Present an empirical source in support! I've seen no evidence that you understand how trade impacts on markets. As I said, wage effects are concentrated on low skilled labour (which of course have weak unionisation). When we do see protectionism its focused on maintaining producer surplus or through some strategic trade policy aim (i.e. 'beggar thy neighbour' where there is an attempt to redistribute available oligopolistic profits) They were rants of no value. I know someone is talking from a non-economic stance when they blubber on with words like "leftist"
Somehow I forgot this biggest ones! lol... What is big government spending? What is obamacare? What is the AMA?
All arguments about economic policy are right v left Leftist = government or collective involvement in the economy. Directed outcomes. Right - individual involvement in the economy with voluntary organization government intervenes to protect from theft, fraud, security/safety, and property protection only, and does not direct market outcomes. Protection of an industry through tariffs is a government directed outcome for the industry at the cost of the consumer. Leftism. It is also cronyism if you see how campaign donations and support tend to go. You see, when government has the power to put money in your pocket there will always be an incentive to put some back in theirs. I still await my plan, lets get into specifics. Arguing right v left in general terms is silly. You will just say things like "you are for rich people and I am for everyone" etc... as if the left has some moral claim to fame examples of lives made better by their policies.
First, you were asked to provide an empirical source to support your 'protectionism and unionised industries' comment. Where is it? Second, this comment is nonsense. Economic analysis tends to be separated into two: orthodox and heterodox. Neither has any clear left/right distinction. You want to make this distinction as you haven't got any economic analysis to refer to. Nonsense! Is an anarchist socialist in favour of collective involvement in the economy? A market socialist would also see a reduction in government interventionism, in comparison to capitalism. There's no clear-cut individualism with right wing knuckle draggers. This is neatly advertised by the authoritarian personality which is very much part of the right wing outlook. Again, it is the producer that benefits (through higher producer surplus). In economics it is summed up by term 'influence cost'. This is enabled by market concentration; a standard outcome in capitalism.
The government is operating in it's own best interest - grabbing as much cash and power as possible. With power comes size, with size, come power - positive feedback at its "finest". The only way to keep government in control is to keep it very small, and with a very simple charter - protect personal freedom. From 2002 to 2007, the masses were fed a line of BS because the Fed held interest rates too low. There was no return on savings, and little cost for borrowing. Because money is borrowed into existence, government printing presses weren't required to grow money supply. The Fed kept interest rates down - no inflation. Modern manufacturing capacity reacted quickly, providing the goods to capture that extra money, and competition kept prices in check - no inflation. The only sign of inflation was housing prices (supposedly, a good thing) and fuel cost (dxxx speculators). Another layer of BS piled on. Until all the money that could be borrowed was, then crash. Homes stopped selling, prices plummeted, people walked away - even those that could pay (why? I can buy the same house down the street for half). The cash borrowed into existence - disappeared. Consumers and business could no longer augment their income by borrowing, instead had to repay debt - spending crashed (here is where Keynes says government needs to spend, is the man insane? Trying to sustain an unsustainable economy just delays, and intensifies the crash). The masses in the market were force fed false signals of a healthy economy, causing multiple bubbles to form. The check and balance of interest rates were removed because the idiots in government thought the "Great Moderation" was their doing, and would go on forever - they thought they were geniuses. The Austrians are the only ones that recognize bad bubbles cause bad busts. That increasing cash in the system by loans (artificially low interest rates), or by printing money causes bad bubbles. How many Keynesian economists predicted the crash?
Heterodox economics had referred to the increased instability generated by neo-liberalism for some time. Note also that the Austrians have no understanding of the labour market and no understanding of market concentration, ensuring that any comment over economic outcome is going to be feeble
Coming from a guy who cannot articulate any of his ideas into a single coherent policy but wants governments to run the modern economy.
