Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

I will never buy a Carrier Air Conditioner

YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:27:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
https://www.youtube.com...

This is the reason why we should be repealing NAFTA, and Carrier (just like all the other companies that ship jobs to Mexico, and then overseas) should be subject to exceptional tariffs so that their cost of production in Mexico is higher than it is in the United States.

Every Republican or Democrat who believes that free trade is a good thing... the reality is that this is a way for the corporation to make more money, and for Americans who have union manufacturing jobs to lose their employment forever.

This is what happens when we have trade agreements like NAFTA.

Corporate executives and their whore economists who argue that the reason they're leaving is "the high cost of labor" are liars; it's not the high cost of labor, it's the fact that they can get cheaper labor somewhere else and continue to reap the benefits of putting products to market in the United States without contributing anything to the US economy.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:28:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
This kind of a decision is just one step removed from treason. It's economic treason. It's betrayal of the people who built that company; who made it successful (read: the workers).
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:59:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 3:27:25 PM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

This is the reason why we should be repealing NAFTA, and Carrier (just like all the other companies that ship jobs to Mexico, and then overseas) should be subject to exceptional tariffs so that their cost of production in Mexico is higher than it is in the United States.

Every Republican or Democrat who believes that free trade is a good thing... the reality is that this is a way for the corporation to make more money, and for Americans who have union manufacturing jobs to lose their employment forever.

This is what happens when we have trade agreements like NAFTA.

Corporate executives and their whore economists who argue that the reason they're leaving is "the high cost of labor" are liars; it's not the high cost of labor, it's the fact that they can get cheaper labor somewhere else and continue to reap the benefits of putting products to market in the United States without contributing anything to the US economy.

hear hear!
thett3
Posts: 14,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 6:20:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Obviously you don't understand the free market. Having a product hastily put together by unskilled third world slaves to benefit the top executives of the company is much more important than keeping jobs in America
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 6:23:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I hope Trump jumps all over this. Maybe I'll tweet him
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 6:27:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
lol 2:20 "Yeah, fck you" make this man president
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 7:41:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 3:27:25 PM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

This is the reason why we should be repealing NAFTA, and Carrier (just like all the other companies that ship jobs to Mexico, and then overseas) should be subject to exceptional tariffs so that their cost of production in Mexico is higher than it is in the United States.

Every Republican or Democrat who believes that free trade is a good thing... the reality is that this is a way for the corporation to make more money, and for Americans who have union manufacturing jobs to lose their employment forever.

This is what happens when we have trade agreements like NAFTA.

Corporate executives and their whore economists who argue that the reason they're leaving is "the high cost of labor" are liars; it's not the high cost of labor, it's the fact that they can get cheaper labor somewhere else and continue to reap the benefits of putting products to market in the United States without contributing anything to the US economy.

Bill Clinton's Crony NAFTA has successfully turned millions against capitalism.

And to think our government is seriously seeking another massive trade deal in the TPP.... Unbelievable
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 7:48:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 6:23:45 PM, thett3 wrote:
I hope Trump jumps all over this. Maybe I'll tweet him

You should. He should publicly blast Carrier; castigate their corporate executives, and make this a wedge issue.

I am so fvcking tired of seeing companies do this.

And the whole narrative of "maintaining quality" is total bullsh1t.
Tsar of DDO
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 7:57:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 3:27:25 PM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

This is the reason why we should be repealing NAFTA, and Carrier (just like all the other companies that ship jobs to Mexico, and then overseas) should be subject to exceptional tariffs so that their cost of production in Mexico is higher than it is in the United States.


Yeah, but guess who pays the tariff? You do, next time you buy an air conditioner. Mexico doesn't pay the tariff, and Carrier doesn't pay the tariff, the consumer pays it. Either Carrier passes on the tariff to you, or the competition raises its price because Carrier can't compete with them. Either way, the little guy pays. As always.

