September 24, 2018, 01:36:21 AM


The 2018 Korea TESOL International Conference: Focus on Fluency
Meet new people. Learn new things. Become a better teacher! Join us October 13 & 14 for the 26th annual Korea TESOL International Conference at Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul.
koreatesol.org/ic2018

Author Topic: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.  (Read 1840 times)

Offline Life Improvement

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2835
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2018, 05:15:07 PM »
Others didn't push that idea because they are not ignorant / uneducated / inexperienced / unqualified / demagogues.

Tariffs jack up the prices for consumers.

In Korea the price of food is much higher because of this. It's even cheaper to buy Samsung products in America than buy them in Korea (because of the reduction of of fair competition). That's also the reason Korean beer is tastes like crap. Want to buy a guitar in Korea? It'll be a piece of junk for what you're paying compared to elsewhere.

Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2018, 08:56:36 PM »
Try explaining to this mayor of this town that globalization is great and everyone benefits.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-37576306/former-us-steel-town-that-s-struggling-to-survive

The most effective market has each region producing an abundance of what they produce the best/ cheapest/ most efficiently.  If Idaho makes potatoes better and more cheaply than the rest of the world, they should produce the maximum amount of potatoes they can (generally the production for most goods ends up being regional, because of the time and cost to transport Idaho potatoes to South Africa would cause spoilage, and would no longer be the most cost-effective for that region).  This strategy creates the cheapest cost of goods, and limits shortages that some regions may face, while having a high quality because the region specializes in said good's production.  Creating barriers to import only manages to increase costs to consumers, lowering effective wealth. 

This is the most effective market.  It does have casualties, though.  People who are trained in a discipline in which lowering barriers made other regions more economical, while at the same time refusing to re-educate yourself or move to where the new jobs are (seemingly most often overseas), or filling in to a lower skilled job in your area.  Those are the people that suffer. 

Yea, you can put tariffs on, and Joe Schmoe will probably get his job back, and Americans will pay more for steel and aluminum and those costs will trickle down to every day products that use those materials.  But at least Joe will have his job. 

The irony of all of this is republicans (of which I belong to neither party, though quite frankly more modern republicans do not seem to be working in their constituents best interests, so I normally end up voting against them) always moan about welfare and people not working, but here the community is effectively going to be forced to pay more so Joe can get his job back.  We as a community will probably end up paying more for Joe to feel good about himself than we would have to pay Joe to sit at home and learn a new trade.

This is Ricardian comparative advantage and it is a oversimplified theory that while true, in the real world it is impractical.     For one, countries that produce potatoes will never produce the latest innovations and therefore wonít break through into new industries.
A million dollars making potatoes and a million dollars from computer chips are very different.  One is the vanguard ,pays more and has more intelligent workers and leads to new industries .  Thereís a reason that the us and England went to war; the us didnít want to make cotton and raw materials. Thereís also a reason why England didnít allow the export of finished textiles from Ireland.    There also a reason why Portugal is where it is today having produced wine and opened up its industry to English textiles. 
   


Ricardo himself said that his theory was entirely dependent on capital staying. 
ď
David Ricardo, who was wiser than many of his own modern-day followers, knew this perfectly well. As he puts it: The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another of the same country. 374 Ricardo then elaborates, using his favorite example of the trade in English cloth for Portuguese wine and cutting right to the heart of present-day concerns: It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances the wine and the cloth should both be made in Portugal, and therefore that the capital and labor of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose. 375 But he does not say it would be advantageous to the workers of England! This is precisely the problem Americans experience today: when imports replace goods produced here, capitalists like the higher profits and consumers like the lower pricesóbut workers donít like the lost jobs.

Having observed that capital mobility would undo his theory, Ricardo then argues why capital will not, in fact, be mobileóas he knew he had to prove for his theory to hold water: Experience, however, shows that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and entrust himself, with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations. 377 So in the end, the inventor of the theoretical keystone of free trade had to rely upon an instinctive economic localism in order to make his theory hold. Something has to anchor capital for it all to work.
ď

So in sum his theory depends that capital doesnít flee.  Which it does.


The country that captures the best industries will succeed I.e the ones that build economies of scale in the most high end innovative industries.


Whatís the point of pointing your finger at the us and saying thT open trade is good for everyone, when no other first world country does it as much as we do. 

Besides tariffs there are also non trade barriers to trade.    You think a kid in japan grows up and thinks Nikes are from japan like I thought ASICS were American . 


Sent from my iPhone
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 08:59:12 PM by Chester Jim »
Bonzai!

Offline Stephensalz

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2018, 11:03:04 AM »
Try explaining to this mayor of this town that globalization is great and everyone benefits.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-37576306/former-us-steel-town-that-s-struggling-to-survive

The most effective market has each region producing an abundance of what they produce the best/ cheapest/ most efficiently.  If Idaho makes potatoes better and more cheaply than the rest of the world, they should produce the maximum amount of potatoes they can (generally the production for most goods ends up being regional, because of the time and cost to transport Idaho potatoes to South Africa would cause spoilage, and would no longer be the most cost-effective for that region).  This strategy creates the cheapest cost of goods, and limits shortages that some regions may face, while having a high quality because the region specializes in said good's production.  Creating barriers to import only manages to increase costs to consumers, lowering effective wealth. 

