You seem to mis-understand basic economics. Consumption does not lead to more specialization. What leads to more specialization is efficiency and productivity. Efficiency and productivity lower costs for people, something you apparently are arguing against, given your rhetoric above. Lower costs increases the real incomes of consumers, which increases their incomes and allows them to consume more which generates more jobs. Thus, specialization leads to more consumption, not the other way around.
I don't have a misunderstanding of basic econ. I was quoting your post.
The reason is because trade increases specialization, which increases productivity, which is a critical key to a growing economy.
After all, we sure do see the SPECIALIZATION of our auto industry, don't we? Indeed, we kick all sorts of ass in foreign markets there. yup. Now, if you want to dance around the jargon some more and assume shit about what I am arguing against that's fine. I don't need to shift the debate in order to feel smart here. But, let me point out specific bullshit to your reply:
Efficiency and productivity lower costs for people, something you apparently are arguing against, given your rhetoric above. Lower costs increases the real incomes of consumers, which increases their incomes and allows them to consume more which generates more jobs.
Can you show me a real life scenerio outside of the rhetorical bullshit? 'cause I can use the loss of mom and pop retail stores to wal mart, the importation of cheap plastic shit from third world countries that the american standard of living CANNOT compete with, AND the overall decrease in manufacturing jobs.
Did you notice that you JUST insisted that CONSUMPTION doesn't increase specialization right before using a circular arguement to suggest exactly that?
"Which generates more jobs" doesn't indicate how those new jobs COMPARE to old jobs, does it? Why are you trying to be ambiguous about our current RETAIL REALITY after the husk of a middle class supporting Manufacturing sector has all but been gutted?
also, if you want to cry about who doesn't understand what I"VE posted my sources so feel free to jet them your email on basic econ.
Again, you seem to mis-understand basic economics as I was using local examples to show the effects on local people. The principles of economics do not change because of borders or because or the color of one's skin or the language they speak.
um, are you REALLY trying to suggest that the collective GNP of a united states INCLUDING alabama, NY and Cali is the same thing as the GNP of... MEXICO? Economics DON"T CHANGE because of borders, eh? Tell that to someone living in tijuana.
Specialization increases productivity and productive capacity. Economic growth and the creation of wealth occurs through increasing productivity. Putting up trade barriers in no way shape or form for a developed country does this.
ya.. because CLEARLY what you've read in some dude's book is like a Nostradamus prediction ten years after the implementation of Nafta.
Thank god econ is a hard science instead of a soft one with a broad range of opinions, eh?
In fact, it does the complete opposite because it shields weak industries that should go out of business and reallocates resources elsewhere.
YUP!
and we SEE that very thing happen every time a wal mart shuts down a small town downtown!
The only reason why these companies continue to exist is because of government patronage and protection.
yea, because we never see government patronage and protection ELSEWHERE, do we?
If you want to make a national security argument, fine, that's different. But what you are doing is propping up industries that are destroying wealth because they either lose money or generate profits below their cost of capital. A very good way to go broke is to borrow at 8% then invest at 4%. This is what you are doing using protectionism. This is what you are advocating.
just so you know, your "wealth" creation is not as important as the American Standard of living. You can run me through another lecture of trickle down econ and the rationalized concentration of wealth too but, given that only one of us has posted viable sources...
Face it, the free trade types have had their way and it isnt working how you predicted with all your econ theories and glass half full optimism. Like I said, feel free to email USA Today.
How very sad for this country - one that accounts for nearly a third of all production in the world - that this defeatist attitude seems so widespread. Having lived in two other Anglo-Saxon countries and having traveled extensively in Europe, the greatest thing about America is its eternal optimism and its self-belief that its people can solve any problem. But hiding behind trade barriers is a sign of defeatism and weakness, not strength and confidence.
You seem to think that using the words like Taxes and Defeatism means the same to anyone else as it does to you. I assure you, your opinion has more in common with assholes than it does universal applications. We heard your ETERNAL optimism back when your kind were busy dangling carrots that simply never manifested. Indeed, I have a different concept of sad: that some American's would sacrifice their nation for the sake of a pittance of personal increased income.
As for manufacturing jobs, they account for 10% of all American employment. You would think listening to the critics that much of America is on the verge of collapse because manufacturing employment is declining. But manufacturing output is not. Manufacturing output has been rising.
OUTPUT is not EMPLOYMENT, is it? yea, I guess OUTPUT WOULD increase when AMERICANS are out trying to compete with chinese child labor, eh? I guess OUTPUT WOULD increase when the exact same product can be made south of the border for exponentially less labor cost, eh? Are you quoting a CURRENT 10% or the percentage of AMERICANS who relied on this kind of employment 30 years ago? You know, when the middle class could support itself on more than your excuses for "wealth creation"?
The same argument was made at the end of the 1800s when manufacturing was becoming more important and agriculture was becoming less important. Around 1900, something like 40%-50% of Americans were employed in agriculture. The number is less than 5% today. Yet America produces something like 50x more food. Back then, the argument was "who was going to produce our food" since people were leaving the farm for the city. Agriculture was very important to the economy. A declining agricultural base would be bad for the economy. The critics were wrong then as they are now.
Shipping jobs to mexico isn't a step up from an agrarian age to an information age. YOU MIGHT have had a point if tech jobs were not so tritely enough being sent overseas too. But, since reality doesn't support your book lernin'..
Protectionism is a bad idea. It increases costs for most people for the benefit of the few.
Your theory isn't validated by the facts. Like I said, I"VE posted my evidence. Feel free to share your joke with them and the rest of America who doesn't share your rosey opinon of the job exodus since the implementation of nafta.