It make make you lefties feel good to hate business, but you're only shooting yourselves. There is no way to prevent people from making A/C in Mexico, or China, or India, or whatever. Not without starting WW III, at least.

We have to compete for jobs, which means we have to compete for businesses. Washington needs to start courting companies, instead of treating them like the enemy, because sane people try to get away from their enemies.
This space for rent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 8:49:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Outsourcing is not fundamentally different from replacing workers with machines. In both cases, companies increase their profits by forcing their employees to find new lines of work. Would you advocate that we do away with all of our automated services and bring back manual workers to replace them? If not, why not? What's the difference?
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:16:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 7:57:38 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:27:25 PM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

This is the reason why we should be repealing NAFTA, and Carrier (just like all the other companies that ship jobs to Mexico, and then overseas) should be subject to exceptional tariffs so that their cost of production in Mexico is higher than it is in the United States.


Yeah, but guess who pays the tariff? You do, next time you buy an air conditioner. Mexico doesn't pay the tariff, and Carrier doesn't pay the tariff, the consumer pays it. Either Carrier passes on the tariff to you, or the competition raises its price because Carrier can't compete with them. Either way, the little guy pays. As always.

Wrong. People who bought Carrier air conditioners might, but the point of a tariff is to make their foreign produced products uncompetitive. Thus, consumers will chose to buy other air conditioners.

The only world in which your argument holds is if Carrier is the only producer of air conditioners. As we all know, Carrier is but one of many producers of air conditioners. Thus, your argument does not hold.

It make make you lefties feel good to hate business, but you're only shooting yourselves. There is no way to prevent people from making A/C in Mexico, or China, or India, or whatever. Not without starting WW III, at least.

This is a very stupid argument, both for the reason I said, and for the additional reason that it is plainly wrong. There are plenty of ways to ensure that producers of air conditioners remain in the United States. One such way, as I indicated in my OP, would be to impose a tariff on all air conditioners produced in Mexico which are sold in the United States.

If you knew, essentially, anything about economics, foreign trade, or commerce in any general sense, you would know that; and, in particular, you would have rebutted the wisdom of my anti-free trade argument rather than making the demonstrably false claim that there was no way to prevent outsourcing.

We have to compete for jobs, which means we have to compete for businesses. Washington needs to start courting companies, instead of treating them like the enemy, because sane people try to get away from their enemies.

Yet again, your manifest incompetence with regard to foreign trade emerges. No one is saying that Washington is treating "companies like enemies." That's the most inane thing I've heard in a while. Washington bows to corporations; thus, the world is quite literally the diametric opposite of what you have described.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:25:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 7:54:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the full set of consequences you would expect to observe if we were to pass such a tariff? And, further, would you support a full regime of tariffs as a general policy of discouraging outsourcing?

If the United States imposed tariffs on companies that sold manufactured goods in the United States, which were not manufactured in the United States; all companies who desired to sell manufactured goods would be compelled to have at least some of their manufacturing in the United States to avoid the tariff. The issue before us is how high the tariff need be.

The tobacco industry imposes a 100% tax on all tobacco imports, which makes cigarettes like Davidoff or other, similar brands uneconomical. This protects the American tobacco industry's domestic sales. It is entirely conceivable that, for example, some products therefore would not enter US markets; so that would mean less economic variety for US consumers. But at the same time, it would also mean more manufacturing jobs in the United States. The trade off, I think, is worth it.

I would support many, many efforts to prevent outsourcing; one of those measures would be shifting corporate shareholder ownership to employees, so that collectively they held at least a controlling share in the corporation. This would enable unions to prevent outsourcing, by giving workers more control, and reducing the control currently held by executives and blue chip shareholders. But this is one of among many measures; it's probably the lightest I'd be willing to go.

I'd certainly be willing to leverage severe tax penalties on corporations that cut American jobs to go to other countries, as well.

