Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Unemployment

  1. #1 Unemployment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    61
    If the U.S.A. gave companies tax incentives to work two crews each alternating and working four 10hr days and taking four days off would this help unemployment?

    The jobs lost do to globalization, automation, computerization are most likely not coming back. So it boils down to a scheduling problem where the objective is to work twice as many people in the same position.

    If a person works four 10hr days and takes off 4 days they loose about 24 days out of the year. Not a house losing event instead for the other crew a house saving event. Its called share your hours. Say goodbye to the five day work week.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    What we really need to do in the USA is stop exporting jobs. The problem of international competition for manufacturing runs into the same problem as what would happen if, say... the NBA (I mean the National Basketball Association) began allowing foreign teams from leagues that allow steroid use to play against our teams.

    Then, everyone would have to race to the new lower standard. Our players would have to start using steroids too, or they'd lose pretty much every game, even in spite of probably being more talented. And then, how much fun would basketball be for the fans? But, that is what is happening to our economy right now. Wages stop increasing to match inflation (which is the same as lowering them), and workers start taking worse positions.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Unemployment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    61
    The cat is out of the bag once globalization was introduced. Corporate greed with government backing equals lower wages wherever lower wages can be found. Reintroducing tariffs on imports creating an even playing field is a quick fix with a mean bite. People are already feeling the sting of personal crumbling budgets. Tariffs have always been a good idea, with an even playing field money wise, quality becomes a major factor in the reasons a consumer buys. The placement of new tariffs on imports is now a matter how much and when.

    The problem with government is it can work year after year as stupid as it wants with almost no repercussions. Tax money is thrown to government year after year keeping it alive where a business working as stupid would fail within the first year. A failed government leads to revolution.

    The U.S. does not collect any interest off its budgets or saving pools. If government would save money and collect interest it could eventually pay all government jobs from interest made. This savings could be given back to its people in property and sales taxes.

    If the U.S. had a surplus of money instead of a deficit it could pull its people out of a depression within two years. It could do this by doubling its workforce and working shifts four ten hour days on and four days off.

    It could also give companies tax breaks to double their workforce and work shifts of four ten hour days on and four days off.

    It would not take long for anybody working four days on and taking for days off for them to never want to go back to a five day work week.

    A person could enjoy their time off from work through out their life and not play the death game our government has laid out for them.

    4 days on 4 days off is the answer to many problems we as a nation all face together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    I think the monetary system has outgrown its usefulness, since the industrial revolution its been possible to produce much more than what was needed its been pointed out in books over 100 years ago (and automation is continuing this trend) but the current monetary system creates an artificial barrier the equivalent of shooting your own foot. Each country could be relatively self sustaining for most things and export surpluses, but the monetary system and economic policies that undermine autonomy and favor dependance on middlemen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Unemployment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    61
    It’s easy to see through history how it all came about a world full of fragmented societies and subcultures. It’s sad to see and to think it will never change. Governmental business as usual logic plus politics equals stupidity.

    The bottom line is we have too many throw away people in our societies. We can no longer leave them for the wolves. I think the smart cats have figured out what we have created is no longer a survivable event and they are getting what they can while they can. No different than a gang banger F tomorrow I’m living for today.

    I haven’t given up and I believe somewhere in the future we will have world order but I don’t know at what cost.

    For now I know a system is doomed if the few have to support the many. 4 days on 4 days off changes that. The more that pays into the system the better. It will fix healthcare, social security, unemployment, and peace of mind.

    We either get off this planet and seed the universe, or support population control. For now it’s a scheduling problem so we can all put food on the table.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    The OP ignores the fact that only one person may be required to complete the required work, so having two people would be inefficient. The OP ignores industries where labor is not so manual... In some types of work it's intellectual, and cannot be handed off as easily as a shovel or set of keys to a dump truck. Sometimes also the work is just not there... we are already at capacity in some industries where one person is actually too many... no room to add more.

    In short, in addition to this not being a workable solution, the OP is focusing on one relatively small sector where work is done, is using a simplistic and unrepresentative understanding of world, and seems to have a naive view of the larger economy and how it functions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Unemployment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    61
    Your right 4 on and 4 off won’t work everywhere. Managers could work 2 days with one crew and 2 days with the other crew so information is not lost. I don’t see this working with the school system or places that are open 24 hours a day. This is a strategy to absorb the unemployed in a time of crises. It can also be used as long as needed. Like anything else it will have its ups and downs. Fewer accidents do to less fatigue would weigh out with a person losing ones edge in certain work places.

