Free Trade May not be Free Afterall

[MVF]

I think robotics has the potential to bring ever more manufacturing back to the U.S. but it won't necessarily create that many jobs. Manufactoring is the last century and I don't think focusing on that will get us where we need to go. The U.S. needs to find an area to regain the lead in, and I believe education is the logical next step. The industrial revolution optimized the use and value of raw materials, the information age optimized the use and value of manufacturing, and education is what you need to optimize the use and value of information.

Considering how poor our current education system is, this is something we need to get serious about anyway, and the elements are in place to make a quantum leap in education possible. I think this where we would get the most benefit as a nation, and eventually provide the most benefit to the world

[ttoney83]

Take out "free trade agreements" and add "rubber tire tariff"
What Bacucus said is EXACTLY the same thing the politicians said about the Chinese rubber tire tariff
Which one is it Obama?
Free trade or tariffs??

It's been 2 years since the tariff on Chinese rubber tires (aka Section 421)
Since then:
Have tire prices gone up or down?
Have more jobs been created in 51-9197 Tire Builders industry category?
Has it stopped the import of tires? Or just shifted importation to (from?) other countries besides China?

I rest my case
Tariffs do not and will not ever work
Where the Rubber Meets the Tariff
Tires, Trade and Virtual Nobel Prizes

If one wishes to know the truth about so called "protectionism" (American System of Political Economy) one must go to the sources who investigated the differences between "Free Trade" and the American System. Below is a link to Henry C. Carey's treatise on the subject entitled "The Harmony of Interests; Agricultural, Manufacturing and Commercial."

In this work Carey examines the REAL effect of tariffs on various raw and finished goods over an approximately 4 decade period. This is a detailed examination of the effects of relatively higher and lower tariffs on these products. It was found that when tariffs were relatively HIGHer, BOTH domestically produced AND imported goods of that type were consumed AND American jobs remained secure.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ajb8...merican+System

It is also interesting to note that those periods in our history when our economy grew fastest and "mostest" were those periods when we were operating under the American system.

Another man who identified the errors of Adam Smith's "Free Trade" was Friedrich List. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List.
The quote from List below is very telling as to these differences, i.e. That if one wishes to build and maintain an economy, one must protect it.

Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth.[10]

Most Americans have no clue that such a system as the American system existed. Most have no idea that it was under this system that America became the economic powerhouse it did by the mid to late 1800's.

It is a fallacy to believe that "free markets" or "invisible hands" actually control the markets, or that they are made more efficient by taking a hands off approach. The ONLY name I need cite to PROVE that there is no such thing as a "free market" is George Soros. In addition, the collapse of the industrial sector of our economy is further evidence of the destructive nature of 'free trade" policy, wherein financial derivatives have taken over and their unproductive expansion has lent the APPEARANCE of economic growth to disguise the destruction of America. We are reaping the results of the blind faith belief in the "Invisible Hand" today. It could not be more clear.

And I believe there was a plant is opening a plant in one of the Carolinas. As Carey mentioned in his exhaustive study of the effects of tariffs, it often takes several years for the effects of a tariff to be apparent in the economy. He factored that in. Fascinating read really.

[ttoney83]

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the short-run effect of the tariffs on Chinese tires
imposed by the US in September 2009. First, we investigated whether the tariffs were beneficial
to the US domestic tire industry in terms of employment. Our empirical analysis found that
there were no significant benefits to US employment in the tire industry. This result led us to
the next question: Who benefited from the tariffs? We found that the tire imports to the US
were significantly deviated from China to other countries such as Thailand and Korea.

Well, there's the problem.....

[Trent Rock]

If one wishes to know the truth about so called "protectionism" (American System of Political Economy) one must go to the sources who investigated the differences between "Free Trade" and the American System. Below is a link to Henry C. Carey's treatise on the subject entitled "The Harmony of Interests; Agricultural, Manufacturing and Commercial."