The challenge would be: how high can the penalty be so that the corporation still desires to place its products in US markets. That's how high I'd make the penalties in all forms; just below the threshold where the costs did not justify the benefits.
Tsar of DDO
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 9:46:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:16:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/12/2016 7:57:38 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:27:25 PM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

This is the reason why we should be repealing NAFTA, and Carrier (just like all the other companies that ship jobs to Mexico, and then overseas) should be subject to exceptional tariffs so that their cost of production in Mexico is higher than it is in the United States.


Yeah, but guess who pays the tariff? You do, next time you buy an air conditioner. Mexico doesn't pay the tariff, and Carrier doesn't pay the tariff, the consumer pays it. Either Carrier passes on the tariff to you, or the competition raises its price because Carrier can't compete with them. Either way, the little guy pays. As always.

Wrong. People who bought Carrier air conditioners might, but the point of a tariff is to make their foreign produced products uncompetitive. Thus, consumers will chose to buy other air conditioners.

The only world in which your argument holds is if Carrier is the only producer of air conditioners. As we all know, Carrier is but one of many producers of air conditioners. Thus, your argument does not hold.


So what do these words mean to you - "or the competition raises its price because Carrier can't compete with them." - ? Guess I should just text myself instead of pretending to debate.

btw, trade restrictions are considered a major source of the great depression. So politicians are quite right to avoid playing that game. I do wonder what Trump would say to that point, but of course our grammar school level press will never ask him.

...One such way, as I indicated in my OP, would be to impose a tariff on all air conditioners produced in Mexico which are sold in the United States.


"Why do the British love warm beer?" "Because they have Lucas refrigerators!"

So no, we don't need to do this kind of stuff to ourselves, force ourselves to buy crap. And yes, crap is what you get when you sabotage competition.

If you knew, essentially, anything about economics, foreign trade, or commerce in any general sense,

lol.


Yet again, your manifest incompetence with regard to foreign trade emerges. No one is saying that Washington is treating "companies like enemies."

I am. But I'm only saying it because I've heard American businessmen say it. Lots of them.

Washington bows to corporations;

Well, they do bow to the mega-corps, that is often true. The mega-corps don't necessarily mind stifling regulation because they can deal with it better than smaller business, so it is a sort of competitive advantage.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:44:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 7:57:38 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:27:25 PM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

This is the reason why we should be repealing NAFTA, and Carrier (just like all the other companies that ship jobs to Mexico, and then overseas) should be subject to exceptional tariffs so that their cost of production in Mexico is higher than it is in the United States.


Yeah, but guess who pays the tariff? You do, next time you buy an air conditioner. Mexico doesn't pay the tariff, and Carrier doesn't pay the tariff, the consumer pays it. Either Carrier passes on the tariff to you, or the competition raises its price because Carrier can't compete with them. Either way, the little guy pays. As always.

It make make you lefties feel good to hate business, but you're only shooting yourselves. There is no way to prevent people from making A/C in Mexico, or China, or India, or whatever. Not without starting WW III, at least.

We have to compete for jobs, which means we have to compete for businesses. Washington needs to start courting companies, instead of treating them like the enemy, because sane people try to get away from their enemies.

Amen, you got this right brother. We need to be focused on growing technical talent in the US not trying to keep low wage / low skill jobs here. That is a loosing battle especially when it gets fully automated. Get more people trained to do more technical jobs. Higher wages plus lower priced goods = win.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 11:16:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:25:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/12/2016 7:54:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the full set of consequences you would expect to observe if we were to pass such a tariff? And, further, would you support a full regime of tariffs as a general policy of discouraging outsourcing?

If the United States imposed tariffs on companies that sold manufactured goods in the United States, which were not manufactured in the United States; all companies who desired to sell manufactured goods would be compelled to have at least some of their manufacturing in the United States to avoid the tariff. The issue before us is how high the tariff need be.

The tobacco industry imposes a 100% tax on all tobacco imports, which makes cigarettes like Davidoff or other, similar brands uneconomical. This protects the American tobacco industry's domestic sales. It is entirely conceivable that, for example, some products therefore would not enter US markets; so that would mean less economic variety for US consumers. But at the same time, it would also mean more manufacturing jobs in the United States. The trade off, I think, is worth it.