    It is not a capitalist approach to fixing the problem and is why tax incentives would have to offered, to make it worth a companies wild. It is about helping others in a smart way in a time of need. It is simply better than doing nothing or spending money that was meant for future generations.

    I think we should always be working on the tenth, eleventh, twelfth wonder of the world. We should have at least 3 vacant cities run by skeleton crews in case of any emergencies world wide. Instead of promising countries support money we don’t have we should scoop up their people in need and place them in one of our empty cities. After we help them rebuild and move them back we give them a big fat bill.

    All I am saying, is we better figure out a way so a few do not outshine the masses because this equals revolution. History has taught us this over and over. The boiling point of revolution seems to have eluded most rulers the rest had to kill their way out of it. We’ve gone to the moon people are you telling me the best idea is to simply ride it out and hope for the best?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    and cannot be handed off as easily as a shovel or set of keys to a dump truck.
    Would you really want a non-specialist operating that dump truck on the same public road you are using?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Don't think there should be any artificial restrictions on businesses.

    Reintroducing tariffs on imports creating an even playing field is a quick fix with a mean bite. People are already feeling the sting of personal crumbling budgets. Tariffs have always been a good idea, with an even playing field money wise, quality becomes a major factor in the reasons a consumer buys. The placement of new tariffs on imports is now a matter how much and when.
    How are tarrifs a good idea. They often rise the price of components for American businesses and cut into business profit margins. As an investor like tens of millions of other Americans we want our businesses to get their components for the cheapest price possible to maximize our profit.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    and cannot be handed off as easily as a shovel or set of keys to a dump truck.
    Would you really want a non-specialist operating that dump truck on the same public road you are using?
    Well... If the goal is to increase employment, maybe this could be done to help first responders and doctors? Maybe lawyers, too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Unemployment 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by NoToe
    The cat is out of the bag once globalization was introduced. Corporate greed with government backing equals lower wages wherever lower wages can be found. Reintroducing tariffs on imports creating an even playing field is a quick fix with a mean bite. People are already feeling the sting of personal crumbling budgets. Tariffs have always been a good idea, with an even playing field money wise, quality becomes a major factor in the reasons a consumer buys. The placement of new tariffs on imports is now a matter how much and when.
    I think it just depends on what you tariff. Putting a tariff on imported luxury items (including non-essential consumer items) would probably do little or nothing at all to slow down the economy. The only Americans who might lose their job would be the middle men (and they'll be screaming to high heaven about it, too.) The people actually producing those items weren't Americans anyway (and probably too poor to buy anything we export their way.)

    The inability to buy cheap luxury items does little to impact the price of rent, food, or even health care, which are the things that primarily determine disposable income. Also those are the only things that make a person desperate. You don't suddenly turn to a life of crime just because you can't afford a cheap set of headphones for your I-Pod.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Don't think there should be any artificial restrictions on businesses.
    You need rules at least in the same sense as you need rules in sports. Not all competition is good competition. It only accomplishes a productive goal if it is steered toward a productive goal. Otherwise it will tend to be destructive instead of constructive. Imagine what basketball would be like if the players could just punch and kick each other all they wanted. Injuring the other team to the point where they can't play would suddenly become a viable win strategy.

    I think that's the best criteria for deciding whether any rule is good or bad, or excessively arbitrary. Just ask yourself: if this kind of rule were applied to a sports league, would the fans approve?


    Reintroducing tariffs on imports creating an even playing field is a quick fix with a mean bite. People are already feeling the sting of personal crumbling budgets. Tariffs have always been a good idea, with an even playing field money wise, quality becomes a major factor in the reasons a consumer buys. The placement of new tariffs on imports is now a matter how much and when.
    How are tarrifs a good idea. They often rise the price of components for American businesses and cut into business profit margins. As an investor like tens of millions of other Americans we want our businesses to get their components for the cheapest price possible to maximize our profit.
    Tariffs require skillful application. It's a tool. It's neutral in and of itself, just like how a gun is neutral. There are a million examples in history where using a gun to effect political change has been a bad thing, but there also a few examples of where using a gun to effect political change has been a good thing.

    Tariffs give a government the ability to steer things in a desired direction without being heavy handed about it. If you don't want them to have that tool, then fine, but what tools do you want them to have? They can't just wave a magic wand and fix the economy if they have no way to even exert control over that economy.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Unemployment 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Don't think there should be any artificial restrictions on businesses.
    Imagine what basketball would be like if the players could just punch and kick each other all they wanted.
    The freak show we call basketball might actually be a better game.