This is the most effective market.  It does have casualties, though.  People who are trained in a discipline in which lowering barriers made other regions more economical, while at the same time refusing to re-educate yourself or move to where the new jobs are (seemingly most often overseas), or filling in to a lower skilled job in your area.  Those are the people that suffer. 

Yea, you can put tariffs on, and Joe Schmoe will probably get his job back, and Americans will pay more for steel and aluminum and those costs will trickle down to every day products that use those materials.  But at least Joe will have his job. 

The irony of all of this is republicans (of which I belong to neither party, though quite frankly more modern republicans do not seem to be working in their constituents best interests, so I normally end up voting against them) always moan about welfare and people not working, but here the community is effectively going to be forced to pay more so Joe can get his job back.  We as a community will probably end up paying more for Joe to feel good about himself than we would have to pay Joe to sit at home and learn a new trade.

This is Ricardian comparative advantage and it is a oversimplified theory that while true, in the real world it is impractical.     For one, countries that produce potatoes will never produce the latest innovations and therefore wonít break through into new industries.
A million dollars making potatoes and a million dollars from computer chips are very different.  One is the vanguard ,pays more and has more intelligent workers and leads to new industries .  Thereís a reason that the us and England went to war; the us didnít want to make cotton and raw materials. Thereís also a reason why England didnít allow the export of finished textiles from Ireland.    There also a reason why Portugal is where it is today having produced wine and opened up its industry to English textiles. 
   


Ricardo himself said that his theory was entirely dependent on capital staying. 
ď
David Ricardo, who was wiser than many of his own modern-day followers, knew this perfectly well. As he puts it: The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another of the same country. 374 Ricardo then elaborates, using his favorite example of the trade in English cloth for Portuguese wine and cutting right to the heart of present-day concerns: It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances the wine and the cloth should both be made in Portugal, and therefore that the capital and labor of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose. 375 But he does not say it would be advantageous to the workers of England! This is precisely the problem Americans experience today: when imports replace goods produced here, capitalists like the higher profits and consumers like the lower pricesóbut workers donít like the lost jobs.

Having observed that capital mobility would undo his theory, Ricardo then argues why capital will not, in fact, be mobileóas he knew he had to prove for his theory to hold water: Experience, however, shows that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and entrust himself, with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations. 377 So in the end, the inventor of the theoretical keystone of free trade had to rely upon an instinctive economic localism in order to make his theory hold. Something has to anchor capital for it all to work.
ď

So in sum his theory depends that capital doesnít flee.  Which it does.


The country that captures the best industries will succeed I.e the ones that build economies of scale in the most high end innovative industries.


Whatís the point of pointing your finger at the us and saying thT open trade is good for everyone, when no other first world country does it as much as we do. 

Besides tariffs there are also non trade barriers to trade.    You think a kid in japan grows up and thinks Nikes are from japan like I thought ASICS were American . 


I'm not going to go through this point by point, just like to add a couple of points because I don't really disagree with you.  I mentioned that the coal miners wouldn't want to move to a different country, (Look at Bombay Beach California.  40 years after the lake dried up, 300 people still live in what has become an apocalyptic wasteland, because that's their home) but also don't want to be retrained.  I'm sure the steel workers don't want to move to China, but in that case, why should the nation pay extra for goods so he can keep his job?  Obviously, having jobs is important to the country.  However, America isn't at high unemployment.  Regions are at high unemployment.  Those regions tend to have outdated types of industry.  I used coal because of the craziness of it.  Coal, while still having a use, is outdated.  You can put American money into subsidies to make coal cheaper so they get their coal jobs back, but do you think it really helps out the economy?  I feel the cash would be better used to expand other sources of energy output, personally. 

I also agree about best industries, I don't view steel as being the best industry.  I do think having some steel output facilities is a necessity, though, as a national defense measure.  I would accomplish that by only allowing federal government suppliers to be required to be american made.  Otherwise, I do think the free market is a benefit to all in the long run.  The next generation will have fewer coal miners demanding coal jobs, until there are none left, and the industry will die. 

This model will cause struggles in the near term as the market corrects itself, and places that had jobs don't any longer, though. 

As for your Asics comment, assuming you've been in Korea for a while, I think you should know better.  Most Koreans think North Face is Korean, and there are a number of other companies they think are Korean, that decidedly are not.  I've actually heard a few people that thought KFC was Korean.  (and just to had a light-hearted comment, I was at costco once and they were giving out samples of bacon and sausage.  one younger female (about 25) got sausage, and was eating it, and telling her friend that she was trying the bacon.  never underestimate the naivete of some people to other people's cultures).

Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2018, 12:03:13 PM »
Try explaining to this mayor of this town that globalization is great and everyone benefits.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-37576306/former-us-steel-town-that-s-struggling-to-survive

The most effective market has each region producing an abundance of what they produce the best/ cheapest/ most efficiently.  If Idaho makes potatoes better and more cheaply than the rest of the world, they should produce the maximum amount of potatoes they can (generally the production for most goods ends up being regional, because of the time and cost to transport Idaho potatoes to South Africa would cause spoilage, and would no longer be the most cost-effective for that region).  This strategy creates the cheapest cost of goods, and limits shortages that some regions may face, while having a high quality because the region specializes in said good's production.  Creating barriers to import only manages to increase costs to consumers, lowering effective wealth. 

This is the most effective market.  It does have casualties, though.  People who are trained in a discipline in which lowering barriers made other regions more economical, while at the same time refusing to re-educate yourself or move to where the new jobs are (seemingly most often overseas), or filling in to a lower skilled job in your area.  Those are the people that suffer. 

