much harder than it is to move money here. I recently sponsored a friend from Macedonia to get a green card and it was a nightmare. And he is married to a U.S. citizen!

Industry and capital have gone global, but labor has to jump through hoops to move from country to country. This is a problem of globalization that hasn’t really been addressed. Labor mobility is at the core of free trade theories, somehow this doesn’t get mentioned much by the “tall wall, wide fence” people. (The European Union understands this, that is why people from Romania are free to work in Germany without any real hassle.)

The only hassle is being picked up by the German police and deported if they do not have a work visa.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Graeme - Industry and capital have gone global, but labor has to jump through hoops to move from country to country.

It’s interesting to see a communist admit that regulations are a burden.

In this global economy, that means open borders.

No.  It might mean more expeditious immigration between countries of roughly equal economic status, but the present situation on the US southern border, which amounts to a massive invasion by parasites, not only distorts the market in the US by slowing mechanization, but enables the socialist slavemasters in Mexico to escape the responsibility for the drawbacks of their economic system.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

It might mean more expeditious immigration between countries of roughly equal economic status

There’s little economic incentive for immigration in this case.

distorts the market in the US by slowing mechanization

The costs of mechanization slow mechanization. If robots were cheaper than mexicans, believe me, we’d be using robots.

I don’t know about socialist slavemasters in Mexico, but I do know that the spirit of what we do when we pay American workers twice what a Mexican worker would demand is pretty socialist of us.

On the other hand, if I’m paying my gardener $5 an hour rather than $10, I have $5/hr extra money to go spend in American stores, and via the multiplyer affect, contribute to the rise of our GDP.

I agree, however, with Rob’s tall wall, wide gate approach. Free movement of cheap labor is good, but we can afford to limit the speed a bit for the sake of security.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Oh, and I’m all for “parasites” who do twice the work for me at half the price. In fact, it makes me feel like I’m the parasite—but hey, it’s capitalism.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

The costs of mechanization slow mechanization. If robots were cheaper than mexicans, believe me, we’d be using robots.

Pure BS.  Study the cotton industry before and after slavery was outlawed.
Mechanization requires capital investment, which is good for our economy, but entails delayed gratification and risk.  Even with that, there’s a guy in Oregon who has devised a mechanical grape picker that does the work of 40 humans.  Think he will be able to sell this innovation with the invasion in full force?
That old “multiplier effect” argument is a fallacy.  The cost in taxes for the invaders through the use of our social services and the cost of their crime far outweighs anything they might contribute.  They are parasites on the affluent society we have already created.
Unconsciously, you affirm what I said about movement between countries of roughly equal economic status.
Of course, there are also the quality of life factors…  They do seem to go along with economic status, don’t they?
You also didn’t deal with the part about the socialist slavemasters escaping the consequences of their actions by exporting their hordes to the US.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Mechanization requires capital investment, which is good for our economy, but entails delayed gratification and risk.

When the threshold of diminishing returns is reached, then the capital investment and risk will be made. By taking cheap labor out of the equation, you are trying to forcefully induce a premature mechanization. The effects of this may very well prove beneficial for the economy, or they may cause a recession due to inefficient capital invesment. When we start fiddling with the economy, the results are wild and unpredictable.

Slavery is not a good example because slavery is abominable use of labor. When you don’t treat a laborer like a human (with fair compensation), then he might as well be a machine. In which case, before slavery was outlawed, a farmer buying slaves was merely investing in capital (not labor). Outlawing slavery was then akin to wiping the slate of capital investment clean—this is why the South was so resistant to it.

Even with that, there’s a guy in Oregon who has devised a mechanical grape picker that does the work of 40 humans.  Think he will be able to sell this innovation with the invasion in full force?

If it costs less than 40 humans, definitely. I am 100% certain of it.

That old “multiplier effect” argument is a fallacy.

I’m ignoring that one until you give me some econ theory to back your assertion—at which point, I’ll nominate you for a Nobel. Until then, I’ll trust my graduate education.

The cost in taxes for the invaders through the use of our social services and the cost of their crime far outweighs anything they might contribute.

I’d like to see data supporting that one as well. Baseless assertions, once more, get ignored.

You also didn’t deal with the part about the socialist slavemasters escaping the consequences of their actions by exporting their hordes to the US.

I don’t have to deal with it. Economics is not about moral atonement.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

When the threshold of diminishing returns is reached, then the capital investment and risk will be made.

Wrong.  When the illegal invasion is stopped, the investment will be made.

Slavery is not a good example because slavery is abominable use of labor. When you don’t treat a laborer like a human (with fair compensation), then he might as well be a machine.

Exactly.  That is why allowing the invasion of refugees/parasites from a Third World country is wrong.  You have stated it quite clearly.

Economics is not about moral atonement.

Non sequitur.  I wasn’t talking about atonement at all, but responsibility for actions(socialist totalitarianism).  You are also wrong about there being no moral dimension to the free enterprise system.  It is naturally moral.

