Does /pol/ want free trade or protectionism?
Image barely related.
>>71786244
It's pretty fucking simple
>protectionism where it's better for us
>free trade where it's better for us
>>71786244
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvulNnvJLp8
>>71786244
Free Trade,
Protectionism/Trump is literally retarded
Free trade is always best. Unfortunately, China doesn't play by the free trade game and fucks everyone over.
>>71786244
I'm not working class so give me whatever makes stuff cost less.
>>71786957
>>71787022
> falling for the market jew
Ashamed
>>71786627
fpbp
>>71787128
>we can outsmart the market this time, y-you'll see
protectionism protects jobs
higher prices create higher wages.
>>71787208
How?
>>71787342
INB4 muh demand driven economy
The only people against free trade are Trump/Bernie fags who can't compete in a global job market because they have no marketable skills.
>>71787399
what drives the economy?
>capatcha thinks strollers are tricycles
>>71786244
>choice
>chosen
Pick one
Ones for lazy fucks others for educated
I don't know anything about the economy but libertarians tell me free trade is the best fucking thing ever and then the other side says that protectionism is necessary.
>>71787543
t. applied memetics
>>71786244
see
>>71786627
Its that simple
>>71787544
The first step is under consumption and savings, then come investments which increases productivity
Spending is what happens after you get rich. The idea that muh consumers are going to "spend" their way to a wealthy society is bankrupt
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m
Every damn economist knows that free-trade is a net gain for every country. Protectionism is just like subsidies, it is justified for the protection of some special interest, not economic efficiency.
>>71786244
Like all economic policy its never, NEVER, all the one way. Sometimes free trade is appropriate, sometimes protectionist measures are needed
All ideologues are fucking retarded.
>>71788782
When are protectionist measures needed?
>>71786244
Trade should be as free as possible.
>>71787543
Exactly. In all seriousness, people who can't acquire the marketable skills needed to pay for their basic needs in society should just starve to death. It'll be better for the gene pool.
>>71788126
>(((economists)))
Between countries that play by the same rules (In other words between other Western countries) - Free Trade
Between countries that don't play fairly (In other words, every single developing country) - Protectionism
>>71789007
>play fairly
??
>>71788914
for example: when foreign countries fuck with the price of oil in order to kill off your countries capacity to produce. Or when industries begin offshoring jobs and assets as fast as they can.
>>71788126
Free trade is a net boon only when countries are near equivalent and both reciprocate.
Instead the US has free trade with Mexico. Mexico imports Chinese shit, stamps "made in Mexico" and sends it to the US without any tariff.
Trade deficits mean free trade is not working.
>>71789034
How is it fair that Chinese goods get exported to the West freely, but Western goods can't get exported to China freely?
China is literally dumping steel into the West because there are no restrictions but then puts tariffs on British steel entering China
>>71788919
No you have tradesmen competing directly with Chinese slave labor. The free market dictates the tradesman should make slave wages, but they can't because of minimum wage, mandatory benefits(healthcare and insurance) and the fact that the tradesman could not survive on slave wages.
You're killing your own countrymen.
how bout free trade on the industries that can compete and protectionism on the ones that are too weak?
how is this called?
>>71789052
>when foreign countries fuck with the price of oil in order to kill off your countries capacity to produce.
Fuck with the price in what way? The country in question who was "fucking with" the prices would be penalized by the free market.
>Or when industries begin offshoring jobs and assets as fast as they can.
Go here >>71786750
>>71789194
So? Automate their jobs away, or let them die if they can't create value.
>>71787834
Kys
>>71789221
That's the way the US did things before NAFTA.
>>71786957
>>71789357
does it has a name?
for google purporses.
Free market tyranny just means corporations ruling over the goyim, free to promote feminism, mass immigration and other forms of degeneracy.
The West industrialised under protectionism. Japan and South Korea were all aggressively protectionist when industrialising, so is China. Anyone advocating free trade is either a cucked goy or a usurer.
>>71789168
>How is it fair that Chinese goods get exported to the West freely, but Western goods can't get exported to China freely?
Protectionism will only increase the amount of foreign tariffs.
>China is literally dumping steel into the West because there are no restrictions but then puts tariffs on British steel entering China
Go to >>71786750, funny enough it actually mentions steel.
>Developed nations send more and more labor jobs to other countries
>new trade creates new jobs that require higher levels of education
>more people in developed world become highly educated
>highly educated people create more innovations
>3D printing, more advances in automation,
>no longer need to import sweatshop goods
>developing nations people revolt or their government convinces them war against the west is the only answer to their problems
>the west and other developed countries pick up the pieces later
>.....
>profit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lLxrscgj94
>>71789221
>how is this called?