This is a pathetic attempt. You stated that protectionism was high in unionised industries. The study you give is focused on agriculture (and therefore irrelevant). The wikipedia article is a poor source focused on history. It doesn't even support your position. I can conclude that your argument is based on hot air. This is drivel. As a market socialist I see a restrictive role for government. Government interventionism is crucial in capitalism. Don't like it? You best invest in a beret and join some anti-capitalist outfit
I mentioned agriculture too of you read the post. There are sources within the footnote you can read there. Tarriffs on the auto industry are famous, steel too. I am on an iPhone, give me a break with citations. You wouldn't care if I got them anyway. Here you go, empirical data on cronyism. Textiles will be fun for you: http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/bychapter/
And I asked you to present evidence to support your argument that tariffs are higher in unionised industries. You can't manage it as you were talking nonsense. Please show the tariff rates in these industries. Further, show that they are higher than the average. Note: you won't be able to
Are you really making the argument that unions do not campaign for tariffs and keeping worker supply low, or marginal cost of new employees high or artificially prices to protect them from the effects of worker supply and price pressures? Why do you think they support a minimum wage ? None if their members make it. To keep out newly trained labor and reduce competition from unskilled labor. What is it that you think unions do?
I've referred to the reality of the situation. It is producers, through increased producer surplus, that gain from protectionism. The workers that lose, as shown by the Heckscher-Ohlin approach to the determinants of comparative advantage, are low skilled. Low skilled workers tend not to have strong union protection. Can you at least be honest and acknowledge that you can't actually support your "tariffs are higher in unionised industries" claim?
He was a left-of-center thinker; as are practically all of those who embrace Keynesian economic theory nowadays. The fact that Keynes was not a card-carrying socialist does not change that fact...
I did, check that link. Unions and producers benefit from protections, as well as any other domestic worker in that industry. They can demand higher pay and get increased job security. The cost is born by the consumer.
Read the paper (no mention at all of your claims). Please keep going though as you're showing yourself up nicely! The effects of protectionism on wages is ambiguous. All we know is that its likely to stop wage reductions in industries associated with low skilled labour. Are you seriously telling me that US and UK low skilled labour have high union protection? Be serious!
No, unions hate low skilled people. They call them scabs most times and beat them with sticks and keep them out of apprenticeships etc...
Lol....ok you have been fun, but I can talk to myself and have abetter dialogue. I will catch up with you later. Just remember, when a union has to deal with the supply of labor, it uses goverment or physical force to keep those people out of jobs. Worship thy government, and if you ever get a plan have someone quote it in a thread so I can praise you for the thought.
He wasn't a socialist of any stripe. The distinction between crony capitalist and your brand of capitalism are meaningless.
You're wrong again. The impact of unions on employment is ambiguous. The efficient bargain approach, where unions bargain over wages and employment, predicts greater employment levels. Moreover, productivity effects cannot be assumed to be constant. The classic example is 'voice', where unionisation can improve information flows such that managerial errors are reduced.
Don't be daft. Your argument, then, is that government intervention spells out leftist economics? Government intervention can be used to protect the capitalist mode of production. Unions, in any practical sense, have acted as a deterrent to the rise of socialist worker cooperatives. In essence, they have protected capitalist production.
Oh come on now. Government intervention is cronyism and protectionism it isn't capitalism. Many a workers association go in for socialism, the unions are no right wingers. Name one thing they do in America that promotes capitalism. One example, all I have ever asked from the left. - - - Updated - - - Keynes's multiplier of effect is the darling of socialist looking to help there industries and meddle in the market. That is cronyism and other leftism, not capitalism. What crony capitalism, defense spending aside, do libertarians subscribe too? That are part of free market capitalism? You can't redefine capitalism as government involvement in the economy and then argue your new definition.
More to the point they hate anyone not part of the union I will never forget in my town every time someone highers non union labor we get a protester standing in front of that place with a sign that says "Shame Shame Shame on you" followed by the businesses name. and They do it to everyone hospitals schools you name it.
One example? How can you miss the obvious? Unions provide basic wage regulations that surpress the desire for common ownership of the means of production. Though capitalists don't like the increased compensation, unions provide a mechanism by which they can retain largely private and concentrated control of capital factors.
