Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Trump and Sanders are wrong on trade

Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.

The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 7:17:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.

The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.

Thta growth has also been accompanied with a growth in inequality and you seem to forget that GDP accounts for the production of companies based in said nation, whither or not the production actually takes place in that nation.
You should really read Capitalism hits the fan by Richard Wolff, the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein or Profit over people by Noam Chomsky.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 7:32:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 7:17:11 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.

The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.

Thta growth has also been accompanied with a growth in inequality and you seem to forget that GDP accounts for the production of companies based in said nation, whither or not the production actually takes place in that nation.
You should really read Capitalism hits the fan by Richard Wolff, the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein or Profit over people by Noam Chomsky.

Better growth accompanied with a growth in inequality than decline accompanied with a growth in inequality.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 8:23:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.


If the decline in manufacturing employment were due simply to automation and technological progress, then we would expect to see slowly declining employment in manufacturing since a peak shortly after WWII. But that isn't the case, as it wasn't until around 2000 that manufacturing jobs began to significantly decline. Japan's economy has one the highest level of automation in the world, and even they have a higher percentage of their workforce in manufacturing than USA.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com...
The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.

There is a difference between jobs lost to overseas competition and jobs lost to automation/technology. In the latter case, the profits and capital stay in our economy to its benefit. The labor displaced by the automation can transition to another industry in the domestic market due to the increase in capital in our economy. This isn't the case when jobs and capital are moved abroad.

What you conveniently choose to ignore is the fact that despite over 50 years increasingly freer trade, real wages today are lower in the USA than they were 43 years ago. How do decades of trade deficits in goods, run by a nation that rarely ran one for a century before, make us stronger or wealthier? Indeed, the USA's fastest periods of economic growth have occurred under protectionist, restricted-immigration periods. The truth is that the theoretical arguments for free trade have been debunked by economic reality. Free trade has observably not increased standards of living in America. Further, due to the fact that free trade, by definition, requires open borders, it is against the American national interest and both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are correct to oppose free trade.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:13:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 8:23:21 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.


If the decline in manufacturing employment were due simply to automation and technological progress, then we would expect to see slowly declining employment in manufacturing since a peak shortly after WWII. But that isn't the case, as it wasn't until around 2000 that manufacturing jobs began to significantly decline. Japan's economy has one the highest level of automation in the world, and even they have a higher percentage of their workforce in manufacturing than USA.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com...
The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.

There is a difference between jobs lost to overseas competition and jobs lost to automation/technology. In the latter case, the profits and capital stay in our economy to its benefit. The labor displaced by the automation can transition to another industry in the domestic market due to the increase in capital in our economy. This isn't the case when jobs and capital are moved abroad.

What you conveniently choose to ignore is the fact that despite over 50 years increasingly freer trade, real wages today are lower in the USA than they were 43 years ago. How do decades of trade deficits in goods, run by a nation that rarely ran one for a century before, make us stronger or wealthier? Indeed, the USA's fastest periods of economic growth have occurred under protectionist, restricted-immigration periods. The truth is that the theoretical arguments for free trade have been debunked by economic reality. Free trade has observably not increased standards of living in America. Further, due to the fact that free trade, by definition, requires open borders, it is against the American national interest and both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are correct to oppose free trade.

This is incredibly wrong. Protectionism is useful in the formative years of businesses, but it becomes completely inadvisable after that.

Early protectionism in the US began in 1816 with a 25% tariff on textiles and 30% on manufactured goods. It peaked in 1828 with the Tarriff of Abominations. Economists like Frank Tassing found that these tariffs did "nothing to promote domestic industry." Tariffs drastically devastated the American economy in the 19th century - or they would have, if not for huge waves of immigration and the economic boom of westward expansion with transportation, farming, mining, and infrastructure.

The Republicans went mad for tariffs again in 1890 - and not even just to protect infant industries. They wanted to protect mature ones as well. Hell, part of the reason the 16th Amendment was passed was because that's what President Taft supported as the price for getting Democrats to back the tariffs. The Smoot-Hooley tariff of 1930 completely destroyed world trade and greatly exacerbated the Great Depression. As a result, the US began a policy of trade liberalization and prospered like never before.