Protectionism
>>71787342
jobs don't go to China
higher prices lead to higher purchasing power.
>>71789248
Enjoy paying back student loans while making 28,000yr working as an engineer until you end up training your poo in loo H-1B replacement and wonder why 100 people apply for every job opening at McDonalds.
>>71789357
Reagan brought about the end of it, by opening up trade and letting the de-industrialisation of the US begin.
>>71789382
American School of Economics. Or perhaps a mixed economy.
>>71789470
If you can't afford to go to college, don't go. It should be a luxury of the rich. If Indians can replace American jobs, they should. What right does an American have to a job over an Indian? Hiring an American will take away from corporate profits. It's literally stealing from the rich to force them to hire Americans.
>>71789469
>by increasing prices and reducing people's disposable income, you will have higher purchasing power
?????????
>>71789511
do you mean these guys?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt8lRYpzb-sSrKFb4DT2ECw
I'm subscribed to them.
>>71789606
I can't tell If this is satire or not
>>71789606
>what right does an American have to American jobs
Good goy. The US is too strong anyway it needs it's own (((Morgenthau))) Plan.
>>71789089
/thread
>>71789238
>Fuck with the price in what way?
by hoarding shitloads of oil deposits and then dumping it in the market JUST after a bunch of fracking infrastructure was finished, driving the people who invested in said infrastructure out of business as fracking oil costs more to produce than what they can sell it for so they are forced them to sell their infrastructure off for peanuts to the cunts who crashed the price of oil, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT SAUDI ARABIA DID.
>The country in question who was "fucking with" the prices would be penalized by the free market.
you are one of those fucking retarded ideologues i was talking about up here.
>>71786957
>Free Trade,
so we should compete with products made in foreign nations by slaves that earn pennies? we shouldn't put all those poor chinamen out of work so they can go back to farming and smoking opium?
>>71789811
if Americans can't beat out Indians for jobs, they need to get smarter. Only the strongest will survive to earn a living. It'll be better for the American gene pool.
>>71789670
They're free traders. I mean this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)
Protectionism for native industry, bearing some similarities to mercantilism but not as militant. Henry Clay contributed many of the ideas.
It's how the USA was built. Contrary to popular myths, the US never embraced free trade until the late 20th century.It was not built by free trade. If the US had tried that it would never have got off the ground, it wouldn't have been able to compete against Britain and France on the global market.
Ban the Sun because it takes buisness from candle makers
>>71789892
Quality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
>>71786244
You need a mixture of both. Free trade obviously can have benefits especially if a certain nation is capable of producing goods you aren't and vice versa, but blindly playing nice with everyone hurts you in the long run. China has a shit ton of tariffs on goods and nobody can easily get products in their markets. However, they flood the US with their products. It's completely unfair to American workers that don't want to work for 5 cents an hour in order to compete with Chinese wage slaves that have a radically different culture and cost of living. We should protect the interests of our own workers before worrying about others.
>>71788919
lmao
it sure will be better for the gene pool when corporations hire the cheapest, most degraded foreign labor possible willing to work for peanuts under horrible conditions.
>>71789606
>>71789730
I hope this is satire. Because otherwise you're expressing a complete lack in valuing yourself, your family, your community over complete strangers that want to kill you.
You might as well import a shitload of violent Muslim refugees, after all they have a right to live in your country, they have a right to impose their religion and laws on you.
>>71788126
Economists would push for slavery if human rights didn't exist, fuck them
>>71790101
Actually, it will, because only the fittest will adapt to survive under said conditions. Just don't get sick, use less living space, and so on.
>>71790147
>he can't out-compete strangers
It's simple, Americans who can't out-compete foreign workers should just starve.
>>71789853
>by hoarding shitloads of oil deposits and then dumping it in the market JUST after a bunch of fracking infrastructure was finished, driving the people who invested in said infrastructure out of business as fracking oil costs more to produce than what they can sell it for so they are forced them to sell their infrastructure off for peanuts to the cunts who crashed the price of oil, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT SAUDI ARABIA DID.
And? Lower prices for consumers is a good thing. Why should we subsidize people who cannot compete? The prices would be higher for consumers if we protected those domestic businesses.
>you are one of those fucking retarded ideologues i was talking about up here.
Not really. If you try profiteering and increase the prices you will not sell as much and make less money. You're right about one thing though, if Saudi Arabia raised their prices to get back at the US or whatever the costs would be felt by american consumers greatly. Protectionism won't actually change that either. Employment and prices would still be higher than normal. That's why it's best to be non-interventionist and maintain trade relations.
