Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!

[CultureCitizen]

Small farmers in the US have slowly been forced by big farmers. This is normal and to be expected. Are there some subsidizes? Sure. The over all effect is ambiguous to me, because some suggest it's huge, and others say it's small.

"Slowly" , that is the key point. Every now and then works are shed off by technological improvements and competition.
Every system has a limit to the amount of change that it can cope with. When you apply a sudden change you simply break the system's capacity to cope with change.

Can the US receive 10 million immigrants in a 100 hundred years ? Sure, I am certain that is no problem.
Now , try the same in 5 years.
The same applies to infant industries , slow changes promote competition, sudden changes just kill off industries and cause severe crisis. Trade is a great thing , buth changes have to be gradual.
The free for all do it by the book approach of neo-liberalism and NAFTA has prooved to be a really bad idea.
It's too late to close the pandora box. It is now time to ask the important and unconfortable questions:
What went wrong ? and how can it be corrected?

Sure, you can wall up the US, to slow down immigration, that will work to an extent, but it seems a rather childish solution.

I want to interject something about small farmers here. I happen to know several and here is what has happened with them. They have struggled to survive as small fish in the big pond. Much of it is because they are good business people who knew how to negotiate good contracts with the larger farms to co-opt and remain afloat. The small farmer doesn't get a whole lot of government subsidies, most of those go to the larger scale operations. The little they receive is almost not worth the effort to obtain. However, many of them probably couldn't pay their property taxes if they didn't get some assistance. Still, they are not getting rich and at times it has seemed like their breed is dying out, that it's just a matter of time until they are all gone.

That said... Here is where the beauty of free market capitalism is so amazing to watch. One of my close friends has a small rural farm near where I live. He and his wife have been targeting the hipster generation, the new age organic trend... people who no longer trust the food supply because everything is full of chemicals, hormones and preservatives. A few years ago, they opened a "Country Store" and began doing mail orders for a variety of products produced on their farm. They added a delivery service to the city and just bought a second truck. The business has been phenomenal.

This past weekend, they opened their second store. This one is a specialty store for meats but they will carry much the same merchandise as their other store. I went to the grand opening and there was no place to park! I bet they ended up with over 1,000 people before the day was over. Seems that LOTS of people are interested in farm fresh, organically-raised and locally produced products.

So... Let's not be so quick to write off the small farmer in America. Free markets are often cyclical in nature, things come and things go, but the good things may return again some day!

Nice story Boss !!
I really wish all small farmers can do equally well.

 

[Andylusion]

Small farmers in the US have slowly been forced by big farmers. This is normal and to be expected. Are there some subsidizes? Sure. The over all effect is ambiguous to me, because some suggest it's huge, and others say it's small.

"Slowly" , that is the key point. Every now and then works are shed off by technological improvements and competition.
Every system has a limit to the amount of change that it can cope with. When you apply a sudden change you simply break the system's capacity to cope with change.

Can the US receive 10 million immigrants in a 100 hundred years ? Sure, I am certain that is no problem.
Now , try the same in 5 years.
The same applies to infant industries , slow changes promote competition, sudden changes just kill off industries and cause severe crisis. Trade is a great thing , buth changes have to be gradual.
The free for all do it by the book approach of neo-liberalism and NAFTA has prooved to be a really bad idea.
It's too late to close the pandora box. It is now time to ask the important and unconfortable questions:
What went wrong ? and how can it be corrected?

Sure, you can wall up the US, to slow down immigration, that will work to an extent, but it seems a rather childish solution.

There is no evidence that it is breaking the system. Further, I don't think you realize the steep decline of small farms in the US. We went from 6.5 million farms, to 4.5 million farms between 1950 and 1960, and down to 3 million farms by 1970.

The number of small farms in the US dropped by half in just 20 years.

It didn't break the system.

Change, whether slow or fast, kill off industries. And change is uncomfortable. And change makes people mad. Get over it. Life has only one constant, and that is change.

Again, would you rather the people of Mexico be paying a much higher price for food? People who are already poor and malnourished?

Again, I've already proved that Mexico had a free trade policy before NAFTA. It worked very well. Mexico by any measure would have been far worse off than it was before.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Again, would you rather the people of Mexico be paying a much higher price for food? People who are already poor and malnourished?

Again, I've already proved that Mexico had a free trade policy before NAFTA. It worked very well. Mexico by any measure would have been far worse off than it was before.

Why ? Because although inefficient, local production provided work for them. The same applies to infant industry. Hundreds of toy makers and textile makers crashed during the first years of free trade.


Yes, as economists say "in the long run" those employments were offset by the jobs created by maquiladoras.
IN THE LONG RUN!! 5-10 years. What did many though : oh , there's no jobs here, but I have a parent/friend north of the border who says there's a bountyful of "high paying jobs", so I'll take my chances there.
Of course, many joined the ranks of the informal economy, so thankfully informal economy is allowed, else the migrant crisis would have been much worse ( the shady part: some joined criminal activity ).
So there you go cause and consequence.
So I would rather have some of the city dwellers have to pay a higher price for food, than give criminal organizations the raw material to become ever expanding organizations AND send millions of unemployed to the US.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So I would rather have some of the city dwellers have to pay a higher price for food, S.

actually you are too stupid and liberal to know what you would really rather have. What you really mean is that you want armies of Nazi liberal bureaucrats going all around the world starting trade wars and deciding which of 145 million businesses get special govt favors!

Better to let capitalism decide who gets the "favors" that way our standard of living goes up, not down.

Do you have the IQ to understand!

 

[CultureCitizen]

So I would rather have some of the city dwellers have to pay a higher price for food, S.

actually you are too stupid and liberal to know what you would really rather have. What you really mean is that you want armies of Nazi liberal bureaucrats going all around the world starting trade wars and deciding which of 145 million businesses get special govt favors!

Better to let capitalism decide who gets the "favors" that way our standard of living goes up, not down.

Do you have the IQ to understand!

Ed,
I actually don't know how do you reach your conclusions using my posts as a starting point.
So just to clarify my general position on economy and capitalism :
A) Corporations and trade are necesary and the main source of economic growth.
B) Taxes are required to have governance and infrastructure
C) Gradual trade is not the same as free trade.
Free trade works ONLY between two nations with similar level of development
Gradual trade is necesary when there is a disparity in economic development between two or more nations.
D) As market demand for labour decreases there are only three exits :
1) Redistribution through sub-optimal government jobs ( e.g. public parks) and state owned enterprises ( e.g the us postal service )
2) Handouts ( e.g food stamps )
3) Free services ( e.g. education and healthcare ) .
D1 should be the prefered method.
E) The financial sector is a key part of the economy, but, it must be regulated and watched because :
1) When it gets too big it will create a debt bubble which will eventually burst
2) They do businesses with assets they do not own ( except some banks like grameen where savers are shareholders)
3) They may grow too big , increasing the systemic risk of the overall economy.
F) Capitalism works better with many small businesses than with few large corporations. Sometimes large corporations are required, but again must be split or regulated .

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

F) Capitalism works better with many small businesses

100% stupid as always. So how many small businesses would the violent lib Nazi allow on the planet

 

[CultureCitizen]

F) Capitalism works better with many small businesses

100% stupid as always. So how many small businesses would the violent lib Nazi allow on the planet

Usually 1,000 business in a sector will do the trick. But then again , some areas like water , roads, and oil distribution work better with a monopoly ( imagine having two or three sets of roads just to have competition ) , in those cases regulated monopolies or regulated state ownership is ok.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Usually 1,000 business in a sector will do the trick..

so would you be one of the violent Nazis who decides which of the 115 million businesses on the planet gets to survive??

 

[CultureCitizen]

Usually 1,000 business in a sector will do the trick..

so would you be one of the violent Nazis who decides which of the 115 million businesses on the planet gets to survive??

Ahem... Ed, that would be the lower , not the upper limit.But I am aware that such things as natural monopolies exist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Usually 1,000 business in a sector will do the trick..

so would you be one of the violent Nazis who decides which of the 115 million businesses on the planet gets to survive??

Ahem... Ed, that would be the lower , not the upper limit.But I am aware that such things as natural monopolies exist.

so would you be one of the violent Nazis who decides which of the 115 million crony socialist businesses on the planet gets to survive??

 

[Andylusion]

Again, would you rather the people of Mexico be paying a much higher price for food? People who are already poor and malnourished?

Again, I've already proved that Mexico had a free trade policy before NAFTA. It worked very well. Mexico by any measure would have been far worse off than it was before.

Why ? Because although inefficient, local production provided work for them. The same applies to infant industry. Hundreds of toy makers and textile makers crashed during the first years of free trade.


Yes, as economists say "in the long run" those employments were offset by the jobs created by maquiladoras.
IN THE LONG RUN!! 5-10 years. What did many though : oh , there's no jobs here, but I have a parent/friend north of the border who says there's a bountyful of "high paying jobs", so I'll take my chances there.
Of course, many joined the ranks of the informal economy, so thankfully informal economy is allowed, else the migrant crisis would have been much worse ( the shady part: some joined criminal activity ).
So there you go cause and consequence.
So I would rather have some of the city dwellers have to pay a higher price for food, than give criminal organizations the raw material to become ever expanding organizations AND send millions of unemployed to the US.

Do you not see that the argument you are making right now, is exactly the same argument that China made for 50 years? Yeah, the economy is inefficient, and yes these local low paying jobs produce overly expensive goods, that make everyone else impoverished.... but they have jobs!

Further, by saying textiles and toys makers crashed in Mexico, you are implying those jobs came to the US? Really? Where?

If that's true, why haven't we seen a huge surge in manufacturing?

One of the links you provided, in my opinion, had a better explanation. I believe it was the government report on NAFTA. It cited several reasons for the problems in the economy, including corruption and criminal activity, but a more fundamental economic market problem. Namely... China.

Even I didn't see this aspect. Maybe the problem isn't as much free trade, or crime or corruption, as it was China. After all, China and Mexico were both competing in the exact same markets in the 90s. Of course China had two competitive advantages, size and price. Larger labor markets, and lower costs.

I got more time to read through the report you linked to, and they mentioned this aspect.

What do you think? Is it possible you are blaming NAFTA for results that are actually simply due to Mexico being muscled out of the market by China?

And just as a side note, I'm wondering how many of Mexico's business community are interested in repealing free-trade.

 

[Andylusion]

So I would rather have some of the city dwellers have to pay a higher price for food, S.

actually you are too stupid and liberal to know what you would really rather have. What you really mean is that you want armies of Nazi liberal bureaucrats going all around the world starting trade wars and deciding which of 145 million businesses get special govt favors!

Better to let capitalism decide who gets the "favors" that way our standard of living goes up, not down.

Do you have the IQ to understand!

Ed,
I actually don't know how do you reach your conclusions using my posts as a starting point.
So just to clarify my general position on economy and capitalism :
A) Corporations and trade are necesary and the main source of economic growth.
B) Taxes are required to have governance and infrastructure
C) Gradual trade is not the same as free trade.
Free trade works ONLY between two nations with similar level of development
Gradual trade is necesary when there is a disparity in economic development between two or more nations.
D) As market demand for labour decreases there are only three exits :
1) Redistribution through sub-optimal government jobs ( e.g. public parks) and state owned enterprises ( e.g the us postal service )
2) Handouts ( e.g food stamps )
3) Free services ( e.g. education and healthcare ) .
D1 should be the prefered method.
E) The financial sector is a key part of the economy, but, it must be regulated and watched because :
1) When it gets too big it will create a debt bubble which will eventually burst
2) They do businesses with assets they do not own ( except some banks like grameen where savers are shareholders)
3) They may grow too big , increasing the systemic risk of the overall economy.
F) Capitalism works better with many small businesses than with few large corporations. Sometimes large corporations are required, but again must be split or regulated .

That's not true. In fact, the vast majority of small businesses wouldn't exist without large corporations. The whole reason corporations exist at all, is because they are able to raise the capital to build better products at a lower price.

Moreover, small businesses have a tendency to die out with the founder. Sons and daughters are not always leadership quality, or even want to run the family business. Or just as often, the founder doesn't want to release the business even though he is no longer able to run it, and drives it into the ground.

What this means is that the growth and experience that goes into making a product better, would be reset every 30 to 40 years. A corporation transcends the founder, allowing for continuous improvement and advancement of the product.

Can you imagine how less advanced automobiles would be today, if every 30 to 40 years, all the old businesses died off, and new businesses had to start over from scratch? Nor would a small business have the research budgets of major corporations. Ford has spent easily $40 Billion dollars on research and design over the past 5 years.

What small business has spent anything close?

And like I said before, what small business would exist without major corporations? Think of the independent plumber. What tools would he have without corporations? What supplies would he have? What replacement parts?

I just interviewed for a job with a company in Hilliard Ohio, called Eco-Plumbers. They install tank-less water heaters and other things. The building they are in, was built by a major corporation. The software they use, was made by major corporations. The communication system they use to contact their plumbers, was made by a major corporation. Computerized dispatching system, was made by a major corporation. The vans they purchase, the tools they have, the supplies they purchase, and of course the parts and tank-less water heaters, all of it made by major corporations.

