Re: Study says jobs lost since '01 are gone

From: emerth (emerth_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/02/03 

Date: 2 Oct 2003 09:54:16 -0700

dezakin@usa.net (Dez Akin) wrote in message news:<dd43b4da.0310011422.7bf92003@posting.google.com>...
> emerth@hotmail.com (emerth) wrote in message news:<a95ba2e0.0309302347.65f60c22@posting.google.com>...
> > dezakin@usa.net (Dez Akin) wrote in message
> > >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Ah. Yes, we see how well protectionism has served the rest of the
> > > world vis-a-vis us economic power. Lets see, who controls over half
> > > the worlds equity markets and about 1/3rd of the global economic
> > > output.
> > >
> > > No thanks.
> >
> > And which country is the biggest debtor in dollar terms, and has the
> > biggest current account deficit amongst the OECD nations (and since
> > WWII), and is running (one of) the biggest federal deficits as a
>
> What does excessive fiscal policy have to do with protectionist trade
> policy, save the subsidizing of inefficient industries?
>

Irrational fiscal policy distorts the market, produces inefficiencies,
thereby reducing the ability of American companies to complete. At
a certain point that inability hits the companies' bottom line. At that
point the most common reaction of said companies is to go to Washington
or NAFTA and accuse foreign companies of unfair trade practices, and
demand trade sanctions.

> > percentage of GDB amonsgt OECD nations? (numbers from the most recent
> > Economist magazine).
>
> When you're a big country you can afford a big debt. Donald Trump has
> far more debt than me, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to be
> exerting leverage the way he does.
>
> And how is the current account deficit being large bad? Foreign powers
> want to send us more of their stuff products in exchange for dollars
> while we send them less of our products. That doesn't sound to bad for
> me. Exports without imports is like a job without a paycheck, yes, and
> imports without exports is like a paycheck without a job.
>

See my above response. This is just a macro replay of the micro effect.
The basic problem is that the books will be balanced in the end: I
expect the reaction of the 'states, qua congress & the business
community, when the cruch comes will be to deny that the 'states has
been living on borrowed money sine the early 80's and either throw
up high trade barriers or start a war. Either reaction hurts the 'states,
and insofar as the 'states is a big market it hurts the rest of the world.

Of course, you'll come back with the arguement that when you are the
10,000 pound gorilla you get to throw your weight around... problem there
is that China certainly, Japan & Germany likely (again), and India possibly
are going to be 10,000 pound gorillas very shortly too. The 'states if
it pursues it's policies will find itself right behind the eight ball -
unable to coerce cooperation with economic power, holding a crippling
debt & deficit and the only trick up it's sleeve will be military power.

May I presume you understand the problem there - if only for the american
servicemen/women who's lives will be risked to prop up a stupid economic
policy?

> Granted this isn't sustainable indefinately, and currency revaluation
> is inevitable, but untill then we can just keep recieving inexpensive
> products.
>
> > And which one admires a president who thinks that expanding those
> > problems will somehow make the economy better?
>
> This isn't relevant to protectionist trade policies, and John Snow is
> pushing for currency revaluation much lower than currently.
>
> > You guessed it.
> >
> > It is unsustainable.
>
> Sure.
>
> > It is irresponsible.
>
> Why? Take the goods while they're cheap.

See my response immediately above.

>
> > When the 'states economy finally collapses under these burdens it will
> > take down most of the world with it.
>
> Now, we're no where near the verge of collapse. Chicken-littles have
> been going on this diatribe for fifty years. Any threat that exists is
> of stagnation, not collapse.
>

Not 50 years. Until approx 1983 the 'states was the worlds greatest creditor
nation. It ran in the black. (As an aside, do you remember what the
house & senate did when the country slid into the red in the 80's? I suspect you
do not: an assault on Japan & Germany was mounted, alledging that they
were somehow responsible for the 'states slide. Not much mention was
made of Reagan slashing the tax base and running record budgets.) In 20 years
it has become the greatest debtor. Being the greatest debtor is not always a
bad thing, I agree - but with current behaviour extrapolated, in perhaps
another decade the 'states will be carrying debt over GDP, and deficit as
percent of GDP comparable to what New Zealand did when the world decided to stop
lending that country money.

And for what? For the sake of aquiring what are essentially a lot of
luxury consumer gods. The 'states is not, I think, spending it's borrowed
money on capital good, physical plant, or industrially useful foreign
technology. There will be little real return on this binge, just enormous
debt loads.

> > How about standing up and accepting the responsibility that goes with
> > all that power? That is so much more honourable than blowing up brown
> > people in far away countries.
>
> Ugh. Security concerns, real or imagined, have almost nothing to do
> with protectionist trade policies in todays world.

Negative, dude. At the risk of going off the topic of this thread: nobody
has found any evidence of chem/bio/nuclear weapons stockpiles or working
production facilties in Iraq. Most of the evidence presented to justify the war
has been proven false and doctored. Bush
started that war for the two oldest reasons politicians have for doing so:
(1) to shore up the legitimacy of his regime, and (2) to grab markets and raw
power in the middle east - Russia, France & Germany had gained a lot of prestige
in Iraq & area during the 90's sanctions regime and the Bush clique could not
tolerate that.

Those two reasons are why the only countries that the 'states could swing behind
it for the war were either sycophants (Britain), or simply bought off.

Now, in Afganistan I must say there was a clear case for war. That's why so many
nations, mine included, sent troops and continue to send troop there.

I submit, though it is conjecture and not in the realm of such facts (hah!) as,
say, Keynesian economics, that there is a connection between trade policy &
security. It is this: other than warmaking the primary means of influencing
another nation's behaviour is one's trade policy towards it. Trade and it's
control is as big a stick as war in the current world (if you doubt that,
ask the populations of Iraq in the 90's, or the governemt of S. Africa
during apartheid, or the people living in N. Korea - or people in the
american rustbelt). So if a country with great economic power uses that
power to: manipulate foreign governments; train their security
aparatus in the latest techniques of repression (can we say Saudi Arabia now,
Iraq for a chunk of the 80s, Iran for decades before 1979?); and generally
distorts the internal affairs of other people's countries - why would you
be surprised that it would have some dire enemies in those countries?

It's been said elsewhere that the 'states believes strongly in democracy,
but it's behaviour often suggests it believes in it only for americans...

I don't think my <RANT> had a line about the ostrich with it's
head in the sand. But I'd be prepared to add it now.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mexico is in love with me but I am not gay!
    ... Economics is the dismal science, ... non-standard, and perhaps extreme, welfare policy tool to help solving ... development of the country implementing this policy. ... immediate benefit by not having to pay the rents they were paying. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Bush junta is conducting secret operations against Iran, trying to provoke war
    ... of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. ... by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to ... of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States ... war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Potato service
    ... money or people who have it. ... How much of the dysfunction of national policy can ... country and, particularly, about people without a lot of money. ... Who in the White House understands any of this? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Potato service
    ... money or people who have it. ... How much of the dysfunction of national policy can ... country and, particularly, about people without a lot of money. ... Who in the White House understands any of this? ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: reducing the cost of labor
    ... trade to operate in and which areas that we think that would be a bad ... give an industry and the people who work for it some time to adjust, ... So there are some industries a country may want to keep even though ... they are protecting that market so the local farmers can stay in business ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)