>>71789667
higher prices=higher wages
>>71790101
>>71790147
Pretty sure he's trolling but a good number of "libertarians" think like this. They care about nothing but profit and the GDP. No consideration for who it harms, the cultural and social consequences, the environmental devastation it could cause. They all want open borders to destroy the nation-state. Nationalism is not compatible with free trade nonsense.
>>71790250
>thinking Saudi Arabia matters
If they try to flood our market with cheap oil, we could just slap a tariff and increase domestic production. They should have done that before, but free traders got in the way.
>>71790330
How? If you have to spend more on goods how are you making more money?
>>71790332
>Nationalism
Promoting the wellbeing of the nation is not necessarily good. For instance, promoting the interests of Americans as a whole would benefit blacks, who have a dysgenic effect on the population.
America should be importing only the brightest immigrants from around the world to create as much competition as possible to spur rapid technological development.
>>71790250
>Employment and prices would still be higher than normal
I meant unemployment. My bad.
>>71790426
When you buy American goods produced by American wages you have a percentage that goes to the business owner and a percentage that goes to American wages. The American wages are used to buy more goods, letting the economy continue.
When you import shit without meaningful tariffs from China those wages go to china and the US economy loses money forever because China doesn't buy shit from America.
>>71789853
>by hoarding shitloads of oil deposits and then dumping it in the market
This is literally called dumping
>>71790250
>And? Lower prices for consumers is a good thing. Why should we subsidize people who cannot compete? The prices would be higher for consumers if we protected those domestic businesses.
Yes, it will lower the price. But...it is done with the specific purpose of eliminating competition through unsustainable and artificial lowering of prices. It's part of crony-capitalism and is prohibited in most trade agreements.
>That's why it's best to be non-interventionist and maintain trade relations.
Dumping is literally the antithesis to non-interventionism.
THEY'RE KILLING US ON TRADE
>>71790503
Your post is entirely without substance. Innovation is unrelated to trade policy.
By exporting industry you are losing practical experience that would drive production related innovation. You can't innovate an industry that you no longer have.
>>71790239
>Yes, give up your dignity, give up your rights, give up on happiness, and work like a slave little goy, and fill my pockets with shekels! Or starve to death.
>>71790773
If you don't like it, rise to the top and become the exploiter.
>>71786244
Unabashed mercantilism maintained through a liberal application of .303 British.
>>71790634
>it is done with the specific purpose of eliminating competition through unsustainable and artificial lowering of prices. It's part of crony-capitalism and is prohibited in most trade agreements.
You do know that "dumping" just means selling goods at lower prices right? That is competition. How is competition apart of crony-capitalism? Crony-capitalism is government with ties to businesses and vice versa who try and help one-another.
>Dumping is literally the antithesis to non-interventionism.
I'm talking about in foreign affairs/conflicts. Trade is not interventionism.
>>71790605
>because China doesn't buy shit from America.
This is an example of where the system has failed because one (powerful) country has gamed the system. China would be completely fucked if it actually had to pay for the technology it steals.
It's kind of like arguing we shouldn't have businesses shouldn't be trading with each other because one company steals the others patents. The solution is better enforcement not scrapping the system.
>>71786244
>Free Trade
>Protectionism
Neither, we would just like FAIR trade.
MAGA
>>71790605
>When you buy American goods produced by American wages you have a percentage that goes to the business owner and a percentage that goes to American wages
What guarantees that the wages of the people who get the money I spent on goods/services will go up? In a free market, it is competition, but protectionism gets rid of competition.
>>71790930
>You do know that "dumping" just means selling goods at lower prices right? That is competition.
This is why no-one respects the American education system.
Dumping is a technical term regarding the sale of products in an export market for below their cost in the producer's market. So it's a false price only made possible by manipulation of the market.
>>71790930
>Trade is not interventionism.
Didn't do much reading about Pearl Harbour did you?
>>71790426
wages spent go to American workers who use it to buy more goods in America
>>71790999
Protectionism forces the hiring of local workers who because they are a limited supply of skilled or semi-skilled labor are able to negotiate wages that provide a certain standard of living.
The living expenses of working class individuals is the majority of their wages. They must spend their wages to live. Almost all of their wages is spent at the local economy. Competition is not between businesses but between the company and its labor.
But when you have globalism labor is now in great supply, and when supply exceeds demand wage prices will fall. Labor loses all of its collective bargaining power, unions disappear and suddenly the 1980s to the present look a lot different.
Unions didn't get greedy, globalism made labor worthless and made collective bargaining impossible.
>>71790101
holy shit faggot.
kys
>>71791358
>Unions didn't get greedy, globalism made labor worthless and made collective bargaining impossible.
Here in Australia we have construction workers earning more than lawyers and working 35 hour weeks. Anyone who attempts to hire labour without paying them "education fees" sees his house burned down, the Labor Party then uses government to punish businesses that attempt to use non-union lawyers. Here in Victoria we had a government pay $1.1billion not to build a road because the union was locked out of the contract.