    Tariffs require skillful application. It's a tool.
    That tool's historical application has been almost always to protect a special interest for a segment that couldn't complete in the global marketplace. Since American's tend to be the largest consumers of our own goods, the net effect was almost always that cost passed to the average American and acting as a drain on the total economy. Like your gun analogy, their application is usually a bad thing though you might like to keep one around for the extreme event when it might be of some use.
    Take a simple example, by some studies, an average American pay several hundred dollars extra on grocery bills because of the huge sugar tarrif for no other reason than to protect an inefficient sugar-beet industry.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    "get their components for the cheapest price possible to maximize our profit."
    If that means that slaves are placed on factory boats that pay nothing(except a bowl of oatmeal) and dump in the ocean sick-disabled slaves along with unfiltered industrial pollution, is the cheapest price a good idea?
    If such a company makes item X at a cheaper price, and everyone buys these to save money and no free person makes these, and then it makes item Y that everyone buys to save while no one that makes it that is free, then Z, etc, eventually you have a production of enslaved laborors and a whole bunch of people competing with each other to out underbiding each others on what few jobs are left in an orwellian poverty parade. There are other considerartions beyond profit.

    So where does the price differential come from, productivity made possible by superior methods, or by exploiting workers, being a dead beat with respect to society and pillaging ressources and the environment? In addition, many people have a spare tire and emergency kit, that is useless on any given day and may never be used, for which they did pay, but this has an emergency function: by the same token there is some value to have some measure of locally produced goods and some measure of autonomy for a set of basic necessities(food, energy,etc), this can justify a small strategic tarif on top the sustainable tarif on goods produced in socially and environmentally detrimental ways.


    "The freak show we call basketball might actually be a better game."
    You would reduce diversity, all sports would become a freak show version of MMA. (Tony McCaveman who won the badminton championship last week by knocking his competitor into a coma just won at chess against Kasparov! Doctors say Kapsarov will require months of therapy but hes expected to walk again!)



    "Well... If the goal is to increase employment, maybe this could be done to help first responders and doctors? Maybe lawyers, too?"
    Its true that many activities that hurt society produce "economic activity" and that many improvements that would be beneficial for society as a whole either cause unemployment or are opposed by those who benefit from the dependance to the problem they fix (ex: the pharma industry sees cancer as a billion dollar a year cash cow, petroleum industry has bought and mothballed the NiMH patent and sabotaged alternatives to oil for decades, any regular worker would not want to be unemployed even if it was a benefit for society because of the direct negative impact on their livelyhood)

    inow, What are the various policies that could minimize the negative impact of technology shift and automation on workers/industries?

    Also, if it were technically possible to have all production activities automated, thus having millions of people out of work and unable to purchase stuff that can be made (for free) anyway, doesnt that point to a fundamental flaw in our current economic system?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Unemployment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    61
    Globalization is making the U.S. go back in time to compete with 3rd world countries whose people never stood up and fought for their rights.
    Union busting is a step backwards. It is true we have negotiated ourselves out of the world market. It was and is a bad move to have gone completely global without a failsafe plan of action. Just like tariffs makes a consumer weigh out quality over price union workers all get paid by the same scale so the ones who should stay longer on the job are the most productive. Productivity includes the job done right the first time. The lowest bid on nonunion jobs, for the most part have proven to be the most costly. You get what you pay for.

    As a whole what we are doing to this planet to stay employed makes us less intelligent than ants. We have become a parasite destroying all we touch to provide food and pleasure. As natural resources dwindle we will turn on ourselves. The nations sitting on the last kegs of natural resources will be those who are least technologically advanced. The least technologically advanced societies are those who have been bogged down in religion, tradition, and civil strife.

    What is happening now is predictable what we do next to survive is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    There are other considerartions beyond profit.
    And all those reasons are almost never used to even suggest tariffs. And although I tend to agree with you, and have seen it in places like Iraq where Marsh Arabs are literately watching oil get pumped out from under their feet even as they struggle to raise their malnourished kids without access to clean water, sanitation, electricity and medical care sufficient to prevent a whole host of parasitic diseases--not how many would be willing to pay say an extra dollar a gallon for oil in some attempt to punish Iraq, or the multi-corporates largely based in the US
    for such offenses?

    All that said imposing expenses over the entire population and willingly creating a drag on your own economy to protect an inefficient business is not good policy and actually counter productive; even more so when it's a long term situation and there's no pressing need for the level of economic redundancy as is the case for sugar.

