A simple Republican way to create 20 million jobs

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CON$ervative know-it-alls are 100% ignorant of economics. Smith supported laissez-faire which CON$ stupidly call free trade, but Smith supported tariffs which is anything but free trade.

Economic: Adam Smith Free Trade International Trade Theory

Smith, on the contrary, argued for unregulated foreign trade, reasoning that if England can produce a good, e.g., wool, at lower costs than France, and if France can produce another good, e.g., wine, at lower costs than England, then it is beneficial to both parties to exchange these goods, with each trading the good it produces at lower costs for the good it produces at higher costs. In the language of economics, this became known as the absolute advantage argument for foreign trade. This argument, moreover, is not limited to international trade. It applies to trade within a country as well.

Embedded in Smith's analysis of how markets develop dynamically over time, one finds another argument for free international trade. Although Smith never fully developed this argument, later economists were able to infer it from the Wealth of Nations. We have already seen that Smith held that a key determinant of the wealth of nations was the productivity of labor and that labor productivity depended primarily upon the division of labor. As labor becomes more divided and specialized, he pointed out, its productivity increases dramatically. Smith held that differences in individual abilities, and hence productivity, were largely the effects of the division of labor, not its cause. At birth, Smith asserted, we are all similarly talented; it is only after we begin to specialize in various activities that we become more proficient relative to others who do not so specialize. We learn by doing, becoming progressively able to produce our goods more cheaply as we get more efficient in our specialized tasks.

In the language of modern economics, there are increasing returns (decreasing costs) as labor becomes more and more specialized. Part of Smith's argument for the advantages of foreign trade was broadly based

 

[Avatar4321]

actually by changing the Fed mandate to say, "no inflation".

The government has abut as much control at stopping inflation as a rock does of fighting gravity.

suppose you changed the Feds mandate to say "no inflation." Did you think the Girl Scouts controlled inflation and deflation?????

LOL. You really believe that the Fed can stop inflation if they choose to?

Inflation is a natural activity in an economy. Sure, the government can accelerate it with massive spending and by printing money or deccelerate it. But they can't STOP it.

Let's just abolish the fed and let the market dictate the price of currency.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Inflation is a natural activity in an economy. Sure, the government can accelerate it with massive spending and by printing money or deccelerate it. But they can't STOP it.

way way too too stupid!!! If the Fed cut the money supply in half prices would fall by half. Did you think the girl scouts made our money?? Now you can see why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao. Pure ignorance does not stop most people, ego drives them !! If this is not a good example I'd love for someone to explain why.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, free trade, which is based on the Law of Comparative Advantage, was the concept of David Ricardo. CON$ervative know-it-alls are 100% ignorant of economics.

please then give example then for whole world to see!!!!

Proof that CON$ are 100% ignorant of economics.
The fact that you don't know that David Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage is the only justification for free trade is proof of your complete ignorance of basic economics.
Thank you.

Study this and learn something:
Macroeconomics - Trade and the law of Comparative Advantage

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Proof that CON$ are 100% ignorant of economics.
The fact that you don't know that David Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage is the only justification for free trade

Too stupid:

1) posted above you will see that Smith had a justification too

2) posted here you'll see Smith and Ricardo were not only ones with justification

3) so true enough I don't know it because it BS.

4) I suggest college before you try to think with adults. Sorry

For over 200 years, economists have touted an alternative approach in which specialization leads to wealth and self-sufficiency leads to poverty. In Book IV, Chapter 3, paragraph 31 of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1789; 1st edition: 1776), Adam Smith showed how both parties can benefit from trade, but it was David Ricardo who is credited with what is commonly called "comparative advantage," the idea that both parties can benefit from trade even if one of them is better at producing everything than the other. In Chapter 7, paragraph 16 of his On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), Ricardo uses the example of England and Portugal to show that even if England were better than Portugal at producing both cloth and wine, Portugal can still have a comparative advantage in one good.

Ricardo may not have been the first economist to advance the concept of comparative advantage. Another Englishman, Colonel Robert Torrens, included a brief, very rough formulation of the law of comparative advantage in one paragraph in "An Essay on the External Corn Trade" (1815), but Ricardo's treatment of the topic is more explicit and influential.

 

[edthecynic]

CON$ervative know-it-alls are 100% ignorant of economics. Smith supported laissez-faire which CON$ stupidly call free trade, but Smith supported tariffs which is anything but free trade.