In this work Carey examines the REAL effect of tariffs on various raw and finished goods over an approximately 4 decade period. This is a detailed examination of the effects of relatively higher and lower tariffs on these products. It was found that when tariffs were relatively HIGHer, BOTH domestically produced AND imported goods of that type were consumed AND American jobs remained secure.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ajb8...merican+System

It is also interesting to note that those periods in our history when our economy grew fastest and "mostest" were those periods when we were operating under the American system.

Another man who identified the errors of Adam Smith's "Free Trade" was Friedrich List. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List.
The quote from List below is very telling as to these differences, i.e. That if one wishes to build and maintain an economy, one must protect it.


Most Americans have no clue that such a system as the American system existed. Most have no idea that it was under this system that America became the economic powerhouse it did by the mid to late 1800's.

It is a fallacy to believe that "free markets" or "invisible hands" actually control the markets, or that they are made more efficient by taking a hands off approach. The ONLY name I need cite to PROVE that there is no such thing as a "free market" is George Soros. In addition, the collapse of the industrial sector of our economy is further evidence of the destructive nature of 'free trade" policy, wherein financial derivatives have taken over and their unproductive expansion has lent the APPEARANCE of economic growth to disguise the destruction of America. We are reaping the results of the blind faith belief in the "Invisible Hand" today. It could not be more clear.

And I believe there was a plant is opening a plant in one of the Carolinas. As Carey mentioned in his exhaustive study of the effects of tariffs, it often takes several years for the effects of a tariff to be apparent in the economy. He factored that in. Fascinating read really.

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2009
51-9197 Tire Builders
17,820

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/oes519197.htm

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2011
51-9197 Tire Builders
16,690

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes519197.htm


Name one U.S. politician that advocates returning to The American System

We are not in a mercantilism (t?) world economy any more
Therefore, The American System will not work in 2012

Inflation, heavy government spending, and disdain for savings seem to be what conservative politicians abhor - though by embracing new mercantilist laws they are inviting all of these problems. Their economic plans are dangerous and must be avoided; mercantilism ought not be repeated any more so than it has been. Murray Rothbard warned of a "contemporary drive for a new mercantilism"[3] as early as 1964, and Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and others emerged as political figures as the 1980s drew to an end. So far, the temptation for such a policy has been resisted as managed trade is implemented. NAFTA-style trade should be ended. Protectionism should not be tried again

The return of mercantilism

Philosophically, mercantilism died in 1776; but in policy circles it has been resurrected over and over again by special interests and their friends in the naive world of public-interest advocacy. It's time for more sensible voices to prevail.

Mercantilism today: how a dead philosophy comes back to life

You advocate 20-25% tariffs on ALL imported goods?
What would that do to prices?

It is a fallacy to believe that the collapse of the industrial sector of our economy is further evidence of the destructive nature of 'free trade" policy
Top 500 U.S. Manufacturing Firms Had 2011 Sales of $5 Trillion, Almost As Much as Japan's GDP

The comparisons above help put the enormous size of the U.S. manufacturing sector into perspective and demonstrate that American manufacturing is not withering and disappearing, but thriving, expanding and prospering. In terms of profits, the American manufacturing sector will have its best year ever in 2011. Based on data currently available through the third quarter, the U.S. manufacturing corporations are on track to earn more than $600 billion in profits for 2011, which will be a new record high, and double the profits in both 2008 ($266 billion) and 2009 ($286 billion), and 36% above the pre-recession level of $442 billion in 2007. American manufacturing is alive and well.

"Decline of Manufacturing" is Global Phenomenon: And Yet the World Is Much Better Off Because of It

The complaints about the "decline in U.S. manufacturing" are really a somewhat misguided acknowledgment of the global shift in production that has taken place since we entered the Information Age with the commercial introduction of the microchip in 1971 and gradually left the Machine Age behind. When we complain that "nothing is made here anymore," it's not so much that somebody else is making the stuff we used to make as it is the case that we (and others around the world) just don't need as much "stuff" any more in relation to the overall size of the economy.