Do you imagine those are the only two elements being exchanged? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an upward trend in prices, for two reasons I'm sure you've already considered:

1. Pricing out imported merchandise/denying consumers ready access means that manufacturers don't have to hedge their bets on pricing since their consumer base is essentially captive.

2. If the price floor on labor is enforced by tariffs, it seems likely that companies would sooner raise prices to accommodate their status quo financial projections. It's much easier for people to instinctively fight than to (in this case) accept lower margins. This might not be as much a problem for luxury goods, like televisions, but there are plenty of other appliances for which I can't imagine demand is all that elastic (given that we're thinking of a demographic composed of people already intent on purchasing appliances XYZ). You might be inclined to say that union workers, commanding higher wages, wouldn't have a problem balancing the whole business out, or that, in the process of transferring share ownership to employees, the increase in mean purchasing power would have the same balancing effect, but I'm wondering about how it might be handled by low-level service industry employees, who arguably have a tough enough time of affording a lot of basics as it is without having to worry on having to pay a tariff-induced premium on many goods (and presumably the services required to maintain them, or the technical support to troubleshoot them).

I don't imagine you'll have too much trouble devising a clever package of policies designed to target each problem in turn, but it doesn't seem very prudent to put your chips on a plan that requires so many moving parts at the same time. If the tariff on manufacturing industries went in by itself (if it's feasible to levy a blanket tariff in the first place), I would expect it to be something of a crisis for certain vulnerable subsets of the population. And, to those people, where the "in the mean time between the enactment of policies A and B" is a little too long to wait, I'm worried that ameliorating what may be viewed by some as "economic treason" is not a satisfying answer.

I would support many, many efforts to prevent outsourcing; one of those measures would be shifting corporate shareholder ownership to employees, so that collectively they held at least a controlling share in the corporation. This would enable unions to prevent outsourcing, by giving workers more control, and reducing the control currently held by executives and blue chip shareholders. But this is one of among many measures; it's probably the lightest I'd be willing to go.

I'd certainly be willing to leverage severe tax penalties on corporations that cut American jobs to go to other countries, as well.

The challenge would be: how high can the penalty be so that the corporation still desires to place its products in US markets. That's how high I'd make the penalties in all forms; just below the threshold where the costs did not justify the benefits.

How would you find that out? It seems like you'd end up having to backchannel with business leaders, which, as a general policy, particularly insofar as neither of us will exercise unilateral control over the proceedings, seems to keep open some doors which, on your account, should probably remain closed.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 11:21:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Also, do you believe there is any worry that effectively prohibiting the large-scale import of foreign-made goods will have a comparable impact to more intense forms of prohibition on black market activity? If so, how severe do you imagine that risk might be, and to what extent does that, along with the aforementioned questions, factor into your final cost-benefit analysis?
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 11:29:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 11:16:43 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:25:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/12/2016 7:54:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the full set of consequences you would expect to observe if we were to pass such a tariff? And, further, would you support a full regime of tariffs as a general policy of discouraging outsourcing?

If the United States imposed tariffs on companies that sold manufactured goods in the United States, which were not manufactured in the United States; all companies who desired to sell manufactured goods would be compelled to have at least some of their manufacturing in the United States to avoid the tariff. The issue before us is how high the tariff need be.

The tobacco industry imposes a 100% tax on all tobacco imports, which makes cigarettes like Davidoff or other, similar brands uneconomical. This protects the American tobacco industry's domestic sales. It is entirely conceivable that, for example, some products therefore would not enter US markets; so that would mean less economic variety for US consumers. But at the same time, it would also mean more manufacturing jobs in the United States. The trade off, I think, is worth it.