Unions are the reason the labour market is screwed in any country, not ebil global corporations.
>>71791097
You are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance. Did you just read what you posted?
>the sale of products in an export market for below their cost in the producer's market
That is goods at lower prices. You would be buying goods at lower prices. It isn't "false pricing." Use all the boogeyman words you want.
>>71787543
>true story of what happened to me.
>be me working as a programmer a few years ago
>be at company who starts outsourcing programming jobs to Ireland
>talk to Irish programmers who tell me their government funded their training via US economic development aid
>find out the Irish government is paying for 1/2 their wages to entice US companies to go there.
>be me forced to train them in my job.
>MFW my tax dollars went to sending foreigners to school and funded their wages to take my job.
Fuck you and your false “free trade”.
>>71791134
>Impose multiple trade restrictions on japan right before pearl harbor
>argue that pearl harbor means that free trade is bad
Are you shitposting now Australia-bro?
>>71791601
Faggot, there's whole trade agreements on this. It's not some bogeyman term.
>wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_info_e.htm
>>71791696
Why didn't you just get a job that couldn't be outsourced? Why dosen't the Irishman have a right to your job? What right do you have to cut into your employers' profit? Employment is a privilege in this era. People need to prove that they're fit to earn a living.
People who don't want to have their jobs outsourced need to accept lower wages.
>>71791696
H1B visas are a government subsidy on big business and exists because of big government colluding with big business.
>>71791775
>argue that pearl harbor means that free trade is bad
Nice attempt to shift the goalposts.
I countered your claim that trade is not interventionist in its nature by providing the most well known trade as an arm of military strategy example.
Free trade is more efficient, but it comes at a cost.
>>71791796
>ctrl f for "false pricing"
>0 results
Boogeyman term.
>>71791863
>Why didn't you just get a job that couldn't be outsourced?
They could only afford to outsource it to a country who received free foreign aid from the US government using US citizens tax dollars.
How fucking dumb are you?
>>71786244
>bad trade hollows out the middle class
>US runs up 20T in debt to pay the poor
>>71786627
Protectionism being "better" in the aggregate is an economic impossibility in every single circumstance.
>>71791863
>Why didn't you just get a job that couldn't be outsourced?
the economy wont survive on just bartenders and waiters shitposter
>>71792197
people think that, but look at detroit
but they would have been better off paying more for goods and not turning into a ghetto
the savings didnt save them
>>71792279
People who are smart enough to produce value will still be able to afford commodities produced overseas by cheap labor, or by robots. The unnecessary people will die, or at least be unable to afford to reproduce. These people don't really matter anyway, and are soon to outlive their usefulness.
>>71792005
>ctrl f
It's good to see your research method is sound. Maybe read the text and summarise once in a while.
>>71792433
You're going to love TPP's trade in services.
>thinking economics is isolated from culture/belief systems/cognitive bias
>idealizing economic participants and assuming incentives are shared or even similar between all individuals
>>71786750
>>71789416
>>71789238
totally flawed arguments
>if the Japanese flood us with steel they only get back green pieces of paper and they will use it to spend more here!
Any moron can see by the 500 billion dollar trade deficit this isnt happening
they are using those green pieces of paper to buy gold and hard assets so they can establish their economy as the dominate world economy and subvert the american dollar
Meanwhile our jobs will be decimated and our infrastructure will be nonexistent, once the chinese push for war i doubt they'll be selling us steel for tanks as they march across our shorelines
>>71792279
Learn how to program AIs or build high-tech robots then. If you're too dumb or too poor to learn the skills required in this new economy, then you can't adapt. That's no one's fault but your own. It's called structural unemployment, get used to it. The future will only need smart people, the average and below are redundant. And to keep you from getting uppity we're going to be nice and give you a minimum basic income while you spend all your time in the virtual realities we made for you. We're not going to go back to a less efficient type of economy because it hurts your feelings, we're going to stay ahead of all the other countries. THAT'S why free trade makes us stronger. It weeds out larger and larger sections of the weak the more advanced we become. Natural selection doesn't where you want it to, and if it did other countries would do what we're doing and move past us.
>>71793207
*stop where you want it to
>>71793207
Good summary, but I'm opposed to even UBI, it will promote the reproduction of the useless.
>>71793125
and who do you think they buy that gold and hard assets from?
the argument still holds
>>71791696
You should just become more hirable :^)
It's funny how /pol/ has collectively reversed its stance on free trade vs. protectionism since the rise of Trump. If you had asked this question in the Ron Paul days, any protectionists would have been quickly dismissed as OWS fags/redditors and run off the board ASAP.