The fallacy is that the expense of dealing with things that cause damage somehow benefit the economy through the “multiplier effect”.  Study the “Broken Window Fallacy” sometime.
I have already given the example of the invaders distorting the labor market, thus preventing investment in progress through mechanization.  If you knew anything, you would know that mechanization requires initial investment, and then costs very little to run, unlike so-called “cheap labor”, which continues to cost, although it doesn’t require initial investment.  Wages will only increase over time, especially with the lefties whining about “workers’ rights”.  Talk about diminishing returns!

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I have already given the example of the invaders distorting the labor market, thus preventing investment in progress through mechanization.  If you knew anything, you would know that mechanization requires initial investment, and then costs very little to run, unlike so-called “cheap labor”, which continues to cost, although it doesn’t require initial investment

.You are soooo right, robert.  The perfect example is the pre-slavery southern cotton production.  As long as there were cheap labor (slaves) the production of cotton was mired into that mind-set.  After slavery was abolished, cotton production was automated eliminating the need for cheap labor.  Today, virtually any labor intensive industry can be automated if the business are willing to make the investment.  Cheap labor in whatever form serves as a deterent against automation.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

Docdave,

The key is “willingness.” Businesses should be willing to invest, you shouldn’t force them to invest via protectionist policies. If the lefties continue to increase wages as Robert says, then at some point, businesses will invest instead of paying the extra wage. “Talk about diminishing returns!” Exactly, Robert.

Robert,

The broken window fallacy is a refutation of social safety-net spending, not the multiplyer effect. You should study it, because it can just as easily be applied to your theory that getting rid of the “parasites” (breaking the window) will stimulate mechanization.

Also “Economics is not about moral atonement” is, at most, a tautology. A non-sequitur requires at least a premise and conclusion… brush up on your logic terms of art.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Also “Economics is not about moral atonement” is, at most, a tautology. A non-sequitur requires at least a premise and conclusion… brush up on your logic terms of art.

Nice semantic distraction, but you lied about what I said.  Understand now?

Businesses should be willing to invest, you shouldn’t force them to invest via protectionist policies.

You have it backwards.  We are being forced to accommodate those invaders because the govt won’t do its job of enforcing our borders.  I don’t think businessmen should be doing the job of federal border enforcement, but I also think the feds should be doing their job.  It is insane to regard enforcing the border as some sort of negative thing.
The problem with your “reasoning” is that those invaders will be voters, if the lefties have their way, and then this country will belong to them, not to the people who made it great.  Think about it.
Invasion is distorting the labor market, to our detriment, even if some realize short term benefits from it, or think they do, at any rate.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Businesses should be willing to invest, you shouldn’t force them to invest via protectionist policies

Tim, I don’t think I mentioned protectionism in any of my comments.  I was merely pointing out that automation is available for those businesses that are complaining about how the potential absence of cheap labor would affect their business.  And really one can easily get capital for the automation venture if they can show a good return on the investment so there really is no valid excuse for a well-run profitable business to worry about not having cheap illegal workers.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

BTW, the multiplier effect is the rationale to justify the broken window.  It’s a fallacy, which has nothing to do with “safety-net” spending.  The fallacious reasoning is that the broken window generates business, in the form of fixing the window.  That “benefit” then spreads through the economy via the “multiplier effect” and has a net positive effect.  It’s a fallacy.  The broken window diverts resources that would be spent otherwise, thus distorting the market.  The parallel with invader labor is obvious.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

DD: Good one.  The invaders are distorting our economy, in many ways.
BTW, investment isn’t a matter of “willingness”; they are pressured by competition, in an undistorted market.  Even so, with the invaders, they are pressured to hire them to stay competitive.  The govt needs to do its job.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Robert,

The multiplyer effect is not limited to the broken window. It also happens to be the cornerstone behind contemporary macro-economic theory. Even your Austrian school adheres to it. The broken window fallacy shows that the multiplyer effect does not apply to government spending the way it applies to consumer spending, it does nothing to disprove the multiplyer effect. Please go back to school, I’m tired of teaching economics here. Every argument I’ve run into so far stems not from faulty reasoning (which I can at least deal with) but from incomplete knowledge of economics.

And I didn’t lie about anything Robert, I merely chose not to argue the morality of economics with you. That argument won’t go anywhere because such values are subjective.

The problem with your “reasoning” is that those invaders will be voters, if the lefties have their way, and then this country will belong to them, not to the people who made it great.

Boo fucking hoo. I feel for you, I really do. This emotional line of reasoning is the cornerstone of your argument, that’s why you’re not making any economic sense.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

And I didn’t lie about anything Robert, I merely chose not to argue the morality of economics with you. That argument won’t go anywhere because such values are subjective.

You lied when you attributed the subject of “atonement” to me, rather than “responsibility”, which was what I really wrote.  In fact, your bringing up “atonement” was a non sequitur, since it didn’t follow from what I said.  It was also irrelevant to what I wrote.

I repeat, the multiplier effect is not a fallacy; it’s fallacious to suggest that destructive actions produce economic benefit.  Get it yet?
That covers both the broken window and invader labor.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!