Do you imagine those are the only two elements being exchanged? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an upward trend in prices, for two reasons I'm sure you've already considered:

1. Pricing out imported merchandise/denying consumers ready access means that manufacturers don't have to hedge their bets on pricing since their consumer base is essentially captive.

2. If the price floor on labor is enforced by tariffs, it seems likely that companies would sooner raise prices to accommodate their status quo financial projections. It's much easier for people to instinctively fight than to (in this case) accept lower margins. This might not be as much a problem for luxury goods, like televisions, but there are plenty of other appliances for which I can't imagine demand is all that elastic (given that we're thinking of a demographic composed of people already intent on purchasing appliances XYZ). You might be inclined to say that union workers, commanding higher wages, wouldn't have a problem balancing the whole business out, or that, in the process of transferring share ownership to employees, the increase in mean purchasing power would have the same balancing effect, but I'm wondering about how it might be handled by low-level service industry employees, who arguably have a tough enough time of affording a lot of basics as it is without having to worry on having to pay a tariff-induced premium on many goods (and presumably the services required to maintain them, or the technical support to troubleshoot them).

I don't imagine you'll have too much trouble devising a clever package of policies designed to target each problem in turn, but it doesn't seem very prudent to put your chips on a plan that requires so many moving parts at the same time. If the tariff on manufacturing industries went in by itself (if it's feasible to levy a blanket tariff in the first place), I would expect it to be something of a crisis for certain vulnerable subsets of the population. And, to those people, where the "in the mean time between the enactment of policies A and B" is a little too long to wait, I'm worried that ameliorating what may be viewed by some as "economic treason" is not a satisfying answer.

I would support many, many efforts to prevent outsourcing; one of those measures would be shifting corporate shareholder ownership to employees, so that collectively they held at least a controlling share in the corporation. This would enable unions to prevent outsourcing, by giving workers more control, and reducing the control currently held by executives and blue chip shareholders. But this is one of among many measures; it's probably the lightest I'd be willing to go.

I'd certainly be willing to leverage severe tax penalties on corporations that cut American jobs to go to other countries, as well.

The challenge would be: how high can the penalty be so that the corporation still desires to place its products in US markets. That's how high I'd make the penalties in all forms; just below the threshold where the costs did not justify the benefits.

How would you find that out? It seems like you'd end up having to backchannel with business leaders, which, as a general policy, particularly insofar as neither of us will exercise unilateral control over the proceedings, seems to keep open some doors which, on your account, should probably remain closed.

All is analysis is also takin place in a fantasy world where an incredibly complicated tariff regime isn't being designed and implemented by actors subject to the forces of special interests. This sort of regime would have to be dynamically managed for each economic sector being targeted.

We also aren't addressing how this regime impacts non economic relations with other actors, or how other economies would react to this regime.

Mercantilism died in the 19th century for a reason...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 11:44:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 11:29:59 PM, Raisor wrote:

All his analysis is also taking place in a fantasy world where an incredibly complicated tariff regime isn't being designed and implemented by actors subject to the forces of special interests. This sort of regime would have to be dynamically managed for each economic sector being targeted.

We also aren't addressing how this regime impacts non economic relations with other actors, or how other economies would react to this regime.

Mercantilism died in the 19th century for a reason...

I take your point--I just don't like to start off by asserting my conclusion so brazenly. My experience is that it can poison the well before a conversation's ever started, even if (and in some cases, precisely because) the parties involved are intelligent and well-meaning.
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 12:17:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 11:44:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/12/2016 11:29:59 PM, Raisor wrote:

All his analysis is also taking place in a fantasy world where an incredibly complicated tariff regime isn't being designed and implemented by actors subject to the forces of special interests. This sort of regime would have to be dynamically managed for each economic sector being targeted.

We also aren't addressing how this regime impacts non economic relations with other actors, or how other economies would react to this regime.

Mercantilism died in the 19th century for a reason...

I take your point--I just don't like to start off by asserting my conclusion so brazenly. My experience is that it can poison the well before a conversation's ever started, even if (and in some cases, precisely because) the parties involved are intelligent and well-meaning.