>>71793681
Now, even whites are becoming economically useless. Free trade can't benefit them in any way.
>>71793207
free trade sells out our own poorfags for theirs.
we took a stand against slavery during the civil war so why are we enabling theirs?
fuck off kike.
>>71793681
We all grow up from blind libertarianism.
>>71793798
>we took a stand against slavery during the civil war
Mistake.
>so why are we enabling theirs?
Because it's their rightful place. What else are they going to do? Why should the elite sacrifice their profits for useless Americans, to earn more money?
>>71793427
The displacement of such a large section of society into economic self-insufficiency would lead to revolution without some something to grease the wheels and ease the transition. What would've happened during the early years of the German Empire had Bismarck not enacted the first modern welfare net? A massive workers' uprising. Don't get too caught up in ideological autism, other people exist too and they're capable of mounting unified resistance. Still, these protectionists are like the Luddites during the Industrial Revolution. Morons.
>>71793998
Just eliminate them if they act up, or ban them from reproducing.
>>71793948
>Mistake.
nice you outed yourself, try again some other thread.
>Because it's their rightful place. What else are they going to do? Why should the elite sacrifice their profits for useless Americans, to earn more money?
again civil war and such. they served us faithfully when we needed them back when machines weren't around and now we will repay the favor. obviously were not going to let them reproduce without end but we're going to take care of them now.
i know this is hard for you to comprehend schlomo but please try.
>>71793207
There are very few jobs that can't be outsourced, as >>71792279 pointed out.
I think that more importantly, what's not being taken into account are the number of jobs in the US that are being taken by foreign nationals who were trained in US institutions and then immediately transferred over to H1-B's. Even niche job sectors with higher skill levels are subject to this.
>Well, Americans clearly don't deserve those jobs, then! Their unemployment necessitates that the foreigners are clearly more skilled, therefore have earned the positions.
Having gone through the hell-hole that is grad school and seen the influx of cheap, slave-labor trained at US institutions scrambling for H1-B's, this couldn't be further from the truth. Big companies use loopholes to avoid hiring locally, depressing US citizens in favor of even more expendable workers that will work for lower wages with pleasure because it (i) beats being deported and working at home for less under worse conditions, and (ii) they have no voice nor desire to resist due to (i). Their ability to perform the task is no better than an Americans, and most I've run into are laughably unimaginative and lack creative and problem solving skills necessary for research.
>Go into a better industry.
This is true across most high-tech industry/corporations, at least from my observations. From materials science, the semiconductor industry (mine), to chemistry or computer science: over time, US citizens are getting the raw deal more and more.
Part I/???
>>71794175
What'd be so wrong with return to slavery?
>>71794295
we ban slavery again like the first time.
we cant really enable slavery right now as everyone would just try to enslave everyone else instead of working together.
getting rid of slavery was the next step after getting rid of the monarchy and getting rid of that was to allow all of humanitys potential to be reached immediately rather than eventually with the monarchy.
>>71793821
If by "growing up," you mean trying to exchange a system where the market picks winners and losers to one where the government picks winners and losers, then sure. My question is why you think that the government is somehow a more judicious and impartial arbiter than the market is.
Do you think that the government has your best interests at heart?
More importantly, do you think it is possible for the government to centrally plan the production and exchange of goods and services in a way that is superior to the free market?
>>71794517
because the world is made up of bad guys and good guys and only good guys become politicians and legislate on our behalf
>>71794517
The free market will never exist. It's just some fairytale worshipped by libertarians; you have to work with what you've got in reality and make the government work for you.
>muh government picking winners and losers
No, I'm just saying the government should provide incentives local jobs and local markets something America did for most of its history.
>>71791601
>Dumping is good
Kill yourself
You clearly know absolutely nothing about how markets work
>>71794517
>If by "growing up," you mean trying to exchange a system where the market picks winners and losers to one where the government picks winners and losers, then sure
The winners have bought the government, so by extension, the government is just the strengthening of the Free Market's hand
>>71794079
What world are you living in where this would be considered politically acceptable? Again, ideological autism. Just because Pinochet did it doesn't mean it would work everywhere, the only reason he ruled so long was because the change in living conditions wasn't drastic enough that it caused enough people to lose their livelihoods to feel like mounting a rebellion. People still had jobs. With this county it's a totally different set of circumstances in a completely different environment. We're talking about rendering hundreds of millions of people economically useless. They can't move from office work to cutting-edge technology like they moved from farming to menial factory labor.
>>71793586
II/???
> :^)
The sad reality is that even in higher education competent Americans are slowly getting displaced for political (diversity/progressiveness) or economic (i.e, higher tuition costs) reasons.