Yea, you can put tariffs on, and Joe Schmoe will probably get his job back, and Americans will pay more for steel and aluminum and those costs will trickle down to every day products that use those materials.  But at least Joe will have his job. 

The irony of all of this is republicans (of which I belong to neither party, though quite frankly more modern republicans do not seem to be working in their constituents best interests, so I normally end up voting against them) always moan about welfare and people not working, but here the community is effectively going to be forced to pay more so Joe can get his job back.  We as a community will probably end up paying more for Joe to feel good about himself than we would have to pay Joe to sit at home and learn a new trade.

This is Ricardian comparative advantage and it is a oversimplified theory that while true, in the real world it is impractical.     For one, countries that produce potatoes will never produce the latest innovations and therefore wonít break through into new industries.
A million dollars making potatoes and a million dollars from computer chips are very different.  One is the vanguard ,pays more and has more intelligent workers and leads to new industries .  Thereís a reason that the us and England went to war; the us didnít want to make cotton and raw materials. Thereís also a reason why England didnít allow the export of finished textiles from Ireland.    There also a reason why Portugal is where it is today having produced wine and opened up its industry to English textiles. 
   


Ricardo himself said that his theory was entirely dependent on capital staying. 
ď
David Ricardo, who was wiser than many of his own modern-day followers, knew this perfectly well. As he puts it: The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another of the same country. 374 Ricardo then elaborates, using his favorite example of the trade in English cloth for Portuguese wine and cutting right to the heart of present-day concerns: It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances the wine and the cloth should both be made in Portugal, and therefore that the capital and labor of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose. 375 But he does not say it would be advantageous to the workers of England! This is precisely the problem Americans experience today: when imports replace goods produced here, capitalists like the higher profits and consumers like the lower pricesóbut workers donít like the lost jobs.

Having observed that capital mobility would undo his theory, Ricardo then argues why capital will not, in fact, be mobileóas he knew he had to prove for his theory to hold water: Experience, however, shows that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and entrust himself, with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations. 377 So in the end, the inventor of the theoretical keystone of free trade had to rely upon an instinctive economic localism in order to make his theory hold. Something has to anchor capital for it all to work.
ď

So in sum his theory depends that capital doesnít flee.  Which it does.


The country that captures the best industries will succeed I.e the ones that build economies of scale in the most high end innovative industries.


Whatís the point of pointing your finger at the us and saying thT open trade is good for everyone, when no other first world country does it as much as we do. 

Besides tariffs there are also non trade barriers to trade.    You think a kid in japan grows up and thinks Nikes are from japan like I thought ASICS were American . 


I'm not going to go through this point by point, just like to add a couple of points because I don't really disagree with you.  I mentioned that the coal miners wouldn't want to move to a different country, (Look at Bombay Beach California.  40 years after the lake dried up, 300 people still live in what has become an apocalyptic wasteland, because that's their home) but also don't want to be retrained.  I'm sure the steel workers don't want to move to China, but in that case, why should the nation pay extra for goods so he can keep his job?  Obviously, having jobs is important to the country.  However, America isn't at high unemployment.  Regions are at high unemployment.  Those regions tend to have outdated types of industry.  I used coal because of the craziness of it.  Coal, while still having a use, is outdated.  You can put American money into subsidies to make coal cheaper so they get their coal jobs back, but do you think it really helps out the economy?  I feel the cash would be better used to expand other sources of energy output, personally. 

I also agree about best industries, I don't view steel as being the best industry.  I do think having some steel output facilities is a necessity, though, as a national defense measure.  I would accomplish that by only allowing federal government suppliers to be required to be american made.  Otherwise, I do think the free market is a benefit to all in the long run.  The next generation will have fewer coal miners demanding coal jobs, until there are none left, and the industry will die. 

This model will cause struggles in the near term as the market corrects itself, and places that had jobs don't any longer, though. 

As for your Asics comment, assuming you've been in Korea for a while, I think you should know better.  Most Koreans think North Face is Korean, and
there are a number of other companies they think are Korean, that decidedly are not.  I've actually heard a few people that thought KFC was Korean.  (and just to had a light-hearted comment, I was at costco once and they were giving out samples of bacon and sausage.  one younger female (about 25) got sausage, and was eating it, and telling her friend that she was trying the bacon.  never underestimate the naivete of some people to other people's cultures).

My ASICS comment was one of a number of non tariff barriers .  And I think it still stands that countries like Germany japan Korea and others are more conscious of national brands and  of the benefits of buying from their national brands and do so.   Another barrier would be the media. For example  In japan when a faulty american device  kills someone then there is an outcry and they stigmatize the quality of us or othe4 countryís brands.   When a Takata air bag smashes the faces of Americans we go on buying Japanese goods.  That is because our media and the left hate the country .   I can go on and on with non tariff barriers.  The vat is a huge one . 

So liberals will lose out on not paying more for consumers.   The steel tariff would add a few pennies to every  soda can.  And dollars to a few heavier products.    When a guy with six kids says that he is being laid off from a job that he has had for life and that doesnít move you or you callously ask why should I pay a few dollars more, thatís not a ringer.  Then that brings us to demographics and the declining birth rate.  If youíll make the working fathers situation more precarious, thereís no way it will go up.    Then well import more immigrants faster than they can assimilate which is a win win for lefties.  They get to look like humanitarians  and they get a new gardener.