The standard of living around the world today, along with global wealth and prosperity, are all much, much higher today with manufacturing representing 16-17% of total world output compared to 1970, when it was almost twice as high at 26.7%. And for that progress, we should applaud, not complain.

[ttoney83]

I think some have been arguing a false choice: free trade or tariffs. Free trade isn't necessarily free. There are good deals and bad deals. Subsidies exist for other countries when the deals permit them to take advantage of lower environmental and labor standards. I used to be a proponent of free trade in general. Now I realize that each deal has to be examined individually.

I'd also like to add that it's more than labor costs that are shifting industry back to the U.S. Quality is one factor that's been pointed out. Another is market responsiveness. Shorter distances, stronger relationships, allow parts manaufacturers in the U.S. to provide superior service. But perhaps the single biggest factor is the increasing fuel costs that make transportation costs exorbitant for foreign exporters.

Some good points. Quality is HUGE IMO. I experience this quite a bit in the construction industry where we do not allow Crane rigging to be used AT ALL if it was made in China as they do not have the same quality control standards of manufacture and materials that we do here and in other western nations like Germany.

Shipping. We recently recieved a shipment of cabinetry from China and it was dameged in transit. One month to recieve replacements. Lead time can kill a project. Planning can overcome some of that though.

Free Trade is always a costly affair to almost all, if not all nations in that it ALWAYS reduces the wages of the Labor force OR sees its reduction. In other words, skilled labor is killed off slowly but surely in those nations where highly skilled and relatively highly payed workers are not protected by tariffs against competition from lower payed Labor forces in other countries. As a for instance; The average age of a Machinist in the United States today is approximately 63 years old. In just a few more years, perhaps a decade, it is possible that we will have no more skilled Machinists in the United States. Unless we wake up to the benefits of tariffs to equalize disparities in labor compensation.

[ttoney83]

The results are in on the rubber tire tariff
The results are what I expected
Tariffs=FAIL




Tire Tariffs Cost $1B And $900k Per Job In 2011

US Tire Tariffs: Saving Few
Jobs at High Cost
************************************************** ************************************************** *****
U.S. Solar Tariffs on Chinese Cells May Boost Prices
It will be the same results for the solar panel industry

http://www.americansolarmanufacturing.org/fact-sheet/


So we all have to pay higher prices to TRY and SAVE an industry that has 17,000 employees?

No thanks
I'll take the cheaper energy costs.....


Tariffs are a proven economic failure
I don't understand why people still think they work and will save industries......

This is one of those errors of analysis that gives the impression of tariffs failing. The fact here is that there were a number of U.S. jobs saved and or created which PROBably pay better than minimum wage at Wall Mart, WHICH allows the consumer to buy more stuff, OR simply to afford more stuff, or even better stuff made in America.....As demonstrated in Carey's study, when tariffs are relatively higher, consumption of BOTH domestically produced and imported products INcreased. What needs to happen is this policy be adopted across the board on nearly all products.

[ttoney83]

Hey, there you are you scalawag! Good to hear from you.

To an extent I agree with your premise... in a global economy, "free trade" becomes a much more complicated matter. One countries idea of "free trade" isn't necessarily equal to an others... reminds me of those commercials where you are offered a product "For FREE!!" with the caveat, "Just pay shipping and handling of $15"... Nothing much is actually "free" anymore, including "trade".

This concept of a "Global Economy' as if it were something new, is at the core of what is wrong with modern Economist's understanding of Economy. There has ALWays been a "Global Economy" and Nations have ALways been "free' to trade with each other. We are experiencing the results of a post Bretton Woods economic system.

[ttoney83]

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/oes519197.htm

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes519197.htm


Name one U.S. politician that advocates returning to The American System

Most have no idea that such a system even existed.

We are not in a mercantilism (t?) world economy any more
Therefore, The American System will not work in 2012

The return of mercantilism


Mercantilism today: how a dead philosophy comes back to life

You advocate 20-25% tariffs on ALL imported goods?
What would that do to prices?

