Doug Ross @ Journal: Larwyn's Linx: Why Hillary Is Stalling Her FBI Interview; The Crazies Have Taken Charge of the Democrat Party

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Larwyn's Linx: Why Hillary Is Stalling Her FBI Interview; The Crazies Have Taken Charge of the Democrat Party

Send us tips! Bloggers: install a Larwyn's Linx widget. Get real-time news, 24/7, at BadBlue.

QOTD: "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache. When subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment...

...Many Pennsylvania towns once thriving and humming are now in a state despair. This wave of globalization has wiped out our middle class. It doesn't have to be this way. We can turn it all around - and we can turn it around fast. But if we're going to deliver real change, we're going to have to reject the campaign of fear and intimidation being pushed by powerful corporations, media elites, and political dynasties. The people who rigged the system for their benefit will do anything - and say anything - to keep things exactly as they are. The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge nothing will ever change..." --Donald J. Trump

2 comments:

Andrew_M_Garland said...: Trump is wrong about trade, even about trade with China. He is correct about government meddling and the manipulation of trade to benefit elites. I will vote for Trump rather than Hillary, because I prefer a politician who is wrong but who can learn, rather than a criminal. Also, a political campaign is a time to simplify problems and pander to the general understanding of the public, rather than to educate them.

It is ironic that most people are against "corporate interests" and handouts to corporations, but are for protecting the workers in those corporations. The corporations and their workers come in a bundle.

The real problem in the US economy is the oppressive web of work rules, wage rules, minimum wages, and lawsuits about hiring and firing. This works to the benefit of exactly the large corporations who have the politicial power to avoid the worst effects. This works to harm and eliminate the small competitors who have the flexibility to create jobs for people who don't fit the large corporation mold.

The problem is that alternative jobs have been eliminated, rather than the pressure on people to learn more and change jobs in response to changing competition and efficiency. I am supposed to offer goods that you want to buy; I am not supposed to find ways to force you to buy whatever it is that I am producing.

--
The economist Don Boudreaux gives clear explanations why free trade and foreign trade produces more wealth and jobs. Here is an excerpt from one of his posts.

http://cafehayek.com/2007/01/more_on_the_har.html
=== ===
[edited] Some people lose from trade. To oppose trade because of this is literally to oppose competition. That is, the observed losses are just as accurately described as losses from competition as losses from trade.

Many people nod in agreement whenever some politician proclaims that trade harms our economy. Fewer would agree that competition harms the economy.
=== ===

If someone in your city finds a way to make and sell cheaper shirts, is that competition bad for the economy? This may put some shirtmakers out of work. Are we willing to restrict that new process and force the continued production of the more expensive shirts? How about all other improved technology? Should we say "Let's freeze everything as it is, because no one should lose their investment or have to find another job. We are happy paying more and stopping invention."

What is different about cheaper shirts from another city, another US state, France, or China?

There is an argument that China will grow stronger from trade and threaten us. You may believe that trade will encourage conflict with China and supply China with more economic power to make those threats. If so, then limiting trade may be appropriate, but that is entirely too wimpy a reply. You will need armies, foreign deployment, embargoes, and ultimatums. Not buying their shirts is not going to do it.

A trade negotiation is a strange beast. US negotiators say "We won't allow you to sell inexpensive goods to Americans unless you allow our favored companies to sell to your public". This means "We won't let Americans benefit from what your country produces until you let your public benefit from what we produce", or more simply, "We refuse to benefit from you until you agree to benefit from us."

Do US companies exist to deliver inexpensive goods to consumers, or do consumers exist to buy expensive goods from US companies? Unfortunately, US companies do better at political lobbying than US consumers.

If you are against free trade and/or competition, you are supporting concentrated corporate interests rather than the larger and more diffuse interests of all Americans. Common sense is not a good guide in this area of economics.

--
A collection of links explaining trade and competition
http://cafehayek.com/2011/01/12378.html; 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Michelle looked marvelous when she landed in Madrid. Those espadrilles set her toes off like a Queen... and it drove me crazy!; 8:32 PM