Take a look at the landscape of higher education, especially in STEM-related fields, today. US public institutions (and I'd wager even the private institutions to some degree) are taking in massive influxes of foreign students into their undergraduate and graduate programs. Why is this a problem? I'll give you one good reason: it's not because they're necessarily 'better' than domestic applications. ((((It's because they will pay more.)))) Or, as I mentioned in >>71794251, professors understand keenly that foreign students will be less likely to protest and instead, plug along producing mediocre output while tax payers foot the bill.
If you somehow believe that a 'better educated' workforce will fix this issue alone, you've failed to understand the changing operational nature of higher education and the impacts that globalization has had on the Ivory Tower. I completely agree with the need for Americans to be better educated in order to be more marketable in today's economic landscape, but to say that is the final solution is to disregard an enormous factor in how education has changed over the last half a century.
>>71794295
Actual slavery is an economically inefficient system compared to hiring free workers forbidden from unionizing and paying them low wages.
The poverty and comparative backwardness of the pre-war South compared to the pre-war North had a number of causes, but slavery/the class of hereditary oligarchs created by the slave-based plantation economy was chief among them. There is also the problem of the existence of slavery being a massive disadvantage in times of war due to it forcing you to effectively fight on two fronts the entire time + subversion in the form of wrecking/an ample supply of fifth columnists.
>>71793681
Not saying Ron Paul was a protectionist, but to be fair he did oppose Nafta.
>>71793125
>>71793434
>still believing the gold standard meme
What the fuck is this, 1860? Gold isn't the precious commodity it once was. Capital is the new gold.
There is gold everywhere. Its hardly rare at all. There's gold in every cell phone and computer on Earth. One pound of gold can be flattened down to cover pic related.
Its the why people trade stocks and not pounds of shiny rocks.
>>71794251
>Americans are getting outcompeted by foreigners
And why should anyone care about this? Humans are selfish, an "I got mine, fuck you" species. In actuality, you couldn't care less about your fellow Americans outside your immediate family and friends, but rather the idea of America is what motivates you to think and feel the way you do. How do we make America stronger? By making ourselves the world's brain drain capital. We should be offering those foreigners citizenship instead of forcing them to go abroad after their visas expire and allowing them to use the skills they acquired against us. We should strip away welfare and replace it with a minimum income that you can do whatever you want with and and let survival of the fittest take place among those who can even begin to compete, but with the benefit that the loser has access to welfare instead of dying on the street.
Who cares about your skill level? If you've got the drive, you should be rewarded instead of whining about your entitlement to a certain standard of living. Take a clue from Singapore. Now imagine a 300-million strong Singapore blessed with natural resources and farmland. That's how you keep us on top. Nations are corporations at the end of the day, might as well trim all the fat.
>>71791696
>be me
>be
>be me
Hello, reddit.
>>71795902
Access to money* instead of dying on the street
Doesn't matter tbqh. In 40 years time we'll have created a superintelligent A.I that will put 90% of humanity out of work anyway.
>>71793434
>who do you think they buy that gold and hard assets from?
Obviously not us or there wouldn't be a trade deficit.
https://analepsis.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ha-joon-chang-bad-samaritans.pdf
>>71795902
You seem to have skipped the part where I discussed the reality of the brain drain (>>71794873), i.e., it is NOT the best and brightest that are getting let in on the H1-B. Corporations use the H1-B via loopholes to import BS/entry level graduates, replacing American graduates NOT because the foreigners are necessarily more skilled, but because they will take less wages. WHY should equally competent Americans suffer for the greed of corporations? I'm against the idea of strict government regulation into the free market, but there are some practices that sound great in theory yet fail in reality. This is one of them. Only a fraction of H1-B's go to use towards foreign candidates with post-graduate level certifications and experiences. If we really want a brain drain, it should be 100%.
Perhaps narcissim has molded your thought process, and while yes, I agree that humans can be selfish, nationalism and patriotism are not off the table because of our inherent selfishness, similar to altruism. In this case, I care very much for what happens to fellow Americans, and I think it's better for the country overall to lift our own citizens up by the bootstraps rather than let our tax dollars do the same for foreign nationals.
For decades American innovation fueled economic growth, and somehow, out of the blue, Americans became walking idiots that couldn't solve complex research tasks and creatively develop solutions to modern problems? Absolutely not. The economics favored displacement of American workers, not because of talent, but because of monetary gain.
Part I/???.
>>71786244
Free trade because it gives my small country a massive advantage over you which causes my quality of life to go up.
>>71789877
Yes.
>>71788126
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)
It is the macroeconomic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.[8][9][10][11]
>>71795902
>>71796623
II/???