You fall into the same trap as almost all economists today in that you believe that "Economy" has changed. Economy is the same as it ever was. Can you provide me with a definition of economy?

It is a fallacy to believe that the collapse of the industrial sector of our economy is further evidence of the destructive nature of 'free trade" policy
Top 500 U.S. Manufacturing Firms Had 2011 Sales of $5 Trillion, Almost As Much as Japan's GDP



"Decline of Manufacturing" is Global Phenomenon: And Yet the World Is Much Better Off Because of It

It is hardly a fallacy of belief. It is simply an observation of physical reality. Ever since we began to adopt "free trade" policies, we have heard a giant sucking sound in our physically productive enterprises and skilled labor. Direct correlation.

[ttoney83]

You advocate 20-25% tariffs on ALL imported goods?
What would that do to prices?

No. Tariffs are variable and should be applied only to make the relative cost to the consumer the same if an import is made more cheaply. Some products may not need tariffs at all, such as a product we don't make here. Read "Harmony of Interests" and all of that is explained.

It is a fallacy to believe that the collapse of the industrial sector of our economy is further evidence of the destructive nature of 'free trade" policy
Top 500 U.S. Manufacturing Firms Had 2011 Sales of $5 Trillion, Almost As Much as Japan's GDP



"Decline of Manufacturing" is Global Phenomenon: And Yet the World Is Much Better Off Because of It

As I said in my previous post, the proof of "free trade's" destructive nature is in the pudding which has been made. To cite examples of "U.S. Based" "manufacturers" is misleading to say the least. A cursory examination of "U.S. Based" reveals that the manufacturing is not done here in most, if not all cases, therefore, the impact of free trade is the destruction of the American Labor force.

I have been over this many times before; the profits demonstrated by such NOMINALLY "U.S. based" industries, is easily explained with a simple equation. If a manufacturing job which paid $10.00/Hr. in the U.S. is shipped overseas where the same job pays $0.60/Hr. that is a 1,666.667% DECrease in the cost of production, just from the labor standpoint, which MEANS a potential increase of profits of 1,666% I'm I know it doesn't translate exactly because there are factory costs (nominal) and shipping costs involved, but this simple equation reveals the reason why our CEO's compensation has skyrocketed over the last 30 years or so from 20 times the average worker's wages to over 200 times the average workers wages. Interestingly, that corresponds to a 1000% increase....Hmmm, I wonder how that happened.

So, in short, the obvious results of free trade is the concentration of wealth in the hands of those who are at the top, at the expense of Labor.

Economy, and economics, is not complicated. Where the complications arise is when people get greedy and design formulae to attempt to predict the outcomes of their bets at the Roulette Wheel.

The complaints about the "decline in U.S. manufacturing" are really a somewhat misguided acknowledgment of the global shift in production that has taken place since we entered the Information Age with the commercial introduction of the microchip in 1971 and gradually left the Machine Age behind. When we complain that "nothing is made here anymore," it's not so much that somebody else is making the stuff we used to make as it is the case that we (and others around the world) just don't need as much "stuff" any more in relation to the overall size of the economy.
The standard of living around the world today, along with global wealth and prosperity, are all much, much higher today with manufacturing representing 16-17% of total world output compared to 1970, when it was almost twice as high at 26.7%. And for that progress, we should applaud, not complain.

I found the bolded statement laughable really. What is REALLY contributing to the increase in the size of Economy, if it is not the manufacture of "Stuff"?
That and the question which follows are to you Trent.

The second question is related to the last sentence of that last quote. Can you define "Wealth" for me please; if it can be had with less "stuff"?

[Trent Rock]

The fact here is that there were a number of U.S. jobs saved and or created

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2009
51-9197 Tire Builders
17,820

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2011
51-9197 Tire Builders
16,690

Jobs were not saved or created
I'm not sure when the May 2012 data comes out...