I agree it probably shouldnít be a tax on one industry, but a tax on every import.  25 percent.   This will cause foreign goods to be more expensive but will be a huge boon to us companies.   We canít be the consumer market for the world much longer
Bonzai!

Offline Stephensalz

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2018, 01:01:06 PM »
Try explaining to this mayor of this town that globalization is great and everyone benefits.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-37576306/former-us-steel-town-that-s-struggling-to-survive

The most effective market has each region producing an abundance of what they produce the best/ cheapest/ most efficiently.  If Idaho makes potatoes better and more cheaply than the rest of the world, they should produce the maximum amount of potatoes they can (generally the production for most goods ends up being regional, because of the time and cost to transport Idaho potatoes to South Africa would cause spoilage, and would no longer be the most cost-effective for that region).  This strategy creates the cheapest cost of goods, and limits shortages that some regions may face, while having a high quality because the region specializes in said good's production.  Creating barriers to import only manages to increase costs to consumers, lowering effective wealth. 

This is the most effective market.  It does have casualties, though.  People who are trained in a discipline in which lowering barriers made other regions more economical, while at the same time refusing to re-educate yourself or move to where the new jobs are (seemingly most often overseas), or filling in to a lower skilled job in your area.  Those are the people that suffer. 

Yea, you can put tariffs on, and Joe Schmoe will probably get his job back, and Americans will pay more for steel and aluminum and those costs will trickle down to every day products that use those materials.  But at least Joe will have his job. 

The irony of all of this is republicans (of which I belong to neither party, though quite frankly more modern republicans do not seem to be working in their constituents best interests, so I normally end up voting against them) always moan about welfare and people not working, but here the community is effectively going to be forced to pay more so Joe can get his job back.  We as a community will probably end up paying more for Joe to feel good about himself than we would have to pay Joe to sit at home and learn a new trade.

This is Ricardian comparative advantage and it is a oversimplified theory that while true, in the real world it is impractical.     For one, countries that produce potatoes will never produce the latest innovations and therefore wonít break through into new industries.
A million dollars making potatoes and a million dollars from computer chips are very different.  One is the vanguard ,pays more and has more intelligent workers and leads to new industries .  Thereís a reason that the us and England went to war; the us didnít want to make cotton and raw materials. Thereís also a reason why England didnít allow the export of finished textiles from Ireland.    There also a reason why Portugal is where it is today having produced wine and opened up its industry to English textiles. 
   


Ricardo himself said that his theory was entirely dependent on capital staying. 
ď
David Ricardo, who was wiser than many of his own modern-day followers, knew this perfectly well. As he puts it: The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another of the same country. 374 Ricardo then elaborates, using his favorite example of the trade in English cloth for Portuguese wine and cutting right to the heart of present-day concerns: It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances the wine and the cloth should both be made in Portugal, and therefore that the capital and labor of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose. 375 But he does not say it would be advantageous to the workers of England! This is precisely the problem Americans experience today: when imports replace goods produced here, capitalists like the higher profits and consumers like the lower pricesóbut workers donít like the lost jobs.

Having observed that capital mobility would undo his theory, Ricardo then argues why capital will not, in fact, be mobileóas he knew he had to prove for his theory to hold water: Experience, however, shows that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and entrust himself, with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations. 377 So in the end, the inventor of the theoretical keystone of free trade had to rely upon an instinctive economic localism in order to make his theory hold. Something has to anchor capital for it all to work.
ď

So in sum his theory depends that capital doesnít flee.  Which it does.


The country that captures the best industries will succeed I.e the ones that build economies of scale in the most high end innovative industries.


Whatís the point of pointing your finger at the us and saying thT open trade is good for everyone, when no other first world country does it as much as we do. 

Besides tariffs there are also non trade barriers to trade.    You think a kid in japan grows up and thinks Nikes are from japan like I thought ASICS were American . 


I'm not going to go through this point by point, just like to add a couple of points because I don't really disagree with you.  I mentioned that the coal miners wouldn't want to move to a different country, (Look at Bombay Beach California.  40 years after the lake dried up, 300 people still live in what has become an apocalyptic wasteland, because that's their home) but also don't want to be retrained.  I'm sure the steel workers don't want to move to China, but in that case, why should the nation pay extra for goods so he can keep his job?  Obviously, having jobs is important to the country.  However, America isn't at high unemployment.  Regions are at high unemployment.  Those regions tend to have outdated types of industry.  I used coal because of the craziness of it.  Coal, while still having a use, is outdated.  You can put American money into subsidies to make coal cheaper so they get their coal jobs back, but do you think it really helps out the economy?  I feel the cash would be better used to expand other sources of energy output, personally. 

I also agree about best industries, I don't view steel as being the best industry.  I do think having some steel output facilities is a necessity, though, as a national defense measure.  I would accomplish that by only allowing federal government suppliers to be required to be american made.  Otherwise, I do think the free market is a benefit to all in the long run.  The next generation will have fewer coal miners demanding coal jobs, until there are none left, and the industry will die. 

This model will cause struggles in the near term as the market corrects itself, and places that had jobs don't any longer, though. 

As for your Asics comment, assuming you've been in Korea for a while, I think you should know better.  Most Koreans think North Face is Korean, and
there are a number of other companies they think are Korean, that decidedly are not.  I've actually heard a few people that thought KFC was Korean.  (and just to had a light-hearted comment, I was at costco once and they were giving out samples of bacon and sausage.  one younger female (about 25) got sausage, and was eating it, and telling her friend that she was trying the bacon.  never underestimate the naivete of some people to other people's cultures).