    You would reduce diversity, all sports would become a freak show version of MMA.
    Dont' know what MMA is and don't care. It was a joke, though I don't like basketball.

    Also, if it were technically possible to have all production activities automated, thus having millions of people out of work and unable to purchase stuff that can be made (for free) anyway, doesn't that point to a fundamental flaw in our current economic system?
    I'm not so sure I can be a Luddite. By that time we'll either produce and consume art, entertainment or mental things, or service recreation or simply not need to produce anything. On other other hand replacing bedpans it's likely to be replaced by a robots or via Internet connection.

    The answer to remain competitive is better education which will improve production of good and production of different type of goods--something the US had better get serious about.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    You would reduce diversity, all sports would become a freak show version of MMA.
    Dont' know what MMA is and don't care. It was a joke, though I don't like basketball.
    For others who do, it's Mixed Martial Arts... Essentially what you see in the UFC... or Ultimate Fighting Championship.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The answer to remain competitive is better education which will improve production of good and production of different type of goods--something the US had better get serious about.
    Indeed, but I would take this further and suggest it's education on the proper topics (like math and science, or plain critical thinking). Education on mythology or something like numerology/astrology won't do it for us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Unemployment 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Tariffs require skillful application. It's a tool.
    That tool's historical application has been almost always to protect a special interest for a segment that couldn't complete in the global marketplace. Since American's tend to be the largest consumers of our own goods, the net effect was almost always that cost passed to the average American and acting as a drain on the total economy. Like your gun analogy, their application is usually a bad thing though you might like to keep one around for the extreme event when it might be of some use.
    Take a simple example, by some studies, an average American pay several hundred dollars extra on grocery bills because of the huge sugar tarrif for no other reason than to protect an inefficient sugar-beet industry.
    Yeah, food is something we should not tariff. It's not as complicated as I made it sound. Just follow a few basic rules.

    1) - Never tariff something a consumer doesn't have the option to refuse to buy (like food).

    2) - Don't tariff something that is a basic input for an essential industry (for example, it's not a good idea to tariff imported steel if the automotive industry needs it.)

    3) - Try to tariff labor, but not resources. For example: right now in Oregon, there are a lot of lumber mills closing because lumber companies began shipping the lumber to Japan to be cut there and then shipped back. I see no good reason why a tariff shouldn't be applied to that.


    Only a tariff on an essential good will affect a consumer's income level. Anything else merely steers them away from one kind of spending. For example: I wouldn't say that the excise tax on cigarettes and alcohol puts a serious strain on the economy. Most addicts buy as much as they can afford regardless of how much that is. If a drunk has 50 bucks, and alcohol is 5 bucks a drink, he buys 10 drinks. If he has 50 bucks and alcohol is 10 bucks a drink, he buys 5 drinks. Either way he'll spend the same amount of money. Maybe responsible drinkers could save some money, but most of them are happy to have more incentive to drink less anyway.

    You could make the same argument about cheap TV sets, or cheap DVD players. People would buy fewer at a higher price, but they won't blow their college savings on it just to maintain a higher level of entertainment.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Unemployment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    61
    The answer to remain competitive is better education which will improve production of good and production of different type of goods--something the US had better get serious about

    Education equals bright minds and can give us the edge in the future. Some of the greatest minds have migrated here to the U.S. in lure of a better life and has given us an edge. The deterioration of our education system and the hikes in tuitions is breeding stupidity. We are losing our edge and filling our prisons beyond capacity. Maybe in the future we can all be prison guards.

    Hey I just figured out the quote thing!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Unemployment 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Yeah, food is something we should not tariff. It's not as complicated as I made it sound. Just follow a few basic rules.

    1) - Never tariff something a consumer doesn't have the option to refuse to buy (like food).

    2) - Don't tariff something that is a basic input for an essential industry (for example, it's not a good idea to tariff imported steel if the automotive industry needs it.)

    3) - Try to tariff labor, but not resources. For example: right now in Oregon, there are a lot of lumber mills closing because lumber companies began shipping the lumber to Japan to be cut there and then shipped back. I see no good reason why a tariff shouldn't be applied to that.
    Not a bad criteria, but often they'll conflict with one another. For example, cut lumber is an essential input for home building. So any tarrifs for lumber from Japan would inflate home building cost. While I support some government incentives for Oregon mills to modernize and reduce cost, a tarrif would only reinforce and reward the inefficiency of Oregon mills--not something I think we should do in any industry.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Unemployment 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    While I support some government incentives for Oregon mills to modernize and reduce cost, a tarrif would only reinforce and reward the inefficiency of Oregon mills--not something I think we should do in any industry.
    That's a very good point when we're talking about another country that pays its workers the same we pay ours. Clearly the competition between them and us is a constructive one designed to motivate mill owners to use better and more efficient methods.

