Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HPilot who wrote (111714)	8/31/2011 12:02:09 PM
From: grusum	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224739

That is what the free traders have said for a long time. But this has proven to be wrong. no, history has proven it to be correct. --- Without tarif's countries with cheap labor and especially those with concentration camps and slave labor end up with the work. slave labor is less efficient and therefore less competitive and productive than free market labor. slaves will work as little as they can get away with (anyone would). and if someone has to watch over a slave, that person has to be paid too, taking away the effectiveness of 'watching'. people work much harder for themselves than a slave driver. --- The countries with high labor rates lose out. the reason different countries have different labor rates (wages) is because of the differences in the efficiency of their labor. you can afford to pay someone more who makes ten widgets an hour, than you can afford to pay someone who makes one widget an hour. the value of labor has evolved differently in every country. and it has for good reason. --- The truth of the matter is that the economy is best when the tarif's are used to keep this in a competitive balance. if you read the history of smoot-hawly, you'll find that austrian economists agree that it was a major factor in deepening and prolonging the depression. --- My mother did not have to work, and were able to raise me and my brothers well. Now we both have to work, and my parents retirement did not pan out as planned. Thanks to free trade. you're simply wrong. the decline in our economy isn't due to free trade, it's due to the long road to socialism that we've been on for eighty or more years. it has gotten worse even faster with obamanomics. the only way we'll be able to get back to a sole provider being able to take care of a family is to get back to free markets, low taxes and regs, and end the terror of the rickshaw president's administration. --- That is a large contributer, but not nearly as much as the free trade treaties and regulations. it isn't free trade if there are treaties and regulations..

To: HPilot who wrote (111714)	8/31/2011 1:13:06 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224739

using tariffs to offset the disparity in wages between the U.S. and other countries is not treating the problem, it is treating the symptoms. The problem is that unions stepped in and forced higher wages for jobs that didn't warrant the pay increase. So what happened. Manufacturers focused more on automation or moved their manufacturing overseas. By trying to defy the free market, the unions put a gun to their own head and they pulled the trigger. Go to Detroit to see the results. Unions ensured that American workers would lose their jobs to workers who were willing to do the job for a cheaper wage. That was the unintended consequence of unions and artificially inflated wages. What are the unintended consequences of tariffs that are meant to offset the effects of the unions? And what will you do to offset those consequences?

To: HPilot who wrote (111714)	10/5/2011 2:37:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224739

My mother did not have to work, and were able to raise me and my brothers well. Now we both have to work I can't speak to your particular family, but in many cases both spouses "have to work" because expectations are higher. Many couples could get by with one earner if they wanted to get by the way people did in the 50s- Smaller houses and apartments, one car per household (and that car wouldn't have all the electronic gadgets and safety equipment, and probably would be less powerful), eating out rarely, and home made meals designed to save money (few or no expensive ingredients, recipes designed to use less of the more expensive parts of ordinary ingredients (more bread in meatloaf, less eggs in backed goods etc.), one TV, no internet service, no paid TV, etc. Not that's I'd want to live that way if I can live according to the higher expected norm of today; but the point is that Americans as a whole are wealthier than in the past, not poorer.