My ASICS comment was one of a number of non tariff barriers .  And I think it still stands that countries like Germany japan Korea and others are more conscious of national brands and  of the benefits of buying from their national brands and do so.   Another barrier would be the media. For example  In japan when a faulty american device  kills someone then there is an outcry and they stigmatize the quality of us or othe4 countryís brands.   When a Takata air bag smashes the faces of Americans we go on buying Japanese goods.  That is because our media and the left hate the country .   I can go on and on with non tariff barriers.  The vat is a huge one . 

So liberals will lose out on not paying more for consumers.   The steel tariff would add a few pennies to every  soda can.  And dollars to a few heavier products.    When a guy with six kids says that he is being laid off from a job that he has had for life and that doesnít move you or you callously ask why should I pay a few dollars more, thatís not a ringer.  Then that brings us to demographics and the declining birth rate.  If youíll make the working fathers situation more precarious, thereís no way it will go up.    Then well import more immigrants faster than they can assimilate which is a win win for lefties.  They get to look like humanitarians  and they get a new gardener.

I agree it probably shouldnít be a tax on one industry, but a tax on every import.  25 percent.   This will cause foreign goods to be more expensive but will be a huge boon to us companies.   We canít be the consumer market for the world much longer

Ha.  So though tariffs are generally political, I try to not get into political discussions on the internet.  I see you've drawn your line in the sand and are going to protect that line with all the guns you have at your disposal.  As for me, I've got better things to do.

Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2018, 04:28:39 PM »
Try explaining to this mayor of this town that globalization is great and everyone benefits.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-37576306/former-us-steel-town-that-s-struggling-to-survive

The most effective market has each region producing an abundance of what they produce the best/ cheapest/ most efficiently.  If Idaho makes potatoes better and more cheaply than the rest of the world, they should produce the maximum amount of potatoes they can (generally the production for most goods ends up being regional, because of the time and cost to transport Idaho potatoes to South Africa would cause spoilage, and would no longer be the most cost-effective for that region).  This strategy creates the cheapest cost of goods, and limits shortages that some regions may face, while having a high quality because the region specializes in said good's production.  Creating barriers to import only manages to increase costs to consumers, lowering effective wealth. 

This is the most effective market.  It does have casualties, though.  People who are trained in a discipline in which lowering barriers made other regions more economical, while at the same time refusing to re-educate yourself or move to where the new jobs are (seemingly most often overseas), or filling in to a lower skilled job in your area.  Those are the people that suffer. 

Yea, you can put tariffs on, and Joe Schmoe will probably get his job back, and Americans will pay more for steel and aluminum and those costs will trickle down to every day products that use those materials.  But at least Joe will have his job. 

The irony of all of this is republicans (of which I belong to neither party, though quite frankly more modern republicans do not seem to be working in their constituents best interests, so I normally end up voting against them) always moan about welfare and people not working, but here the community is effectively going to be forced to pay more so Joe can get his job back.  We as a community will probably end up paying more for Joe to feel good about himself than we would have to pay Joe to sit at home and learn a new trade.

This is Ricardian comparative advantage and it is a oversimplified theory that while true, in the real world it is impractical.     For one, countries that produce potatoes will never produce the latest innovations and therefore wonít break through into new industries.
A million dollars making potatoes and a million dollars from computer chips are very different.  One is the vanguard ,pays more and has more intelligent workers and leads to new industries .  Thereís a reason that the us and England went to war; the us didnít want to make cotton and raw materials. Thereís also a reason why England didnít allow the export of finished textiles from Ireland.    There also a reason why Portugal is where it is today having produced wine and opened up its industry to English textiles. 
   


Ricardo himself said that his theory was entirely dependent on capital staying. 
ď
David Ricardo, who was wiser than many of his own modern-day followers, knew this perfectly well. As he puts it: The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another of the same country. 374 Ricardo then elaborates, using his favorite example of the trade in English cloth for Portuguese wine and cutting right to the heart of present-day concerns: It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances the wine and the cloth should both be made in Portugal, and therefore that the capital and labor of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose. 375 But he does not say it would be advantageous to the workers of England! This is precisely the problem Americans experience today: when imports replace goods produced here, capitalists like the higher profits and consumers like the lower pricesóbut workers donít like the lost jobs.

Having observed that capital mobility would undo his theory, Ricardo then argues why capital will not, in fact, be mobileóas he knew he had to prove for his theory to hold water: Experience, however, shows that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and entrust himself, with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations. 377 So in the end, the inventor of the theoretical keystone of free trade had to rely upon an instinctive economic localism in order to make his theory hold. Something has to anchor capital for it all to work.
ď

So in sum his theory depends that capital doesnít flee.  Which it does.


The country that captures the best industries will succeed I.e the ones that build economies of scale in the most high end innovative industries.


Whatís the point of pointing your finger at the us and saying thT open trade is good for everyone, when no other first world country does it as much as we do. 

Besides tariffs there are also non trade barriers to trade.    You think a kid in japan grows up and thinks Nikes are from japan like I thought ASICS were American . 