$0.60/Hr. that is a 1,666.667% DECrease in the cost of production, just from the labor standpoint, which MEANS a potential increase of profits of 1,666%

...but this simple equation reveals the reason why our CEO's compensation has skyrocketed over the last 30 years or so from 20 times the average worker's wages to over 200 times the average workers wages.

Or the price of the good is less for the consumer?
Depends how competitive the industry is, among other things
Do you think CEO salaries should be regulated?

What is REALLY contributing to the increase in the size of Economy, if it is not the manufacture of "Stuff"?

Both goods and services
And spending
Doesn't matter if you spend 100 dollars on Buck Knives or 100 dollars at a strip club

Domestic profits of financial corporations increased $26.3 billion in the first quarter, compared
with an increase of $29.9 billion in the fourth. Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased
$15.4 billion in the first quarter, compared with an increase of $28.4 billion in the fourth. In the first
quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased 3.8 percent. Profits per unit of
real product increased, reflecting an increase in unit prices and a decrease in unit labor costs; unit
nonlabor costs were unchanged.

The increase in real GDP in the first quarter reflected positive contributions from personal
consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, residential fixed investment, nonresidential fixed investment,
and private inventory investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal
government spending and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the
calculation of GDP, increased.

The deceleration in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected decelerations in private
inventory investment and in nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by accelerations in
PCE, in exports, and in residential fixed investment and a deceleration in imports.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm
You have to have both goods and services
You can't just have an economy of people working in factories making "physical goods"
That is the flaw in your plan......

wealth
   
noun
1.
a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city.
2.
an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount: a wealth of imagery.
3.
Economics .
a.
all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b.
anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

I like to use Real Disposable Personal Income

Or you could use real household income
Or GDP per capita
Or, if you are a homeowner, The Case Shiller index
Or any number of metrics
Take your pick........
National Income & Product Accounts

[timcsaw]

I'm enjoying the "economics repartee" and learning much from it. However... for me to comment would be akin to trying to join a mathematical discussion about theoretical physics between Einstein and Hawking. Please try to "dumb it down" a bit will 'ya fella's? My understanding of "Free Trade" used to be that "someone gives me something for free".

[ttoney83]

I'm preparing a response. But based on the information provided, I'm beginning to understand where the disconnect is with modern "economists" and their lack of understanding of Economy.

I can't remember if I asked this before, but Trent Rock, can you provide me with a definition of economy that you agree with? You provided me one for wealth and I see one of the problems there.

[ttoney83]

Or the price of the good is less for the consumer?

So says the free traitors..... Do you honestly believe that? Goods are less to whom? Relative to what income brackets?

So, you are saying that the man/woman who worked in a factory that was shipped overseas and made $10.00/hr, full time (40 hrs. +), and is then forced to take a part time (30 hrs -+) job at Wall Mart, or similar, making $8.00/hr, suddenly finds tires more affordable?

In the former condition, the worker paid 12.5% of his gross monthly income on a set of tires costing $200.00; in his latter condition those tires equal 20.8% of his gross monthly income.....Yeah, the tires got cheaper..... The REALITY is that he/she can now only afford a set of tires costing $120.00 for that same 12.5%, $30.00 per tire....

EVen IF the tires which were formerly $50.00/tire, went down in price to $30.00/tire as a result of them being manufactured in China now, the American worker is still left with having to pay 12.5% of one month's income on a set of tires.

NOW, though, because he is forced to buy cheaper tires AND these tires are coming from a country which has no quality control standards to speak of, the American worker is now forced to put his family, and others, at increased risk on the highways, in addition to the fact that these tires probably will not last as long, due to the poorer quality control....

The company I work for WILL NOT allow ANY Crane rigging on the job site which was made in China.

So, as one can easily see, by simple math, The assertion that prices go down on goods is misleading....To say the least.....And I can't find a tire for less than about $60.00.

BUT, the CEO's income increases over a thousand percent, well, he/she can now afford a set of $2000.00 tires...So to simply say that the cost to the consumer is reduced, is not quite accurate, and really down right misleading to the point of a lie.