Economic: Adam Smith Free Trade International Trade Theory

Smith, on the contrary, argued for unregulated foreign trade, reasoning that if England can produce a good, e.g., wool, at lower costs than France, and if France can produce another good, e.g., wine, at lower costs than England, then it is beneficial to both parties to exchange these goods, with each trading the good it produces at lower costs for the good it produces at higher costs. In the language of economics, this became known as the absolute advantage argument for foreign trade. This argument, moreover, is not limited to international trade. It applies to trade within a country as well.

Embedded in Smith's analysis of how markets develop dynamically over time, one finds another argument for free international trade. Although Smith never fully developed this argument, later economists were able to infer it from the Wealth of Nations. We have already seen that Smith held that a key determinant of the wealth of nations was the productivity of labor and that labor productivity depended primarily upon the division of labor. As labor becomes more divided and specialized, he pointed out, its productivity increases dramatically. Smith held that differences in individual abilities, and hence productivity, were largely the effects of the division of labor, not its cause. At birth, Smith asserted, we are all similarly talented; it is only after we begin to specialize in various activities that we become more proficient relative to others who do not so specialize. We learn by doing, becoming progressively able to produce our goods more cheaply as we get more efficient in our specialized tasks.

In the language of modern economics, there are increasing returns (decreasing costs) as labor becomes more and more specialized. Part of Smith's argument for the advantages of foreign trade was broadly based

As I already pointed out, Smith supported tariffs therefore he was not a free trader.

Smith's Law, Free Trade, and Free Immigration
Another factor in abridging free trade, however, is the "retaliatory" tariff, which raises barriers against the trade of foreign nations just because they use protective tariffs themselves. From this point of view, free trade is seen as good, but practicing it against a non-free trading partner puts one at a disadvantage. This is so appealing an argument that it seems to have been accepted by Thomas Jefferson and even by Adam Smith himself.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As I already pointed out, Smith supported tariffs therefore he was not a free trader.

"Smith favored retaliatory tariffs. Retaliation to bring down high tariff rates in other countries, he thought, would work. “The recovery of a great foreign market,” he wrote “will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.”http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html


Smith was for retaliatory tarriffs as a means to build free trade and free markets which is why he is universally regarded as a free trader. If he had seen how tariff wars led to the Depression and WW 2 you can bet he wouldn't even have been for retaliatory tariffs.


As a liberal you should now see the anti intellectual nature of liberalism. Its takes intelligence to understand comparative advantage. A liberal can't understand that less trade makes you poorer not richer. Even Krugman is for free trade.

 

[uscitizen]

The key to this thread is the opening 3 words in the title.
"A simple Republican"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The key to this thread is the opening 3 words in the title.
"A simple Republican"

liberal without brains for substance trying to change the subject

 

[Decepticon]

I like how EVERY SINGLE CONTENTION made in the OP isn't backed up by ONE SINGLE IOTA of supporting evidence.

Hell, why not claim a lot more jobs if you're gonna just make stuff up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I like how EVERY SINGLE CONTENTION made in the OP isn't backed up by ONE SINGLE IOTA of supporting evidence.

Hell, why not claim a lot more jobs if you're gonna just make stuff up.

why then be so afraid to pick the worst contention in the OP and tell us exactly whats wrong with it?? What does your fear tell you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

The operative word in the thread title is 'simple'. Just be sure you apply the appropriate definition of that word.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

The operative word in the thread title is 'simple'. Just be sure you apply the appropriate definition of that word.

The liberal objects to OP but knows he lacks the IQ to say why!

 

[edthecynic]

As I already pointed out, Smith supported tariffs therefore he was not a free trader.

"Smith favored retaliatory tariffs. Retaliation to bring down high tariff rates in other countries, he thought, would work. “The recovery of a great foreign market,” he wrote “will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.”Adam Smith: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty


Smith was for retaliatory tarriffs as a means to build free trade and free markets which is why he is universally regarded as a free trader. If he had seen how tariff wars led to the Depression and WW 2 you can bet he wouldn't even have been for retaliatory tariffs.


As a liberal you should now see the anti intellectual nature of liberalism. Its takes intelligence to understand comparative advantage. A liberal can't understand that less trade makes you poorer not richer. Even Krugman is for free trade.

Anyone who is for tariffs is not a free trader. PERIOD.