I'm not going to go through this point by point, just like to add a couple of points because I don't really disagree with you.  I mentioned that the coal miners wouldn't want to move to a different country, (Look at Bombay Beach California.  40 years after the lake dried up, 300 people still live in what has become an apocalyptic wasteland, because that's their home) but also don't want to be retrained.  I'm sure the steel workers don't want to move to China, but in that case, why should the nation pay extra for goods so he can keep his job?  Obviously, having jobs is important to the country.  However, America isn't at high unemployment.  Regions are at high unemployment.  Those regions tend to have outdated types of industry.  I used coal because of the craziness of it.  Coal, while still having a use, is outdated.  You can put American money into subsidies to make coal cheaper so they get their coal jobs back, but do you think it really helps out the economy?  I feel the cash would be better used to expand other sources of energy output, personally. 

I also agree about best industries, I don't view steel as being the best industry.  I do think having some steel output facilities is a necessity, though, as a national defense measure.  I would accomplish that by only allowing federal government suppliers to be required to be american made.  Otherwise, I do think the free market is a benefit to all in the long run.  The next generation will have fewer coal miners demanding coal jobs, until there are none left, and the industry will die. 

This model will cause struggles in the near term as the market corrects itself, and places that had jobs don't any longer, though. 

As for your Asics comment, assuming you've been in Korea for a while, I think you should know better.  Most Koreans think North Face is Korean, and
there are a number of other companies they think are Korean, that decidedly are not.  I've actually heard a few people that thought KFC was Korean.  (and just to had a light-hearted comment, I was at costco once and they were giving out samples of bacon and sausage.  one younger female (about 25) got sausage, and was eating it, and telling her friend that she was trying the bacon.  never underestimate the naivete of some people to other people's cultures).

My ASICS comment was one of a number of non tariff barriers .  And I think it still stands that countries like Germany japan Korea and others are more conscious of national brands and  of the benefits of buying from their national brands and do so.   Another barrier would be the media. For example  In japan when a faulty american device  kills someone then there is an outcry and they stigmatize the quality of us or othe4 countryís brands.   When a Takata air bag smashes the faces of Americans we go on buying Japanese goods.  That is because our media and the left hate the country .   I can go on and on with non tariff barriers.  The vat is a huge one . 

So liberals will lose out on not paying more for consumers.   The steel tariff would add a few pennies to every  soda can.  And dollars to a few heavier products.    When a guy with six kids says that he is being laid off from a job that he has had for life and that doesnít move you or you callously ask why should I pay a few dollars more, thatís not a ringer.  Then that brings us to demographics and the declining birth rate.  If youíll make the working fathers situation more precarious, thereís no way it will go up.    Then well import more immigrants faster than they can assimilate which is a win win for lefties.  They get to look like humanitarians  and they get a new gardener.

I agree it probably shouldnít be a tax on one industry, but a tax on every import.  25 percent.   This will cause foreign goods to be more expensive but will be a huge boon to us companies.   We canít be the consumer market for the world much longer

Ha.  So though tariffs are generally political, I try to not get into political discussions on the internet.  I see you've drawn your line in the sand and are going to protect that line with all the guns you have at your disposal.  As for me, I've got better things to do.
Ah so itís below you
Clever ad hominem
Typical though
Bonzai!

Offline Life Improvement

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2835
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2018, 05:06:06 PM »
Too much superfluous quoting going on in this thread.

If you want to respond to the person above you, hit the reply button.

Offline hangook77

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2018, 05:41:37 PM »
Others didn't push that idea because they are not ignorant / uneducated / inexperienced / unqualified / demagogues.

Tariffs jack up the prices for consumers.

In Korea the price of food is much higher because of this. It's even cheaper to buy Samsung products in America than buy them in Korea (because of the reduction of of fair competition). That's also the reason Korean beer is tastes like crap. Want to buy a guitar in Korea? It'll be a piece of junk for what you're paying compared to elsewhere.

Again under WTO rules, America can charge Chinese goods a 2.5 per cent tariff while China can charge 25% and also have a lot of protectionist rules such as forcing an American company to partner with a Chinese company and transfer their technology to them.  Not free or fair trade. 

But don't take my word for it....

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-and-elon-musk-slam-obamas-trade-deficit-2018-3?utm_content=buffer6efc5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-ti

Offline Life Improvement

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2835
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2018, 06:29:37 PM »
According the article Musk "seemed to" agree.

Well, he wants to get rid of tariffs so he can do more profitable business in China.

Will the U.S. instating tariffs benefit him in any way? If anything probably the opposite due to retaliation.

Musk opposes the U.S. making tariffs; he simply wants China to get rid of theirs.

Offline hangook77

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2018, 09:52:22 PM »
According the article Musk "seemed to" agree.

Well, he wants to get rid of tariffs so he can do more profitable business in China.

Will the U.S. instating tariffs benefit him in any way? If anything probably the opposite due to retaliation.

Musk opposes the U.S. making tariffs; he simply wants China to get rid of theirs.

You impose them to make China get rid of theirs.  You dont let them keep tarrifs and charge none yourself.  That's just stupidity.  Like Trump, I am a big believer in free trade as long as it is fair reciprocal.

Offline hangook77

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2018, 09:55:04 PM »
It is my preference that China plays fair and opens itself up completely.  If they are not willing to do that, then they can't expect free access to the other side.

Offline Stephensalz

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2018, 11:59:46 AM »

Ah so itís below you
Clever ad hominem
Typical though

I mean, how am I supposed to argue with you that will make you not believe your ridiculous belief that Lefts hate our country.  I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your extreme views that show you are not a person that is reasonable. 