Add in inflation and the increased dangers posed by an unregulated manufactory and the cost to the REAL Economy becomes a little more obvious under a "Free trade" regime. Free Trade is indeed "not so free."

Depends how competitive the industry is, among other things
Do you think CEO salaries should be regulated?

I am more and more of the opinion that if a CEO is going to be so perverted as to destroy American jobs and American Workers, for his own personal gain, or the bottom line of his company, they should not only have their pay regulated, but they should also perhaps be put in prison for treason. If one is going to have their company "based" in the United States, they should have their manufacturing here as well. If not, then a heavy import tariff should be placed on those products coming from overseas.

So, if you are going to destroy this country, to improve your bottom line at the expense of the Nation, then you should be treated as an enemy combatant or economic terrorist. Bottom line.....

And you have also apparently still not read Harmony of intersts. Henry Carey busts the modern myths of tariffs WIDE open, and he wrote of them in the 1800's! He did a 40 year study of the effects and found that consumption of BOTH domestically produced goods AND imported goods went UP when tariffs were relatively higher....

Both goods and services
And spending
Doesn't matter if you spend 100 dollars on Buck Knives or 100 dollars at a strip club

AHHHH HAAA! HERE we have the disconnect in the understanding of the modern economist regarding the subject of economics! Not all activity in an economy is equal in real value to the economy.
A better example would be: Is the cab fare spent to take an electrical engineer to work and the cab fare spent to take the electrical engineer to a strip club equal in value?

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm
You have to have both goods and services
You can't just have an economy of people working in factories making "physical goods"
That is the flaw in your plan......

There never has been an economy of only people working in factories. And I never said there should be. BUT, when the vast majority of one's economy becomes "service" related, overall wages decrease. (Because, in general, these are largely unskilled jobs) Which has been demonstrated under the policies of "free trade." Or, perhaps better stated, wages have not increased on par with what one might expect related to the overall size of the economy, whereas the "compensation" of upper management has FAR exceeded what one might expect. And as I demonstrated with that simple equation, the correlation between shipping jobs overseas and the increase in CEO compensation is a very close match.

wealth
   
noun
1.
a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city.
2.
an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount: a wealth of imagery.
3.
Economics .
a.
all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b.
anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
[/I]

This is another problem with modern economists. Money, is not necessarily actual wealth. Money (at least fiat paper) is a medium of exchange to facilitate the movement of wealth within an economy. IF one's store of money was in gold, silver or other physical commodity, THEN "money" could be considered "wealth."

An example: A Gold dollar from 1913ish, .04837 Oz of gold, will buy pretty much the same quantity or quality of goods or services today that it did in 1913, whereas a Federal Reserve note from the same period will buy 97% or LESS today than it could then.....REAL money could be considered wealth. Fiat paper? Not so much....

REAL wealth is what is physically owned and consumable, retains or increases in value over time, or is critical to life functions directly, like Real Estate, Produce, Livestock, Goods in general. Money has always been only POTENTIAL wealth at best.

An example: A financier makes a million dollars gambling on derivatives, and reinvests that money in derivatives. Nothing has actually been made, nothing consumed, no one fed. This activity is cancerous to a real economic system. On paper though, things look great!

On the flip side, an industrialist produces a million dollars worth of farm equipment, which is then used to produce food to feed a million people and animals. Many people are employed, and many are fed by the activity of that single Industrialist. THAT is REAL economy, by the following definition.

Economy is the use of physical and energetic resources and processes to facilitate the function and growth of biological systems.

EVerything not related to the promotion of life, is superfluous and potentially deadly, as we are seeing with the continuing depression.
But the second part of the question I had asked, in relation to "wealth" was: Can you define "Wealth" for me please; if it can be had with less "stuff"?Because that was the assertion made in the article to which you linked. If wealth is "stuff," even money for the sake of this argument, then how can we be wealthier with less stuff, in relation to the overall economy.