South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and failed.
Mexico implemented numerous protectionist measures and did well for about 2 decades before failing horribly.

The US has implemented more than 800 protectionist measures since 2008, and they're doing nothing.

This is a free and interconnected world. Humanity is finally starting to come together, and the vast majority of them benefit from it.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 5:52:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I agree that booth are wrong with trade protectionism. The entire reason the WTO exists is that gov realize that trade wars never benefitted either side.

However one can not deny that pricing differences have lead capital and investment overseas to where costs are lower. Globalization and free trade leads to equalization.

Trump can't possibly negotiate deals which can stop this equalization process. As soon as he gets certain tarrifs with China and they get theirs on us the capital will shift to the next lowest cost county with infrastructure and workforce.

Good deals alone will not cut it. The focus on trade should be placed on equalizing workers and environmental protections. It is not fair trade when a company in x country is under waste disposal regulations when a company in y country has no regulation.

Things of that nature will push this great equalization quicker. The other option is to become like North Korea.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:33:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 7:17:11 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.

The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.

Thta growth has also been accompanied with a growth in inequality and you seem to forget that GDP accounts for the production of companies based in said nation, whither or not the production actually takes place in that nation.
You should really read Capitalism hits the fan by Richard Wolff, the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein or Profit over people by Noam Chomsky.

Stop giving people the same nauseating list of utterly crap books to read. Neither of those 3 are actually credible economists that have done any sort of formidable work in the field. Chomsky is an extremely biased and subjective philosopher with no credibility in the field of economics while Wolff is as credible in economics as I am in quantum physics.

Free trade has been accompanied with millions of people being drawn out of poverty in exchange for cheap goods for consumption. GDP growth has hit record numbers in these nations and while there may be income inequality, it doesn't mean that all people being richer than before with some of those people being extremely rich is somehow a bad thing. If the gap was 25 to 50 rather than 50 to 100, I'm sure you leftists would complain even if both parties are richer.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:56:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.

The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.

A major point that should be added, freedom of association is a fundamental human right that should be protected by government. People have a right to voluntarily exchange with any other person regardless of geography or product. Government's have a duty to protect this right not be the source of further injustice. Once governments removes force from transactions then the economics can be studied.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 9:12:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
I can appreciate the fact that someone can recognize the similarity of two polarizing candidates.

Simply put Globalization has created a shift in the middle class bell curve. Emerging markets have pulled further the poverty side of the curve creating a shift of center. In the USA it nationally has moved the middle class towards poverty, simultaneously globally the middle class is relatively wealthy.
Sovereignty is the needed to component to cushion this slide.
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 6:34:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 5:52:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
I agree that booth are wrong with trade protectionism. The entire reason the WTO exists is that gov realize that trade wars never benefitted either side.

However one can not deny that pricing differences have lead capital and investment overseas to where costs are lower. Globalization and free trade leads to equalization.

Trump can't possibly negotiate deals which can stop this equalization process. As soon as he gets certain tarrifs with China and they get theirs on us the capital will shift to the next lowest cost county with infrastructure and workforce.

Good deals alone will not cut it. The focus on trade should be placed on equalizing workers and environmental protections. It is not fair trade when a company in x country is under waste disposal regulations when a company in y country has no regulation.

Things of that nature will push this great equalization quicker. The other option is to become like North Korea.

Well said, I agree.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 6:36:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:56:46 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.

The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.

A major point that should be added, freedom of association is a fundamental human right that should be protected by government. People have a right to voluntarily exchange with any other person regardless of geography or product. Government's have a duty to protect this right not be the source of further injustice. Once governments removes force from transactions then the economics can be studied.

I think I agree, but are you saying there shouldn't be national boundaries?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:40:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
This is the problem Keynesian economic systems" they rely on growth which obviously has to end at some point, and is harmful to the environment. An economic system that can promote stability is fine and preferable.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 12:42:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:40:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
This is the problem Keynesian economic systems" they rely on growth which obviously has to end at some point, and is harmful to the environment. An economic system that can promote stability is fine and preferable.