I'm not a democrat, I vote for the best candidate.  In the past 10 years though, the Republican party has become filled with conspiracy theorists and worse.  In real life, and more so on the internet, I find those people completely incapable of listening to opposing viewpoints.  So it's not that it's below me, it's that it's a waste of time, because I could come up with the greatest argument in the history of the world, and your response would be 'fake news.' 

Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2018, 12:16:08 PM »

Ah so itís below you
Clever ad hominem
Typical though

I mean, how am I supposed to argue with you that will make you not believe your ridiculous belief that Lefts hate our country.  I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your extreme views that show you are not a person that is reasonable. 

I'm not a democrat, I vote for the best candidate.  In the past 10 years though, the Republican party has become filled with conspiracy theorists and worse.  In real life, and more so on the internet, I find those people completely incapable of listening to opposing viewpoints.  So it's not that it's below me, it's that it's a waste of time, because I could come up with the greatest argument in the history of the world, and your response would be 'fake news.'

Itís not so ridiculous.  You have university professors like Ward Churchill who say that we deserved 911, and he is or was extremely popular among students.    You also have many radicals in academia that teach that America is a cruel racist country .   I could go on and on.   So if you canít agree that there is a large segment of the  population ,particularly on the left ,that despise America , and only like the utopia that the us can Ďpossibly Ď be made into then you are right there is no agreeing between you and me.

And after thinking about your not being political comment , you were referring to me talking about a father of 6 who loses his job. So being ďpolitical ď is below you      So to you being political means taking a real life example instead of dealing in abstractions.   I believe your example was those idiots who stay in one area, even when their industries have dried up and that they should not make us spend more , or god forbid forgoe the plastic toys.

My views are not extreme .  You just never asked a large segment of the population about how they think or feel . 
The left doesnít like the us .  The media and academia and ďcapitalistsĒ. Not extreme

« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 12:24:41 PM by Chester Jim »
Bonzai!

Offline kyndo

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4477
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2018, 12:33:18 PM »
Ah so itís below you
Clever ad hominem
Typical though
With just one or two tweaks, we can turn this into a reasonably pretty haiku!
Hmm, let's see...

So it's below you
A clever ad hominem
That's typical though.

Offline Dave Stepz

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2675
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2018, 01:02:14 PM »
Itís not so ridiculous.  You have university professors like Ward Churchill who say that we deserved 911, and he is or was extremely popular among students.    You also have many radicals in academia that teach that America is a cruel racist country .   I could go on and on.   So if you canít agree that there is a large segment of the  population ,particularly on the left ,that despise America , and only like the utopia that the us can Ďpossibly Ď be made into then you are right there is no agreeing between you and me.

There is a lot to be said for the negatives of forced nationalism.  'You will love your country!'  The national anthem, military service to name two.  As residents of Korea, we see this everyday.  Korea being great is constantly forced on everyone, whether they like it or not.  But it was a military dictatorship in the lifetimes of many of the people we meet and work with everyday.  It has an effect.  Many just accept it, and not question it.   

Forcing the American 'dream' on people.  Making them stand in American football games to respect the anthem incurring the disgusting wrath by being labelled SOBS.  Greatest country in the world?  Why?  You can't force that on people anymore.  People know better.  There are people on the 'left' (this is a ridiculous division in America now) who can live in America, will pay taxes and live there in peace, without buying into the 'you're with us or against us' division that Trump is making into such an issue. 

I will add as a Brit that I don't know my national anthem as we don't have it played at events, we have no military service either.  Basically, nationalism in England is seen as a negative thing.  It's simmering beneath the surface, hence our stupid idea to leave the EU.  But overall, Brits don't have any sense of nationalism like America and Korea, or anything close to it.  We just naturally think England is crap, laugh about it and then move on and have a cup of tea or something.  Maybe a Cornish pasty.

Offline Stephensalz

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2018, 02:37:13 PM »

Ah so itís below you
Clever ad hominem
Typical though

I mean, how am I supposed to argue with you that will make you not believe your ridiculous belief that Lefts hate our country.  I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your extreme views that show you are not a person that is reasonable. 

I'm not a democrat, I vote for the best candidate.  In the past 10 years though, the Republican party has become filled with conspiracy theorists and worse.  In real life, and more so on the internet, I find those people completely incapable of listening to opposing viewpoints.  So it's not that it's below me, it's that it's a waste of time, because I could come up with the greatest argument in the history of the world, and your response would be 'fake news.'

Itís not so ridiculous.  You have university professors like Ward Churchill who say that we deserved 911, and he is or was extremely popular among students.    You also have many radicals in academia that teach that America is a cruel racist country .   I could go on and on.   So if you canít agree that there is a large segment of the  population ,particularly on the left ,that despise America , and only like the utopia that the us can Ďpossibly Ď be made into then you are right there is no agreeing between you and me.

And after thinking about your not being political comment , you were referring to me talking about a father of 6 who loses his job. So being ďpolitical ď is below you      So to you being political means taking a real life example instead of dealing in abstractions.   I believe your example was those idiots who stay in one area, even when their industries have dried up and that they should not make us spend more , or god forbid forgoe the plastic toys.

My views are not extreme .  You just never asked a large segment of the population about how they think or feel . 
The left doesnít like the us .  The media and academia and ďcapitalistsĒ. Not extreme

What's extreme is your extrapolations.  Hey, a few guys don't like America, and they are democrats, so therefore all democrats hate America is not a rational argument. 