Your lack of intelligence is why I had to provide you a link to explain the Law of Comparative Advantage to you, which you had never even heard of before. You obviously still didn't understand it because if you had you would know that retaliatory tariffs hurt the country that imposes them and reduces their comparative advantage, which is why any economist who supports retaliatory tariffs is not a free trader. Everyone who understands the Law of Comparative Advantage is for free trade, which is why I'm for free trade and you and Smith are not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your lack of intelligence is why I had to provide you a link to explain the Law of Comparative Advantage to you, which you had never even heard of before.

if true I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away again. Call your lawyer you've got my name!!

You obviously still didn't understand it because if you had you would know that retaliatory tariffs hurt the country that imposes them and reduces their comparative advantage,

if you have evidence that I didn't know that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? Do you enjoy beating up your strawmen???

which is why any economist who supports retaliatory tariffs is not a free trader.

Smith said he for for temporary tariffs as a mean to create free trade with a country opposed to it. Please ask your parents to explain that to you!!

Everyone who understands the Law of Comparative Advantage is for free trade, which is why I'm for free trade and you and Smith are not.

If I'm not for ffree trade I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?? Another great strawman!! You must be 15 years old not to see what you've done??

 

[edthecynic]

Your lack of intelligence is why I had to provide you a link to explain the Law of Comparative Advantage to you, which you had never even heard of before.

if true I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away again. Call your lawyer you've got my name!!

You obviously still didn't understand it because if you had you would know that retaliatory tariffs hurt the country that imposes them and reduces their comparative advantage,

if you have evidence that I didn't know that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? Do you enjoy beating up your strawmen???

which is why any economist who supports retaliatory tariffs is not a free trader.

Smith said he for for temporary tariffs as a mean to create free trade with a country opposed to it. Please ask your parents to explain that to you!!

Everyone who understands the Law of Comparative Advantage is for free trade, which is why I'm for free trade and you and Smith are not.

If I'm not for ffree trade I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?? Another great strawman!! You must be 15 years old not to see what you've done??

Tariffs are the opposite of free trade, you can't create free trade by imposing tariffs. Only a CON$ervative is too stupid to understand that.

You've already lost $40,000 to me that you've welshed on, pay that up first before making any other wagers you can't afford to lose.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tariffs are the opposite of free trade, you can't create free trade by imposing tariffs.

please reread for comprehension a 5th time. Smith's theory was that a temporary tariff on, say, China's goods would encourge them to open their borders to our goods thus creating free trade.

Was that easy enough for you?

 

[edthecynic]

Tariffs are the opposite of free trade, you can't create free trade by imposing tariffs.

please reread for comprehension a 5th time. Smith's theory was that a temporary tariff on, say, China's goods would encourge them to open their borders to our goods thus creating free trade.

Was that easy enough for you?

That's pure bullshit, and has never worked before.

Here is a quote from the link I posted for you earlier in this thread that obviously went completely over your head!

CON$ are 100% ignorant of the most basic economic principles!!!

Another factor in abridging free trade, however, is the "retaliatory" tariff, which raises barriers against the trade of foreign nations just because they use protective tariffs themselves. From this point of view, free trade is seen as good, but practicing it against a non-free trading partner puts one at a disadvantage. This is so appealing an argument that it seems to have been accepted by Thomas Jefferson and even by Adam Smith himself. However, it makes the same mistake as all other "feudal tenure" arguments. If "protective" tariffs actually damage one's own consumers, then such a tariff is a self-inflicted wound. And then -- as has been pointed out by the economist Walter Williams -- a "retaliatory" tariff means that one's own nation "retaliates" against another one damaging its consumers by damaging one's own consumers in turn. Thus, we say, "You've hurt yourself, so in retaliation I'm going to hurt myself also." In ordinary life this would be deeply idiotic behavior.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's pure bullshit, and has never worked before.

dear, you were talking about whether it was Smith's position, not whether it worked!! You're trying to change the subject. Did you fool yourself??

Here is a quote from the link I posted for you earlier in this thread that obviously went completely over your head!

if so why be so afraid to say exactly what went over my head?? What does your fear tell you?

 

[CausingPAIN]

1,2,3,4,5*,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15 “Read signature below”

5*) make Federal debt illegal?.... I like the idea, but insane.

6) send illegal workers home….. And more this is workable, and would be more than 8mil.

9) Make health insurance competition legal… Yes, and all must pay and/or no tax refund minimum