Yes. The obsession over efficiency and growth is myopic, treats human beings like automatons, and completely ignores problems of culture, demographic shifts, and structural concerns when it comes to political development. It's lazy thinking which treats any sort of nuanced understanding which cannot be subjected to rigorous study as non-existent.

Even worse are ideologies which try to ground things like geopolitics and economic development within a mushy, sentimental framework involving 'rights'. Rights are a product of society, and cannot exist without it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 12:43:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 6:36:47 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:56:46 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:44:36 PM, Semiya wrote:
Trump and Sanders have found broad support among America's (white) working class. Their supporters look at our slowly-growing economy and feel excluded. They're feeling increasingly threatened by globalization because they believe a globalized market threatens their jobs and financial security. They see the loss of industrial jobs and blame globalization, repeating humanity's mistake of assigning blame rather than accepting responsibility or working toward solutions.

Even conservatives should oppose Trump and Sanders here, since protectionist policies go against Adam Smith's free market.

The truth is, globalization is not responsible for the loss of jobs. Yes, it's true that steel and manufacturing jobs have declined since America entered trade agreements - in Pittsburgh, they've declined by as much as 44% since America joined NAFTA (http://www.nytimes.com...), but people confuse correlation with causation.

The truth is, Pittsburgh had already lost most of its steel and manufacturing jobs even before trade agreements. The truth is, manufacturing and industrial jobs have been declined for almost a century. This is not because of globalization and a freer work-world. South Korea implemented numerous protectionist measures and still lost manufacturing jobs as it advanced ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)

It's simply the advances of technology and the forward march of civilization. This is the industrial trend - the natural arc of that industrial trend. This is what development looks like. A steelworker today makes 5x as much steel per hour as he would have in 1980. (http://www.steel.org...)

Manufacturing and even industry were never necessary for civilization. The service sector has swelled rapidly, from 50% of global output in 1980 to 70% today, as well as accounting for 45% of global employment. With its increase, it has benefited economies across the globe.

It is advancing technology, not globalized trade, that is driving down employment. Kodak employed more than 140,000 people in its hayday; when Instagram was bought by Facebook, it had 13. (http://www.nytimes.com...) That's not because of trade with Mexico or China or Europe or any other country. That's because of technology.

The evidence is remarkably clear: The countries that have opened themselves up to global markets over the past 50 years are the ones that have experienced the most growth. The answer, then, cannot be, as Trump and Sanders erroneously suggest, protectionist policy.

A major point that should be added, freedom of association is a fundamental human right that should be protected by government. People have a right to voluntarily exchange with any other person regardless of geography or product. Government's have a duty to protect this right not be the source of further injustice. Once governments removes force from transactions then the economics can be studied.

I think I agree, but are you saying there shouldn't be national boundaries?

There should be borders but not check points, like the lines between US states.

Borders that when people cross they know their right to engage in commerce will be protected, not a border that everyone must line up to present papers and be told "that Kinder eggs are illegal".

Free trade is required to have free people.

Both candidates want to punish all Americans to help a few wealthy people, in the name of saving a jobs.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 3:44:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 8:40:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
This is the problem Keynesian economic systems" they rely on growth which obviously has to end at some point, and is harmful to the environment. An economic system that can promote stability is fine and preferable.

Do you know of a school of economics that isn't based on growth. I'ld like to learn more
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 3:52:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 3:44:43 AM, ironslippers wrote:
At 7/3/2016 8:40:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
This is the problem Keynesian economic systems" they rely on growth which obviously has to end at some point, and is harmful to the environment. An economic system that can promote stability is fine and preferable.

Do you know of a school of economics that isn't based on growth. I'ld like to learn more

Economies can occur naturally. Farmers exchanging corn for fish. It doesn't need to be complicated. Keeping population levels at a stable amount would gelp with that too, but it isn't necessary. Marxist economics and Laisse Faire does bot need growth, but honestly if one dis not exist we could invent a new school of ecobomic thought. We know growth is not infinitely possible, so ones that require growth will eventually collapse.