Another question: WHAT makes up that extra size in an economy if it is not "stuff?" I think the answer to this question will point to the proof of the absurdity of the claim that more wealth can be had with less "stuff."

I like to use Real Disposable Personal Income
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...ate=2012-06-30
Or you could use real household income
Or GDP per capita
Or, if you are a homeowner, The Case Shiller index
Or any number of metrics
Take your pick........
National Income & Product Accounts

Problems with charts.....
First of all, anything coming from a Federal Reserve Banking Cartel site should be viewed with extreme skepticism as they have a vested interest in seeing to it that the status quo remains the same.

Could you break these out by income range for me please? You see, if the incomes of the upper "earners" goes up over a thousand percent, which it has, while those in the lower brackets goes down, or stays the same, which seems to be the case, the graph will show an increase in disposable income, even though the vast majority have had their disposable income reduced. In other words, without more specific qualification, these charts mean nothing; especially since they seem to be provided by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel.....

[Trent Rock]

Problems with charts.....
First of all, anything coming from a Federal Reserve Banking Cartel site should be viewed with extreme skepticism as they have a vested interest in seeing to it that the status quo remains the same.

In other words, without more specific qualification, these charts mean nothing; especially since they seem to be provided by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel.....

Do you think there is a smoke filled room where the top guys at The Feds change the final report?
"Ok the data is in....Real Personal Disposable Income is up 2%"
"Hmmmm....let's make it 2.2%....Ok...Who's ready for a round of golf!!!?"
How do YOU think they manipulate (aka fudge) the data?
Paint a mental picture for me....

Definition of economy?
Same as definition of economics
"The study of the allocation of scarce resources"
And I would throw in "land, labor, capital and innovation"

"The problem with modern economists"
I'm not sure what you are getting at
We should revert to economic theories based on a mercantilist economy?
Old news
Old system
We are in a global economy
Who cares what tariffs did or did not do from 1800-1840?
We are in 2012
What have tariffs and free trade agreements done since, say, 1945?
Are there any current politicians that share your your belief the The American System is better than our current system?
If not, then the issue is sort of moot
Since there is NO POSSIBILITY of reverting to the American System with it's 20-25% tariffs....imho

Fuller, D. and D. Geide-Stevenson (2003). Consensus among economists: Revisited. Journal of Economic Education 34 (Fall): 369-87. According to the abstract, "the authors generally find consensus within the profession... consensus is particularly strong for propositions of free international trade and capital flows"
Whaples, Robert (2006). "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!". The Economists' Voice 3 (9). This paper uses survey data to find that 87.5 percent of the members of the American Economic Association agree that "the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade."
Caplan, Bryan. 2002. "Systematically Biased Beliefs About Economics: Robust Evidence of Judgmental Anomalies from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy." Economic Journal, 112(479): 433-458. Asked whether "trade agreements between the US and other countries" is a "2 = major reason", "1 = minor reason", or "0 = not a reason at all" for why the economy is not doing better than it is, the average score for economists is 1.87 [note: Caplan uses the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy data set]

Is there an academic consensus on free trade?

Obama has signed free trade agreements to spur growth (South Korea, Colombia and Panama)
Romney wants to sign free trade agreements to spur growth

"I'm a big free trade guy. I like free trade." Romney said "I'm going to push free trade everywhere in the world we can achieve it"

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...n-markets?lite
So who are you going to vote for?
You don't have to tell me..as it is none of my business...btw...

[ttoney83]

Havn't had a chance to really read your response Trent Rock, but a response will be forthcoming when I get unbusy again. Things breakin loose at work as we add more subs to the mix, especially the Glass sub. (Bunch of whiners)

[Trent Rock]

Havn't had a chance to really read your response Trent Rock, but a response will be forthcoming when I get unbusy again. Things breakin loose at work as we add more subs to the mix, especially the Glass sub. (Bunch of whiners)

No worries
We still got 4 months till D-Day 2.012
I'm heavily leaning towards Gary Johnson
Sort of a protest vote..one could say
I know he has no shot at winning
If the polls numbers are really, really close
I may be forced to vote for Romney.....