You also seem to be under the impression that foreigners who are trained and work here for a certain period of time will stay. That is patently false. While many do, there are those who return to their country of origin after being headhunted/recruited for local firms to do exactly as you said: use the knowledge, expertise, and skills gained here against us. How does that help Americans?
That said, I agree that welfare is deleterious to the nation as a whole and should only be reserved for those in true need (not bottom feeders). There should be no minimum income, however, because there will always be a need for humans to perform basic service sector jobs. If someone doesn't want to get a job (when they're perfectly able to), I have no problem saying let them rot as oppose to becoming welfare leaches. The problem of nepotism in higher-skill jobs remains, but I have no clue how we'd ever successfully implement a meritocracy. Humans tend to corruption very easily.
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/industries/arguments-for-protecting-the-domestic-industries/32913/
>>71797213
>Low wages do not necessarily mean low costs of production.
Well they do in China.
>>71786244
Free trade only works if everone is free
If you are the only ones doing it and all your good s would be superior to anything anyone else could make, of course its going to be bad for you
Wither everyone is protectionist or everyone is free trade Otherwse someone is getting the short end of the stick
>>71797480
Actually, if everyone is protectionist, everyone loses. See: the runup to the Great Depression.
>>71797681
The Great Depression was not caused by protectionism.
Free trade is a meme created by globalist Jews in order to undermine the sovereignty of the nation-state and institute a One-World Government desu senpai.
>>71789908
>the US never embraced free trade until the late 20th century.
The U.S. constitution was drafted, in part, to promote free trade amongst the states. Our free trade network was one of the largest in the world. The logic of free trade doesn't change if it's within a single country or if it passes over a border.
The Great Depression was caused by a rise in Private Debt to GDP
>>71796623
>Why should equally competent Americans suffer for the greed of corporations?
Because greed is relative. No one gives a damn about you. You want a high standard of living? Move somewhere else with a low cost of living. No one is stopping you. Protectionism protects you and hurts the nation like No Child Left Behind protects dumb kids and holds smart kids back. The fact that you make it a moral argument gives away the irrationality of your thoughts. That foreigners take lower wages just means they want it more than you. You could be them, but you aren't because you can't settle for less. You want less competition? Go somewhere where your skills are rare. Make a sacrifice for once.
As for altruism for others, it doesn't reach beyond your family and friends, or else you would willingly let your fellow Americans whom you don't know that you compete with for jobs have them instead of you. You harm other Americans by competing against them. Foreigners are no different save for passports and skill sets. Expanding the playing field is advantageous to us. The fact that American education is shit is because the bureaucratic behemoth that is the federal government has made it impossible to make changes in time with changes in the economy with its slowness. That's not my forte so I wouldn't know the correct fix but expanding the federal government certainly isn't it.
>>71789007
So fuck the japs and singapore? I'm in.
>>71797916
Almost every single PhD economist in the United States would disagree with you. Are you saying that you think the international proliferation of protectionist tariffs and the passage of Smoot-Hawley by liberals over the protests of over 1000 economists had nothing to do with the Depression?
>>71798730
Not him, but how could protectionism have caused the Great Depression, when protectionism was what made America the greatest economy in the history of humanity?
The National System was literally protectionism of industry and lasted until at least Ronald Raygun's presidency.
>>71791696
Who the fuck cares about your shitty coding job? A retarded Bengali can do that shit for 5 rupees. I hope you starve to death fag.
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595
>>71798730
>bad monetary policy is protectionism
Free traders everyone.
>>71795420
>why people trade stocks an not shiny rocks
>he doesn't know about gold trading
>>71788126
>Every damn economist knows that free-trade is a net gain for every country.
Its is true. But net gain of general GDP don't tell you how wealth ia distributed.
30 years of trickle down "growth" without any growth.
>>71799566
You mean 30 years of exporting all the jobs to China gives no growth to the lower classes.
It's pretty obvious that if America kept protectionism in industry, the lower and middle classes would be richer today, but the top 1% would be less richer.
Free trade only makes sense if its Pareto efficient not just Kaldor–Hicks efficient; otherwise one party benefits while the other gets screwed over.
>>71793125
>500 billion dollar trade deficit
>trade deficit is a bad thing
you are the moron.
Free trade, because I am not an economic illiterate.
>>71786750
https://youtu.be/7DhagKyvDck
>>71798434
>The fact that American [primary] education is shit is because the bureaucratic behemoth that is the federal government has made it impossible to make changes in time with changes in the economy with its slowness.
Couldn't agree more. Like I said, I believe better education is the foundation for bringing Americans up by the bootstraps. I absolutely agree regarding NCLB being a hindrance rather than helping our children become better prepared for higher education. I regularly see the effects.