Haha fair point, i actually meant to say "this" not "his"- autocorrect may have made my post seem more directed than it was meant to be.
mc9
Posts: 1,048
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 12:47:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 6:20:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
Obviously you don't understand the free market. Having a product hastily put together by unskilled third world slaves to benefit the top executives of the company is much more important than keeping jobs in America

pretty much how it goes
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 1:23:33 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 11:16:43 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Do you imagine those are the only two elements being exchanged?

No. Economics are complicated and anticipating every impact at every margin would be difficult; but the most significant impacts are foreseeable, and I outlined them.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an upward trend in prices,

It would depend on the product, and the market. Some prices may go up, but it would be unreasonable to think that all prices would go up for all manufactured goods.

for two reasons I'm sure you've already considered:

1. Pricing out imported merchandise/denying consumers ready access means that manufacturers don't have to hedge their bets on pricing since their consumer base is essentially captive.

Some merchandise would be priced out of the market; namely cheap Chinese and south Asian textiles. It may be that clothes would be more expensive in some cases, for example... in a relative sense, at least. So, instead of having fast fashion trash like H&M and Walmart, people might go back to buying Levis jeans more (even if they cost less). The *real* impact may be that people buy fewer clothes, but they would still have enough to wear.

That's essentially the kind of impact I expect across the board. But in reality, I'd still imagine that even if Levis came back to the United States, their fabric would still be made in Mexico or China; it's only that assembling would take place in the United States.

I don't expect that all pairs of jeans (like the kind I typically wear, 7 for All Mankind, which are made in America) are going to cost north of $200.00 (as almost all of my jeans do); but I at the same time don't expect to see American made jeans retailing for less than $45.00 to $50.00 either.

That's going to hurt sort of lower end discount clothing stores, and all of the teenage brand stores (i.e. American Eagle, Gap, etc.); potentially even making them unmarketable because, I expect at least, they would chose to leave the US market rather than remain in it.

Europe has a VAT that works pretty well on non-European manufactured products; Germany, in particular, has something like that. But, I'm more interested in taxing them before they get to the consumer, rather than at the register.

2. If the price floor on labor is enforced by tariffs, it seems likely that companies would sooner raise prices to accommodate their status quo financial projections.

Some would, yes. I imagine others might return production to the United States, and keep it there by force (due in large part to tariffs).

It's much easier for people to instinctively fight than to (in this case) accept lower margins. This might not be as much a problem for luxury goods, like televisions, but there are plenty of other appliances for which I can't imagine demand is all that elastic (given that we're thinking of a demographic composed of people already intent on purchasing appliances XYZ).

I think what would realistically happen is a shift in the kinds of goods that enter US markets to begin with. A refrigerator, for example, costs a lot less per unit than it did in 1970 (accounting for the relative value of the dollar in 2016, against a 1970 dollar); but refrigerators lasted longer in 1970 than they do now. Cars are the same way.

The reason is because planned obsolescence was only barely catching on; many companies resisted it, because it seemed devious and dishonest (because it was... although at that time most American companies, i.e. GE, hasn't quite lost their understanding that they were, at the core of their identity, public trusts rather than nameless, faceless entities whose sole duty was a fiduciary one to enrich their shareholders). So, companies produced fewer products, and the products they produced were more expensive, but they were more durable (they lasted longer), and consumers were able to adapt to that.

I think placing a tariff on imported goods like I'm describing, could facilitate a market shift from overproduction to sufficient production to meet market demands for quality goods. That's basically the whole problem with US consumer markets now... people buy too much sh!t, and the sh!t they buy is nothing but sh!t.

... low-level service industry employees, who arguably have a tough enough time of affording a lot of basics as it is without having to worry on having to pay a tariff-induced premium on many goods (and presumably the services required to maintain them, or the technical support to troubleshoot them).