[ttoney83]

No worries
We still got 4 months till D-Day 2.012
I'm heavily leaning towards Gary Johnson
Sort of a protest vote..one could say
I know he has no shot at winning
If the polls numbers are really, really close
I may be forced to vote for Romney.....

I think one of two things is going to happen. Once Romney gets the official nod from the GOP, his money making machine will steamroll the current president's money maker, OR, Martial Law......I don't say Martial Law for no reason; the current president is now facing 3 or 4 serious issues, either one of which could lead to an impeachment, or threat of impeachment, and apparently, through a source of mine, Nixon considered Martial Law when it was looking like he would be threatened wth impeachment, and those "in the know" that this person knows, are looking at Martial Law as a very real possibility. Of course, not even those who are "in the know" CAN know for sure, but the conditions are ripe, so to speak....Pretty much saying, I don't think you'll be "forced" to vote for Romney.

Impeachment is not about actual crimes, per se; though it should be. Clinton was impeached to coerce the signing of a bill after a speach he gave before the CFR. Nixon was threatened with impeachment because he was a nut job, spreading the war in SE Asia into Laos, Cambodia and pushing even to China. The "Powers that were" recognized simply that he had to go. If it weren't for Watergate, some other issue would have been used. A similar condition exists now with the current president and his apparent mad drive to war with Syria and or Iran, which, in reality, is a drive to war with Russia and China, which is actually desired by the current president's handlers. If it weren't for saner heads in the US Military's General Staff, we would be in an actual WW III with Russia and China right now, or dead and dying from the results of the virtually inevitable nuclear exchange.

[Trent Rock]

the current president is now facing 3 or 4 serious issues, either one of which could lead to an impeachment, or threat of impeachment,

Well
Let's hear them!!!

[ttoney83]

Well
Let's hear them!!!

1)Diane Feinstein is leading the Senate's investigation into the leaks regarding cyber attacks against Iran, Russia and China.
2)Fast and Furious.
3)His apparently fraudulent, potentially stolen SSN from Massachusettes, which is associated with another person's name.
4)The forged file presented on the whitehouse.gov site as "proof" of his natural born citizenship. (The methodology of the investigation is flawless. It's a forgery.)

I will be on Capital Hill Wednesday with some associates trying to get support for the immediate removal of Geithner over the LIBOR scandal. He may roll on some other things if he's going to jail, which he should.....I will also be pushing for the immediate removal of the current president, by Constitutional means, either impeachment for one of the four reasons above, or the 25th Amendment, section 4, I believe it is.

Certain of the Joint Chiefs are recognizing that this guy is a nut job who really has to go. Dempsey is one of them.

ETA: I should say that Dempsey APPEARS to be one of them. I do not speak for Dempsey.....

[timcsaw]

1)Diane Feinstein is leading the Senate's investigation into the leaks regarding cyber attacks against Iran, Russia and China.
...

Just to note, Dianne Feinstein is now "walking back" her comments about the leaks from the White House (bold mine).

“I was asked [at the World Affairs Council on Monday] whether the White House might be responsible for recent national security leaks. I stated that I did not believe the president leaked classified information. I shouldn’t have speculated beyond that, because the fact of the matter is I don’t know the source of the leaks,” Feinstein said in her statement.

She had said at the WAC forum that she “think[s] the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” although she was careful to add that she didn’t think the president was behind the leaks.

On Tuesday, in a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada, Mitt Romney was expected to refer to Feinstein’s comments in blasting Obama over the leaks.

Feinstein responded that she was “disappointed” that her comments were used by Romney to criticize the president.

“I am disappointed by the statements made by Mr. Romney today regarding a question I was asked yesterday at the World Affairs Council,” she said. “I regret my remarks are being used to impugn President Obama or his commitment to protecting national security secrets.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz21ZmXV1vH

Gee... If you don't want Romney to repeat what you've said, maybe you shouldn't say it.