Tariff Free Trade - Good or Bad

[agavi...@gmail.com]

...or both?

Discuss

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2016-06-26, the_andr...@yahoo.com <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...or both?
>
> Discuss

Good.

As a semi-libertarian, I believe that the government should stick its nose in
as little as possible consistent with the rule of law. Tariffs are a government
officials way of 1) providing opportunities for graft and 2) picking winners and
losers. Most importantly, tariffs end up institutionalizing inefficiency.

--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer

[agavi...@gmail.com]

That's a pretty good answer.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 6:59:31 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2016-06-26, the_andr...@yahoo.com <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...or both?
> >
> > Discuss
>
> Good.
>
> As a semi-libertarian, I believe that the government should stick its nose in
> as little as possible consistent with the rule of law. Tariffs are a government
> officials way of 1) providing opportunities for graft and 2) picking winners and
> losers. Most importantly, tariffs end up institutionalizing inefficiency.
>

All good - have little to add to the above

[wolfie]

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote

> As a semi-libertarian, I believe that the government should stick its nose
> in
> as little as possible consistent with the rule of law. Tariffs are a
> government
> officials way of 1) providing opportunities for graft and 2) picking
> winners and
> losers. Most importantly, tariffs end up institutionalizing inefficiency.

So, to be consistent, you'd still support the above
if "tariff" was replaced with "immigration"?

After all, there's no difference between someone
being able to sell you a widget w/o barriers and
someone being able to sell you their work.

Immigration laws, for instance, artificially raise
prices on software by keeping out a few million
English-speaking Indian coders willing to work at
much lower wages.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 10:02:23 AM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
>
> > As a semi-libertarian, I believe that the government should stick its nose
> > in
> > as little as possible consistent with the rule of law. Tariffs are a
> > government
> > officials way of 1) providing opportunities for graft and 2) picking
> > winners and
> > losers. Most importantly, tariffs end up institutionalizing inefficiency.
>
> So, to be consistent, you'd still support the above
> if "tariff" was replaced with "immigration"?

Sure there is - immigrants use public services. More importantly, you're forgetting the whole "choice" aspect of the marketplace. I can choose to buy products from country X - or choose to boycott them - regardless of whether or not tariffs are in place.

> After all, there's no difference between someone
> being able to sell you a widget w/o barriers and
> someone being able to sell you their work.
>
> Immigration laws, for instance, artificially raise
> prices on software by keeping out a few million
> English-speaking Indian coders willing to work at
> much lower wages.

You do raise a good point tho - we *should* make immigration faaaar easier for the professional class - it's rather moronic we educate the world's young and then kick them out once they have their degrees

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2016-06-26, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 10:02:23 AM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
>> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
>>
>> > As a semi-libertarian, I believe that the government should stick its nose
>> > in
>> > as little as possible consistent with the rule of law. Tariffs are a
>> > government
>> > officials way of 1) providing opportunities for graft and 2) picking
>> > winners and
>> > losers. Most importantly, tariffs end up institutionalizing inefficiency.
>>
>> So, to be consistent, you'd still support the above
>> if "tariff" was replaced with "immigration"?
>
> Sure there is - immigrants use public services. More importantly,
> you're forgetting the whole "choice" aspect of the marketplace. I can
> choose to buy products from country X - or choose to boycott them -
> regardless of whether or not tariffs are in place.

No one would have a problem with people showing up to do labor if they didn't
use public services and commit crimes, and if their originating country took
them back no questions asked if they were ejected.

>
>> After all, there's no difference between someone being able to
>> sell you a widget w/o barriers and someone being able to sell you
>> their work.
>>
>> Immigration laws, for instance, artificially raise prices on
>> software by keeping out a few million English-speaking Indian
>> coders willing to work at much lower wages.
>
> You do raise a good point tho - we *should* make immigration
> faaaar easier for the professional class - it's rather moronic we
> educate the world's young and then kick them out once they have
> their degrees

There is a huge difference between a widget and labor, in any case.
The widget has a transferred title and is an utter chattel.

--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Many people would have a problem with it, con, even if every foreign worker were perfectly well behaved.

Namely, the folks put out of work or negotiating the reduced wages they'd see competing against foreign workers.

That was one of the driving forces in the brexit vote.

The ability to impose tariffs or issue worker visas are just control knobs whose existence implies we care about more than fanatical, absolutist devotion to the bottom line.

Cheers

[GrtArtiste]

On 6/26/2016 11:28 AM, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> English-speaking Indian coders willing to work at
>> much lower wages.

My employer laid off most of the good IT/coding people that they had,
and most of the ones they didn't lay off could see the writing on the
wall and flew the coop on their own. Now what we have left are these
Indian half-wits who blow their nose after they wipe their ass with the
same tissue.

When I think upon the fact that that my near-future livelihood depends
on working for a company that I honestly feel deserves to go out of
business...I don't know whether to laff or cry.

GrtArtiste

[meda...@gmail.com]

Just keep doing what you do best - whine. Every Indian I've ever worked with in IT actually cost significantly more than an American full time employee. They can pay us $130,000 a year plus full benefits or pay an Indian consultant $200/hour.

