Comments on: Starting a trade war with “Buy America” http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Randy Cunningham http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-18085 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:40:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-18085 You want to protect a small number of jobs that pay more than $100,000/year. It’s a reflection of who you are and your view of America.

In short, you’re clueless. The last time America was a good place to work was during the Johnson administration. Many factory workers had vacation homes. Jobs were plentiful, NOTHING made in mainland China was for sale in the United States, we made T-shirts here in America.

Sadly, you won’t lose your job protecting a small number of wealthy people’s income, but if you don’t get a clue, you won’t succeed in doing it.

]]>
By: MarkusR http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-18049 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:57:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-18049 How many American goods did the Bangladeshi people buy?

]]>
By: Kalahasti http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-17418 Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:01:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-17418 Diana,
Unemployment rate was higher than 5% and probably reached 9 or 10% in the 1970s but the trade deficit as a proportion of the US GDP was high as well and probably equivalent to the number you have quoted for 2006.
I am not too sure that there is a statistical correlation between unemployment rate and trade deficit. Unemployment rate is more likely a holistic effect of national and international trade, national and international consumer spending and government spending.
Kalahasti

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Mr. Castle,

When America had a 4.4% unemployment rate, in December 2006, the trade deficit stood at $68 billion. Now, the unemployment rate is 9.4% and forecast to rise higher, and America’s trade deficit stands at around $29 billion. Almost everyone would agree, especially the unemployed, that people were better off with a higher trade deficit and lower unemployment. Should we also be concerned about trade deficits between individual states, such as Maryland and Virginia?

Diana

]]>
By: Jeff Griffin http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-17380 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:35:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-17380 Yes our closets are full. They’re full of clothes sewn by children working in sweatshops, made from pesticide-contaminated cotton and that fall apart at the seams after a few washings.

How much plastic do we have to eat before we start making a bonfire out of globalists and stock analysts?

]]>
By: Anon http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-17379 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:25:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-17379 “If these theories are testable in a scientific manner where do you conduct the controls?”

The economy.

“if you abstract enough reality from the data you can produce a nice curve that in the abstract simulates reality.”

Economics is more then simple curves. It is also linking the relationship between factors. It is about looking at what is happening *right now*, figuring out why, and what led to it. That is how the theories were developed, much like science.

“how many CEOs or entrepreneurs are economic professors or fellows, hmm seems the only jobs these people get are professor and fellowships”

Very few business men are economics professors. But most will have some knowledge of economics. And even if they didn’t, it doesn’t stop them from making decisions which fit with economic theory. The law of supply and demand will apply, whether you know about those laws or not.

“physicists stay in schools and think tanks and engineers actually do the real world work”

Very few people who study economics become those ivory tower intellectuals you dislike. Most go on to become financial advisers, businessmen, bankers ect. Some even become CEOs.

“they work well in the normative world where you can abstract reality into something manageable as opposed to the ugly real world.”

The next time you hear the guy on business news doing that jibber jabber about the interest rates and the inflation whatsits, think back on your words. It’s all economics.

“Anyone with a basic knowledge of business knows that, but sadly most economic fellows don’t have that.”

Do you have a basic knowledge of business, then?

]]>
By: Serey http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-17373 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:31:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-17373 To Anon,
It doesn’t look like you have practical experience with modeling. There is only one science that pretend to be strict and logical – math. All other sciences use math as tool to build mathematical/quantitative models. Every model uses many assumptions and conditions to accommodate real world scenarios.
Once you done with assumptions and conditions your perfect model produce perfect numbers, but while they match your perfect model they may be far away from real world.

I used to do financial models and saw may of them falling apart well before last recession.

1. Tell me about at least one model that can reliably forecast economy for 2-3 yrs ahead.

2. Tell me why nobody used it in 2006…

Here is another simple example:
Everybody tells protecting market is bad for economy, country will self suffocate. Look at UK in 1970’s (That is your ‘black box’ model :)

Look at China today that have general import tariff of 9.8% and enjoys 8% growth (That is my ‘black box’ model :) ).