You're ignoring the entire reason why service industry jobs dominate low-skilled labor; that's the whole point of why I'm interested in increasing tariffs on imported manufactured goods. I want to get people *out* of the service industry and *into* manufacturing. That should increase aggregate demand for labor as well, which would force even service industry workers to be paid higher wages because companies would be competing for their labor against manufacturers.

The entire reason that we have so many horrible service industry jobs now is because of the disastrous trade agreements that Bill Clinton signed into law in the 1990s. The idea with the tariffs is to undo the damage that his trade policies did to US labor.

I don't imagine you'll have too much trouble devising a clever package of policies designed to target each problem in turn, but it doesn't seem very prudent to put your chips on a plan that requires so many moving parts at the same time.

What I'm talking about would make the US economy look more like it looked in 1960 than 2016; and that would be a radical shift backwards, hopefully, to a pre-globalization economy. And that said, while I understand your concern for accounting for all the marginal impacts of all the policies I'd be changing here; the reality of the theory is pretty simple: create an incentive for companies to return production (and manufacturing jobs) to the United States. That would increase demand for labor, and drive wages up across the board.

The challenge would be: how high can the penalty be so that the corporation still desires to place its products in US markets. That's how high I'd make the penalties in all forms; just below the threshold where the costs did not justify the benefits.

How would you find that out? It seems like you'd end up having to backchannel with business leaders, which, as a general policy, particularly insofar as neither of us will exercise unilateral control over the proceedings, seems to keep open some doors which, on your account, should probably remain closed.

This is where when I talk about my background in economics, it gets... problematic. But the basic gist of it is this: you can pretty well figure out how much money it costs to produce something, and how much money a company is making on a product, by accounting for the number of aggregate units sold as measured against revenue and operating costs. It's more complex than that, but, generally, pretty much any MBA (or economics major, given reasonable access to market information, and some other stuff like SEC filings, and the like) with even a basic understanding of statistics could model a range of tariffs and the relative probability of what impact any tariff at a given rate would have on a company's decisions with respect to the sale of its products.

Basically, you figure out how much a tariff should be with the same math that companies use to figure out how much to sell a product for.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 1:25:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 11:21:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Also, do you believe there is any worry that effectively prohibiting the large-scale import of foreign-made goods will have a comparable impact to more intense forms of prohibition on black market activity?

There will always be black market activity; even now, there is black market activity for all kinds of things. I'm not really worried about black market activity.

If so, how severe do you imagine that risk might be, and to what extent does that, along with the aforementioned questions, factor into your final cost-benefit analysis?

It's just not something I really care about.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 1:31:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 11:29:59 PM, Raisor wrote:
All is analysis is also takin place in a fantasy world where an incredibly complicated tariff regime isn't being designed and implemented by actors subject to the forces of special interests. This sort of regime would have to be dynamically managed for each economic sector being targeted.

Well, because of "special interests" like giant multinational corporations, the world I'm talking about will *never* see the light of day; once NAFTA was passed, there was no going back.

But really, people talk about economic management with a really acute sense of irrationality; the US is pretty much an indirect command economy as it is, and the only sectors that work are ones that are overwhelmingly subsidized directly and indirectly, which receive astonishing tax breaks, and which are sheltered from competition by US domestic and international trade policy both in the United States' borders and abroad.

We also aren't addressing how this regime impacts non economic relations with other actors, or how other economies would react to this regime.

It would make the US economy more like Japan or Germany, rather than what it is. Generally, both seem to get along with the rest of the world pretty well.

Outcry about tariff wars and the like is totally misplaced, though. All countries protect at least some sectors of their economy; the United States is the exception among the first world, not the norm, at least with regard to protecting its labor force.

Mercantilism died in the 19th century for a reason...

That's... well, it's kind of funny in an ironic sort of way.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 3:19:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Like, he literally just said that he would put a tax on Carrier if they want to sell carrier air conditioners manufactured in Mexico in the United States.

That was cool. That's only happened twice before.
Tsar of DDO