[michael anderson]

Given the cost of benefits as well as the flexibility inherent in a contract worker, I'll the the 200 hr in that case if I'm the employer. Or even better yet just salary the Indian and pay them less than the American it guy......best solution of all.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

That's always been the case - pretty much since time immemorial. Certainly this country has seen that all along - fears of the Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc etc etc

They took er jabz!

[wolfie]

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote

> Sure there is - immigrants use public services.

So do physical goods. Some of my tax dollars
support the public roads, for instance. Along
with ports (and port security), etc.

> More importantly, you're forgetting the whole
> "choice" aspect of the marketplace.

The point you're trying to make isn't clear.

Sure, I can choose to buy goods with or without
a tariff - but I get little (if any) choice in whether
that tariff exists or not.

[agavi...@gmail.com]

There's always someone to crap in the conversational punch bowl.

[meda...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> Given the cost of benefits as well as the flexibility inherent in a contract worker, I'll the the 200 hr in that case if I'm the employer. Or even better yet just salary the Indian and pay them less than the American it guy......best solution of all.

Your math needs a little help. Also, you understanding of IT consulting costs.

[meda...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 3:37:02 PM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> There's always someone to crap in the conversational punch bowl.

Well, I can only assume this was directed at me because you're too much of a imbecile to quote. But, to address the point, I think everybody here fulfills that role repeatedly. Including you.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Not to mention conflating the chattel of a hard-goods item with
a human being.

--
The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

[agavi...@gmail.com]

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

It seems you have two.

Sincerely,
M B Cile

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:02:11 -0400, "wolfie" <bgbd...@gte.net> wrote:

>After all, there's no difference between someone
>being able to sell you a widget w/o barriers and
>someone being able to sell you their work.

You must mean "other than physical presence". That would appear to be
at least a minor difference in space requirements.

>Immigration laws, for instance, artificially raise
>prices on software by keeping out a few million
>English-speaking Indian coders willing to work at
>much lower wages.

Over there, that is.

Hugh

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 1:57:20 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
>
> > Sure there is - immigrants use public services.
>
> So do physical goods. Some of my tax dollars
> support the public roads, for instance. Along
> with ports (and port security), etc.

Those are costs paid by shipping fees, by and large - minimal cost to you.

> > More importantly, you're forgetting the whole
> > "choice" aspect of the marketplace.
>
> The point you're trying to make isn't clear.

> Sure, I can choose to buy goods with or without
> a tariff - but I get little (if any) choice in whether
> that tariff exists or not.

Right - and if the good isn't sold, it goes back home - as opposed to immigrants.

Additionally, the lack of tariff makes things cheaper for you - not sure why that would be bad.

Really not sure what you're arguing for - virtually all free traders, like myself and Connie, love loose immigration laws. We understand that immigrants start lots of small businesses and are willing to take menial jobs others seem unwilling to do. Furthermore, we'd LOVE to see the professional class immigration laws loosened quite a bit - what's not to love about having a LOT of well-educated professionals in your country?

If you're looking for Trumpian closed-border types, talking to free traders is a pretty lousy place to find them

OTOH, I'm pretty sure you'd agree a completely open border - complete with full social services - would invite problems

[wolfie]

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote

> Really not sure what you're arguing for - virtually
> all free traders, like myself and Connie, love loose
> immigration laws.

Not "arguing," just making the point "open borders
for trade" should include work, not just widgets.

> OTOH, I'm pretty sure you'd agree a completely open
> border - complete with full social services - would
> invite problems

I don't know why an open border has to provide
full social services. If you can't support yourself
working, you're better off moving on and finding
a place where you can. There's no reason a
'safety net' for migrants needs to be more than
help getting home AFAICS.

Of course you need to get rid of birthright citizenship
for that to work, but I don't see a problem with that
either.

[Michael Press]

In article <slrnnn009p.7...@kim.perusion.com>,

Let's bring back indentured servitude.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article <nkp3vu$6b6$1...@dont-email.me>,

In the book it is written:

1) Sell short.
2) Hire on to a competitor and bring everything.

--
Michael Press

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 9:47:51 PM UTC-5, wolfie wrote:
> "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
>
> > Really not sure what you're arguing for - virtually
> > all free traders, like myself and Connie, love loose
> > immigration laws.
>
> Not "arguing," just making the point "open borders
> for trade" should include work, not just widgets.

Lack of tariffs doesn't mean "open borders for trade" - goods and products still have to meet certain standards - cars NHTSA safety regs, etc etc etc

> > OTOH, I'm pretty sure you'd agree a completely open
> > border - complete with full social services - would
> > invite problems
>
> I don't know why an open border has to provide
> full social services. If you can't support yourself
> working, you're better off moving on and finding
> a place where you can. There's no reason a
> 'safety net' for migrants needs to be more than
> help getting home AFAICS.
>
> Of course you need to get rid of birthright citizenship
> for that to work, but I don't see a problem with that
> either.

So you're in favor of deporting people who don't have jobs? (j/k)