    On the other hand, if we were talking about competition between lumber mills here and lumber mills in say.. in Bangladesh, probably the main difference would be in what they pay their workers. We want to reinforce and reward paying workers as high a wage as possible, so wouldn't a tariff then be appropriate?

    I think this very accurately articulates the sports analogy I was trying to make earlier. If one competing team is allowed to use steriods (which I consider analogous to paying workers less money), then all we are reinforcing by allowing the two teams to compete is that steroid use is a good thing and we want everyone to use steroids. If steroids are removed from the situation, then what we are reinforcing is hard work and discipline. Similarly in manufacturing, we should be reinforcing efficiency, not low worker wages.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    "Never tariff something a consumer doesn't have the option to refuse to buy (like food)."

    Ok, country X removes tarifs on food, country Y undercuts by 5%, country X farming goes out the window, they grow fiber, Cartel corners food exports and jacks prices by 10% knowing country X cant turn around in time and must pay and can even ask country X gov to sing and dance and for other favors or else their population will riot.

    A spare tire is ineficient lower-quality and unused, but if one of your 4 main tires blows you are happy to have that spare tire(you dont necessarily run on 4 spare tires). Having some measure of Local agriculture, basic industrial capacity and control over strategic sectors is at a minimum as important as having a spare tire.

    "We want to reinforce and reward paying workers as high a wage as possible, so wouldn't a tariff then be appropriate?"
    I agree. A tarif shouldnt be put up because the industry wants it, but because the community/nation sees it as advantageous, so it should not be arbirarily set to 0% (no tarif) or to 200% based on ideological basis (magical invisible hand of the market) or interest groups/lobby but on functional and strategic parameters for society.

    1- You need strategic control over strategic sectors (which may be ensured by partial nationalization or by tarifs to facilitate local control, or both)
    2- You need functional parameters to factor in worker wage/social costs, environmental costs. This both protects your own society but also favors cometitors that leverage production efficiency instead of encouraging cost dumping, pillaging, destruction of the environment in other parts of the world(ie an upward spiral instead of a downward spiral).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    "Never tariff something a consumer doesn't have the option to refuse to buy (like food)."

    Ok, country X removes tarifs on food, country Y undercuts by 5%, country X farming goes out the window, they grow fiber, Cartel corners food exports and jacks prices by 10% knowing country X cant turn around in time and must pay and can even ask country X gov to sing and dance and for other favors or else their population will riot.

    A spare tire is ineficient lower-quality and unused, but if one of your 4 main tires blows you are happy to have that spare tire(you dont necessarily run on 4 spare tires). Having some measure of Local agriculture, basic industrial capacity and control over strategic sectors is at a minimum as important as having a spare tire.
    This has actually happened in Mexico. (Which may be what you mean to refer to?) After Nafta went into effect, subsidized US corn was able to undercut the local product just slightly, but slightly is all it takes and you'll scarcely sell a single corn husk.

    It's an amazingly unfortunate waste of arable land, and the worst part is that we as American tax payers are paying the margin. If you take everything into account, that corn is being sold at a net loss. But the corn growers themselves profit. (I don't object to subsidies when the corn is being sold locally to Americans, because it makes food cheaper, but I don't see why we would want to artificially keep the price low for Mexican consumers too.)


    1- You need strategic control over strategic sectors (which may be ensured by partial nationalization or by tarifs to facilitate local control, or both)
    Yeah. There is nothing sadder than wasting a natural resource.

    2- You need functional parameters to factor in worker wage/social costs, environmental costs. This both protects your own society but also favors cometitors that leverage production efficiency instead of encouraging cost dumping, pillaging, destruction of the environment in other parts of the world(ie an upward spiral instead of a downward spiral).
    This is how I think a tariff works when it is properly used. They should only be employed as a means to level the playing field when one group of companies is competing under different rules than the other. Whenever possible, the tariff should be set up so that it carefully targets those specific differences.

    If we could get full disclosure from a foreign company, then it would advisable to set the tariff so that it was exactly equal to the difference in wages (or perhaps proportional to it, but slightly high.) IE. add up the number of hours that went into making it, and compare how much those hours cost to what comparable American workers would have been paid, and charge accordingly.

    In cases where it's impossible to do something like that, then we should simply not trade with them. We should use an absurdly high tariff to block their goods entirely.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •