Republican's lie about Smoot Hawley

[sealybobo]

Most of these people don't care if its a lie. They don't know jack shit about economics or the Smoot Hawley act, either.

They've turned this issue into a myth.

Face it, Slearly, the sorts of conservatives you encounter here aren't reality based thinkers.

Niether are MOST of them here in any way representative of mainstream conservatives.

These people are mostly ignorant trolls who parrot a few phrases they've been taught.

They're not seeking to win hearts and minds, here, they're seeking to evoke responses so they can personally insult those who refute their ignorant blather.

They were talking about this on the Ed Schultz show the other day. They said, "it's hard to argue with a right winger because all they have are talking points"

I agree.

Because everytime you make a point to a right winger, all they do is ignore your point and move on to another talking point.

They don't analyze, or philosophize, or deep think anything thru.

For example, it is common sense that it is wrong to deny gay couples all the same rights as straight couples. There is no justification to deny them. But right wingers come up with some crazy shit. They compared gays marrying to siblings marrying, or a man marrying a goat. Or they say, "it'll ruin the sanctity of marriage", or "the bible says".

None of those arguments are good. That's why the courts are going to pass gay marriage.

But then the right wingers will just fall back on their argument of "ACTIVIST JUDGES LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH"

God I hate Republicans.

 

[Agnapostate]

As Irwin summarized, it's simply a failure of neoliberals to factor deflation into their analysis, considering its impact on the effective tariff. It's simply another element of their pattern of ignoring necessary imperfections in market exchange.

 

[editec]

The decline in trade might have had SOMETHING to do with the fact that it was WORLD WIDE DEPRESSION, too, don't you think?

Of course you don't think!

Why do I ask such silly questions?

 

[sealybobo]

You build scarecrows for a living, don't you? Total strawman. One thing the scarecrow DOES have on you is a brain.

What is a strawman? I heard or read a right winger talking shit about Smoot Hawley and I remember that Thom Hartmann squashed that right wing bullshit in one of his op ed's, so I posted it.

Now instead of you right wingers having a hush campaign about smoot hawley, we can have the argument right here in the open, so people who don't know or care a lot about politics can come see what this "smoot hawley" thing is that you right wingers keep talking about.

And it turns out you are wrong. Tariffs didn't cause the Great Depression. Just like the one we are in now, the last one was caused by the GOP and Corporations that own the GOP.

Oh yea, they own Chris Dodd too. You can have him.

Just like you guys bashed unions for 30 years, and now we see companies breaking their unions and going bankrupt and renigging on pensions.

That's ok, because the tide has turned. They attacked unions, but the other 90% of us working stiffs who aren't in unions see that you also feel we are overpaid and lazy too.

First you attacked the unions, then the rest of us. It is time we started fighting back.

We will at least stop before you guys go any further.

PS. I don't mind sending high paying manufacturing jobs up north to the dirty south where they can get cheap hick labor. I'm all for that. That'll mean cheaper products.

Just don't send the jobs overseas or to mexico. Aren't the red necks down south cheap enough? Or are they lazy and overpaid too Del?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs cause other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs, cause people to pay more for lower quality products, get rid of the incentive to be innovative, and generally make a country poorer.

 

[Agnapostate]

Tariffs cause other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs, cause people to pay more for lower quality products, get rid of the incentive to be innovative, and generally make a country poorer.

That might function as a nice talking point at mises.org, but is effectively useless outside of a utopian conception of perfect competition.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs cause other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs, cause people to pay more for lower quality products, get rid of the incentive to be innovative, and generally make a country poorer.

That might function as a nice talking point at mises.org, but is effectively useless outside of a utopian conception of perfect competition.

Ahhh but I learned that at LewRockwell.com.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ahhh but I learned that at LewRockwell.com.

Spew is much the same, both adherents of a pathetically marginal school that serves to embarrass other heterodox schools due to their anti-empirical nature more than anything else.

 

[editec]

Tariffs cause other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs, cause people to pay more for lower quality products, get rid of the incentive to be innovative, and generally make a country poorer.

Tariffs also made the USA the most productive nation on earth with what once was the wealthiest middle class in the world, and with the best standard of living, too.

My history-based reality trumps your economic theory, amigo.

Sometimes theories seem so logical, but reality doesn't give a shit how logical your theories are.

If you doubt the truth of my point, do feel free to witness how the nations imbalnce of trade is reflected in the declining quality of life in this nation.

That is not a mere coincidence, that is cause and effect in economics.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs cause other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs, cause people to pay more for lower quality products, get rid of the incentive to be innovative, and generally make a country poorer.

Tariffs also made the USA the most productive nation on earth with what once was the wealthiest middle class in the world, and with the best standard of living, too.

My history-based reality trumps your economic theory, amigo.

Sometimes theories seem so logical, but reality doesn't give a shit how logical your theories are.

If you doubt the truth of my point, do feel free to witness how the nations imbalnce of trade is reflected in the declining quality of life in this nation.

That is not a mere coincidence, that is cause and effect in economics.

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

 

[sealybobo]

Tariffs cause other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs, cause people to pay more for lower quality products, get rid of the incentive to be innovative, and generally make a country poorer.

That might function as a nice talking point at mises.org, but is effectively useless outside of a utopian conception of perfect competition.

I agree. I think people who say things like Kevin just did, no offense Kevin, but they are usually ignoring the fact that there are other variables that can/will/do blow his economic theories.

While what he said probably wasn't wrong if he was taking an econ 101 class, that doesn't make it 100% always true if applied in the real world.

And who cares about other nations and their tariffs? Are we talking Canada? Because I don't think we have a problem with Canada. Maybe we won't tariff Canada's imports.

But if we are talking about some 3rd world south American country, fuck them and their tariffs. Am I wrong?

 

[sealybobo]

Tariffs cause other nations to impose retaliatory tariffs, cause people to pay more for lower quality products, get rid of the incentive to be innovative, and generally make a country poorer.

Tariffs also made the USA the most productive nation on earth with what once was the wealthiest middle class in the world, and with the best standard of living, too.

My history-based reality trumps your economic theory, amigo.

Sometimes theories seem so logical, but reality doesn't give a shit how logical your theories are.

If you doubt the truth of my point, do feel free to witness how the nations imbalnce of trade is reflected in the declining quality of life in this nation.

That is not a mere coincidence, that is cause and effect in economics.

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

American wages declined because of free trade, not despite.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tariffs also made the USA the most productive nation on earth with what once was the wealthiest middle class in the world, and with the best standard of living, too.

My history-based reality trumps your economic theory, amigo.

Sometimes theories seem so logical, but reality doesn't give a shit how logical your theories are.

If you doubt the truth of my point, do feel free to witness how the nations imbalnce of trade is reflected in the declining quality of life in this nation.

That is not a mere coincidence, that is cause and effect in economics.

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

American wages declined because of free trade, not despite.

What free trade would that be?

 

[sealybobo]

The U.S. grew despite it's tariffs, not because of them.

American wages declined because of free trade, not despite.

What free trade would that be?

When you send all the manufacturing jobs out of the country, all the American factory workers who have to go out and find alternative jobs, most of them are not making as much as they did when they were working in those factories.

I know guys like this because I'm in Michigan. They went from union wages to Walmart.

What free trade you ask? How about Walmart. Your thirst for cheap products has lowered wages.

Not CEO wages though. Their pay went up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

American wages declined because of free trade, not despite.

What free trade would that be?

When you send all the manufacturing jobs out of the country, all the American factory workers who have to go out and find alternative jobs, most of them are not making as much as they did when they were working in those factories.

I know guys like this because I'm in Michigan. They went from union wages to Walmart.

What free trade you ask? How about Walmart. Your thirst for cheap products has lowered wages.

Not CEO wages though. Their pay went up.

Without Wal-Mart where would they have gone?

 

[sealybobo]

What free trade would that be?

When you send all the manufacturing jobs out of the country, all the American factory workers who have to go out and find alternative jobs, most of them are not making as much as they did when they were working in those factories.

I know guys like this because I'm in Michigan. They went from union wages to Walmart.

What free trade you ask? How about Walmart. Your thirst for cheap products has lowered wages.

Not CEO wages though. Their pay went up.

Without Wal-Mart where would they have gone?

Without Walmart, Americans would be making more money working for Krogers, Farmer Jacks, Kmart, A&P, Costco, Sams Club & Meijers.

Don't get me started on Walmart. It is another argument you right wingers won't win. No one but you is loving Walmart. (and I know you aren't a right winger K, but you are close enough.

 

[GHook93]

I thought Hoover was one of the Republicans favorite presidents.

Simple answer, most of time you don't think! He is not a favorite President by either side. However, his fiscal policies surely reflected that of a liberal democrat, so he should be a darling of the Democrats!

 

[Agnapostate]

Without Wal-Mart where would they have gone?

To more productive enterprises, I'd imagine. As it is, Wal-Mart settlements effectively transfer wealth from the working poor to consumers and stockholders.

There are empirical sources to be considered on this matter, such as Goetz and Swaminathan's Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty. Consider the abstract:

After carefully and comprehensively accounting for other local determinants of changes in poverty, we find that the presence of Wal-Mart was unequivocally associated with smaller reductions in family-poverty rates in U.S. counties during the 1990s relative to places that had no stores. This was true not only in terms of existing stores in a county in 1987, but also an independent outcome of new stores built between 1987 and 1998.

No less critical is Zhang et al.'s The effects of Wal-Mart on local labor markets, which can permit one to form a comprehensive empirical analysis when used in conjunction with the data from Goetz and Swaminathan. The abstract is similarly telling:

We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart.

In short, Wal-Mart settlements effectively have deleterious impacts on employment, wages, and the wider local economy.

 

[GHook93]

When you send all the manufacturing jobs out of the country, all the American factory workers who have to go out and find alternative jobs, most of them are not making as much as they did when they were working in those factories.

I know guys like this because I'm in Michigan. They went from union wages to Walmart.

What free trade you ask? How about Walmart. Your thirst for cheap products has lowered wages.

Not CEO wages though. Their pay went up.

Without Wal-Mart where would they have gone?

Without Walmart, Americans would be making more money working for Krogers, Farmer Jacks, Kmart, A&P, Costco, Sams Club & Meijers.

Don't get me started on Walmart. It is another argument you right wingers won't win. No one but you is loving Walmart. (and I know you aren't a right winger K, but you are close enough.

I will respect you call to say away from Walmart in this thread, but one thing to one out. Many walmart shoppers are from the lower econ level, I'm sure these people love Walmart, but are not right winger!

 

[Agnapostate]

I will respect you call to say away from Walmart in this thread, but one thing to one out. Many walmart shoppers are from the lower econ level, I'm sure these people love Walmart, but are not right winger!

Can you present any empirical data that evidences that Wal-Mart has beneficial effects on employment, wages, and the wider local economy, contrary to that of Goetz and Swaminathan and Zhang et al.?