Let me be clear, I'm not in favor of over-reaching government meddling in free market economics. Given how royally they've fucked up education, as you mentioned, it'd be laughable to expect them to be competent at regulating something as complex as global economics.
That said, I'm perfectly comfortable mixing my morals in on my stance with protecting citizens from the over-zealous greed of corporations (or banking cartels, etc.) when it is appropriate. That is the whole point of government, to respond to citizens' needs. Greed is subjective, but the effects of greed are not (i.e., loss of material possessions, income, jobs, standards of living, and the mental impact those bring on the people who suffer through them). The fact that corruption and greed are so intertwined just makes it more complicated from a regulation standpoint, but that doesn't mean that some level of regulation isn't warranted.
And yes, Americans do compete with fellow Americans for employment. Being altruistic and being pragmatic regarding preserving yourself and your family aren't at odds. It's a logical fallacy to extend altruism to a complete lack of selfishness such that you give up your livelihood (at the detriment to your dependents) to others (even if that's the literal definition), from a cost-benefit perspective. Rather, humans lie on a spectrum oscillating between self interest and altruism. Looking after yourself then allows you to look out for the interests of others.
>>71786244
I wonder how many people in this thread even know what the fuck their talking about.
>reads thread
Thank most people here are insignificant in the economy.
>>71800106
Not him, but explain this to me please.
I hear a lot of Americans talk negatively about their education system, but I don't really understand that sentiment, considering apart from Britain's Oxford and Cambridge, you have the top universities in the world in any field imaginable.
While those top universities probably aren't for everyone and requires prestige or money to get into, are other universities without the prestigious name attached to them such as Harvard or Yale, really that bad?
>>71786627
I'm sure the government can figure that out and won't have any special interests trying to rig the rules in their favor
>>71787208
There is less wealth in general. That means GDP. Thats the problem with protectionism.
>>71800324
Fair warning: I've had a decent amount of experience in the academy, so my perspective may be jaded or biased. Anyway...
American universities maintain a high-level of research output, which is why they're considered to be the top universities in the world. The military-industrial-university alliance that started around WWII funnels a great deal of capital into the academy in return for highly skilled, highly specialized technical labor. This allows for a large amount of fundamental and applied research to take place regardless of the funding situation with respect to the national government (i.e., NSF), and has helped fuel economic prosperity and technical development for over half a century. When people discuss universities, it's almost always in regards to progress, developments, and contributions made from the university at a level above the undergraduate floor. It's not much of a stretch to say that the undergraduate experience at all universities will be fairly similar. Of course, universities in the US with better funding (i.e., MIT) will have better resources available to undergraduates interested in pursuing advanced study, but for the bulk of undergraduates who don't care, those additional resources really don't skew the scales too much in their favor. What's more advantageous is the name and reputation of the school, naturally, and this even extends into the research environment.
That being said, primary (K-12) education is a completely different story. As >>71798434 rightly stated, (i) government meddling promotes inequality through forced equality. It handicaps students with the ability to outperform. But that's only part of the issue. The other side is that (ii) the way teaching is handled in the US is at fault. That's not to say the teachers at fault, rather, their hands are tied by school districts regarding curriculum, which is in a conflict of interest in maintaining 'apparent' educational standards due to (i).
Cont... I/???
free trade = freedom of movement of labour = turd world shitskin immigration
>>71800479
GDP is a meme.
>>71801365
II/???
Thus, as a result, US education has become a system of rote memorization in many public schools. This, of course, is the best way to completely destroy a student's foundation in any subject (beyond the superficial/cursory level). Rather than teaching students in a way which highlights both the applicability and fundamental elegance of the knowledge being imparted, students are taught to cram material in, achieve high marks, and then worry about retaining any important material later. This, in my opinion, also destroys a student's creativity at the earliest of stages.
Hence, while you may have some exceptionally bright students in your class, the system is setting them up for failure immediately out of the gate. It's really quite despicable, when you think about it.
>>71787022
>Free trade is always best.
Have fun trading in those Ahmeds for your children.
>>71792197
>he thinks the free market is more than an academic tool
>he thinks geopolitics does not exist
China thanks you for your service.
Free trade only works if all the nations involved are of equal development. Free trade in our current world only benefits developing nations and stiffs developed nations. Protectionism is the best choice for now.
>>71801442
With logged variables, it predicts IQ well, using GDP/CAPITA. Explains about 80%. Well, they just really correlate. But you dont see countries with low GDP/CAPITA have populations with high iqs.
>>71786244
Free trade every time. If you're willing to pay extra for domestic goods out of patriotic feeling, you're still able to do that and it will reflect on the market.
I don't see how you benefit from the government overwriting your decision, even when you decide it's no longer worth it for you.
>>71786750
If this argument is accurate, how can a trade deficit ever exist?