Opppsss…

]]>
By: Frank Castle http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-17367 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:07:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-17367 Nice try, but you fail on so many levels it’s laughable. If these theories are testable in a scientific manner where do you conduct the controls? Oh you don’t mean they are scientifically testable, you mean if you abstract enough reality from the data you can produce a nice curve that in the abstract simulates reality. I really don’t think social “scientists” understand what science means.
Let’s see how many CEOs or entrepreneurs are economic professors or fellows, hmm seems the only jobs these people get are professor and fellowships, but you keep thinking that real business people go to the ivory tower intellectuals. It’s the same reason why physicists stay in schools and think tanks and engineers actually do the real world work of advancing technology.
It’s not that intellectuals have no value, it’s they work well in the normative world where you can abstract reality into something manageable as opposed to the ugly real world. You need theorists, but you don’t simply rely on their ideas without recourse to reality. Anyone with a basic knowledge of business knows that, but sadly most economic fellows don’t have that.
Free trade works only in the normative world, so while it may appear inevitable there, it’s not working in reality. Primarily because there is no real “free trade”, because all nations cheat. In a perfect world it would work, sadly we don’t live in a perfect world. So keep on repeating that free trade is the way ..can I get an AMEN!

]]>
By: Anon http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-17351 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:26:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-17351 Nice try, Frank.

Economics is testable. Every theory from demand, supply, share market prices, interest rates, utility, opportunity cost, inflation, free trade, tarrifs, waste and economic growth are all based on data observation from the real world.

These theories are all able to be linked to reality, and are based on real life observations. So to claim they are not testable, or do not apply to real life, is incorrect. And almost laughable to anyone with even basic economic knowledge.

Every time economic statistics come out, you can see the relationship between that number, and other factors in the economy.

Real people, in real business, make decisions based on economics every day. And they make decisions which comply with economic theory. They see with their own eyes that economics does apply to the real world.

Even this recession is explainable in economic terms, and complies to economic theory.

Yet you can dismiss all of this proof with a wave of your hand, and simply claim economic theory does not apply. Just because you don’t like the idea that an inefficient American industry can get chucked out on it’s ass if it can’t compete with the real world.

Economics has more in common with science and psychology then it does with religion. Why not read some economic theory Frank? See for yourself.

If you do, and suddenly become an economist, it is no different from reading a science book and suddenly learning about the laws of physics.

]]>
By: Spock http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-17315 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:47:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-17315 I wold imagine that I am quite a bit younger than the majority of bloggers concerning this issue, but I will be praying that when I solidify my expertise I will not be as close minded as many of you economical ‘experts’. There are many different arguments posted, but I think that this issue needs to be looked at as a possible future problem. Wisdom would require foreseeing problems that very possible could occur. People do not need to fly of the handle at any remark that imagines the possibility of US crisis. The facts are stated…’Buy American’ weakens foreign trade, many countries economically idolize American ingenuity, therefore other countries could follow suite which would create less global trade. Diana states and cites that 40% of the US workforce is employed by world trade (57 Million Americans), and the decline in free trade would significantly diminish an already unstable job-market. Personally I do not believe that any country is prepared to run itself independent of foreign trade so all of you hot heads…calm yourself. Acknowledge the possibility of a problem and understand the America is obviously not the super power it once was, so preparation is priceless.

]]>
By: Sergey http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/#comment-17314 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:35:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4116#comment-17314 To Dale,
Wow!! You are the only ‘Free Trade’ supporter who actually answer questions. Thank you!
I hope you fogive my english :).
Here are few questions:

1. ‘Free trade’ claims -> that protectionism is bad. Including improt tariffs.

China imposes general import tariff of 9.8% and still doing fine.

2. You made the point that capital was running out of Britain to chase higher profits from unrestricted trade.

You were right but you missed bigger picture.

Capital running away from regulations, taxes and chasing higher return associated with cheep labor and few laws.
It is not about ‘free trade’.

As long as 3rd world countries allow abuse their labor capital will flow there. On top of this 3rd world quickly closing education & technology gap. As long as West enjoys orderly society and benefits of retirements/health care/etc our labor will cost more than in 3rd world. Instead of addressing this disbalance ‘free trade’ concentrates only on final cost. Make 3rd world countries provide benefits to their citizens and US can compete.

]]>