A single guy, and a bunch of his college buddies, built this business from the ground up. The quintessential small business. None of it would exist without major corporations.

Nearly all small businesses are like that. Short of prostitution, and indentured servant, nearly every single small business wouldn't exist without large corporations. Where I work now is no different. Everything we do requires large corporations. Most of our customers are large international corporations. And certainly all of our parts, are built by international corporations.

You do realize that this very forum software you are using right now, built by a small business XenForo, is built on MySQL.... right? That's Oracle, a major international corporations. XenForo wouldn't exist, without a major corporation.

 

[danielpalos]

Unintended side-efect : massive migration).

A side effect easily eliminated by a Trump wall!!! Then when there is economic progress the migrants have to develop competitive skills in their own country. This is the very essence of economic progress. Small farmers and small car makers are not efficient so belong in the dust bin of history.

dear, how much money are we going to make on the Great Walls of America? Even the Chinese are making money on their, social wall, now.

worthless gibberish

Dear, thank you for proving what I have been saying the whole time; that Capitalism is just useless to th right.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Do you not see that the argument you are making right now, is exactly the same argument that China made for 50 years? Yeah, the economy is inefficient, and yes these local low paying jobs produce overly expensive goods, that make everyone else impoverished.... but they have jobs!

Further, by saying textiles and toys makers crashed in Mexico, you are implying those jobs came to the US? Really? Where?

If that's true, why haven't we seen a huge surge in manufacturing?

Andy , after such a display of ignorance I stopped reading after these two paragraphs.
First :
China did not follow a free trade model. Period
Read the Beijing concensus.
Mexico did follow a free trade model.
Read the Washington concensus.

Second :
Gladly the US doesnt have a 2,000 mile border with the US.

Third factory crashes : no , the jobs were recovered year laters by direct investment created by foreign countries in Mexico, that included new maquiladoras at the border, by that time millions o f jobless Mexicans had already migrated into the US ( they still do at a smaller scale ).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

XenForo wouldn't exist, without a major corporation.

is there a liberal somewhere on earth stupid enough to oppose the existence of big corporations??

 

[Andylusion]

Do you not see that the argument you are making right now, is exactly the same argument that China made for 50 years? Yeah, the economy is inefficient, and yes these local low paying jobs produce overly expensive goods, that make everyone else impoverished.... but they have jobs!

Further, by saying textiles and toys makers crashed in Mexico, you are implying those jobs came to the US? Really? Where?

If that's true, why haven't we seen a huge surge in manufacturing?

Andy , after such a display of ignorance I stopped reading after these two paragraphs.
First :
China did not follow a free trade model. Period
Read the Beijing concensus.
Mexico did follow a free trade model.
Read the Washington concensus.

Second :
Gladly the US doesnt have a 2,000 mile border with the US.

Third factory crashes : no , the jobs were recovered year laters by direct investment created by foreign countries in Mexico, that included new maquiladoras at the border, by that time millions o f jobless Mexicans had already migrated into the US ( they still do at a smaller scale ).

Cult, after such a display of ignorance I stopped reading after the first false claims.

You clearly don't have anything more to offer the conversation. We're done here.

 

[Andylusion]

XenForo wouldn't exist, without a major corporation.

is there a liberal somewhere on earth stupid enough to oppose the existence of big corporations??

Oh yes.... many many....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China did not follow a free trade model. Period

of course it did!!! who did they force to buy their products????????????????????

XenForo wouldn't exist, without a major corporation.

is there a liberal somewhere on earth stupid enough to oppose the existence of big corporations??

Oh yes.... many many....

Well I hope such a liberal shows up here to argue the point

 

[danielpalos]

one already did all we need to do is solve for a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty.

 

[Andylusion]

China did not follow a free trade model. Period

of course it did!!! who did they force to buy their products????????????????????

XenForo wouldn't exist, without a major corporation.

is there a liberal somewhere on earth stupid enough to oppose the existence of big corporations??

Oh yes.... many many....

Well I hope such a liberal shows up here to argue the point

I actually had one literally try and argue that we should just outlaw 'corporations'. Just no corporations... at all. Everyone was apparently supposed to work for tiny mom&pop shops for minimum wage for life.

Now whether or not someone will come and argue that again, I have no idea. But there are some absolute crazy people on the left-wing.