Also, The political talking points I had bolded for you, and they were assuredly not about a real-life situation where I was mocking some father for losing his job.  It was your claim that democrats would be happy he lost his job because then they could get new gardeners and it would be a win win for the left. 

Do you know any democrats?  Do you automatically hate them?  I have lots of friends who are Republicans, and their political beliefs don't bother me at all, so long as they have a legit reason for it.  "I like low taxes."  Oh, yea, a lot of people do.  "I think there are too many immigrants."  Yea, some people feel that way.  If somebody who was a friend of mine told me, "I think democrats hate america and are trying to destroy good paying jobs so they can have more immigrants come to america so they can feel better about themselves for helping a poor person come to a more wealthy country, and they also get a new gardener."  I would think they were trolling me.  And you are probably doing exactly that to me.  So I'm done.  It's not that I think I'm better than you, it's just that I can't tell if you are somebody's Stephen Colbert style alter-ego that takes on people on the internet with extrapolations that are much too extreme for the common person to see.  Have a good day.

Offline Andyman

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 248
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2018, 03:09:14 PM »
Ah so itís below you
Clever ad hominem
Typical though
With just one or two tweaks, we can turn this into a reasonably pretty haiku!
Hmm, let's see...

So it's below you
A clever ad hominem
That's typical though.

Tremendous.

Online Chester Jim

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2018, 09:24:06 AM »
Itís not so ridiculous.  You have university professors like Ward Churchill who say that we deserved 911, and he is or was extremely popular among students.    You also have many radicals in academia that teach that America is a cruel racist country .   I could go on and on.   So if you canít agree that there is a large segment of the  population ,particularly on the left ,that despise America , and only like the utopia that the us can Ďpossibly Ď be made into then you are right there is no agreeing between you and me.

There is a lot to be said for the negatives of forced nationalism.  'You will love your country!'  The national anthem, military service to name two.  As residents of Korea, we see this everyday.  Korea being great is constantly forced on everyone, whether they like it or not.  But it was a military dictatorship in the lifetimes of many of the people we meet and work with everyday.  It has an effect.  Many just accept it, and not question it.   

Forecing the American 'dream' on people.  Making them stand in American football games to respect the anthem incurring the disgusting wrath by being labelled SOBS.  Greatest country in the world?  Why?  You can't force that on people anymore.  People know better.  There are people on the 'left' (this is a ridiculous division in America now) who can live in America, will pay taxes and live there in peace, without buying into the 'you're with us or against us' division that Trump is making into such an issue. 

I will add as a Brit that I don't know my national anthem as we don't have it played at events, we have no military service either.  Basically, nationalism in England is seen as a negative thing.  It's simmering beneath the surface, hence our stupid idea to leave the EU.  But overall, Brits don't have any sense of nationalism like America and Korea, or anything close to it.  We just naturally think England is crap, laugh about it and then move on and have a cup of tea or something.  Maybe a Cornish pasty.

Iím not taking that herring .    Forced nationalism?   Ok I will .  The truth is that people who think the only thing special about the us is that they can earn money and do well are not enough.  Those who donít care about us history and think the founding fathers were white males and therefore terrible people are idiots .   The us is great.  But Iím not concerned with people who canít defend that because they donít read.   Iím more concerned with people who think itís bad.   Like Noam Chimpsky.   Iíd encourage anyone to read the anti noam Chomsky reader closely where David horowitz defeats him ,through correspondence ,in a linguistic argument.   The guy is a liar and a fraud.


As for British nationalism.   You guys are worse than nationalistic.  You are tribal.   A polish person looks like a Pygmy to you.    You think English is crap? , but youíd die defending a rock off Argentina.  For money I guess.  .

All Iím saying is a strategic trade policy , not an open one.  Actually letís just al admit that trade is not free anyways.  Then we are free to have technocrats create an industrial policy that will benefit America.

Also nationalism is not a bad thing despite past abuses.   It is actually how the world works.  Imperfect like democracy? Yes.   But simply having borders and looking out for the people inside them is what works.  Until there is something else you canít just destroy borders.    Itís very simple and beautiful like a physics equation I canít understand .  Make a circle.   Then govern yourselves to your benefit.           Iíd run away from nationalism too if I drew up the Middle East borders .
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 01:43:49 PM by Chester Jim »
Bonzai!

Offline Andyman

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 248
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2018, 11:23:20 AM »


You think English is crap? ,
but youíd die defending a rock off Argentina. 
For money I guess.  ..



Offline Andyman

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 248
Re: Elon Musk agrees with Trump on tarrifs.
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2018, 11:52:55 AM »
Quote
Iíd encourage anyone to read the anti noam Chomsky reader closely where David horowitz defeats him ,through correspondence ,in a linguistic argument.

In all seriousness, I can't find any record of correspondence between Noam Chomsky and David Horowitz. Can you elaborate? I was genuinely interested to read it, if in fact it existed.

After a kind of forerunner article was published by Horowitz in 2001, Chomsky responded to it in this interview: https://chomsky.info/20011016/, and that's as close as I can get to direct correspondence. He says, "I havenít read Horowitz. I didnít used to read him when he was a Stalinist and I donít read him today. Havenít seen it," which makes me think he probably didn't embark on an epistolary relationship with Horowitz shortly thereafter.