Founder Of Reaganomics Says That “Without A Revolution, Americans Are History”

[Jim Jones]

[quote=CONCHO]Man I just have to keep doing this to save us all time. Here are the arguments that we will see in this thread:

4) Americans are overpaid. What, you think you *deserve* a roof over your head? There’s someone in Thailand that lives in a shanty that can do your job cheaper, bub!

OK so I’ve saved us all the trouble of what we would normally have to spend time typing and reading here. Now we can go back to work (if we still have any ha ha ha).[/quote]

CONCHO,

I like your prediction of Brian’s statement which followed.

[quote=Brian]If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.”[/quote]

[drboom]

[quote=briansd1]Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.

Most of the “nice” neighborhoods coveted by many around here just give me the creeps. I can’t understand why anyone would aspire to live amid such horrifying HOA-enforced uniformity.

Note that from an economic perspective, the marginal utility of a bigger house is zero at best. The only reason to have a big house is to provide shelter and sanitation for a big family. Otherwise it’s just a warehouse for used consumer goods.

My family of four is happy in our quiet patch of 92020, thank you, and somehow we manage to not feel imprisoned in the 1,000 sq. ft. 3/1 we bought last year. I’ll never move again if I can avoid it–just bury me in the back yard when I croak.

[drboom]

[quote=briansd1]Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.

Most of the “nice” neighborhoods coveted by many around here just give me the creeps. I can’t understand why anyone would aspire to live amid such horrifying HOA-enforced uniformity.

Note that from an economic perspective, the marginal utility of a bigger house is zero at best. The only reason to have a big house is to provide shelter and sanitation for a big family. Otherwise it’s just a warehouse for used consumer goods.

My family of four is happy in our quiet patch of 92020, thank you, and somehow we manage to not feel imprisoned in the 1,000 sq. ft. 3/1 we bought last year. I’ll never move again if I can avoid it–just bury me in the back yard when I croak.

[drboom]

[quote=briansd1]Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.

Most of the “nice” neighborhoods coveted by many around here just give me the creeps. I can’t understand why anyone would aspire to live amid such horrifying HOA-enforced uniformity.

Note that from an economic perspective, the marginal utility of a bigger house is zero at best. The only reason to have a big house is to provide shelter and sanitation for a big family. Otherwise it’s just a warehouse for used consumer goods.

My family of four is happy in our quiet patch of 92020, thank you, and somehow we manage to not feel imprisoned in the 1,000 sq. ft. 3/1 we bought last year. I’ll never move again if I can avoid it–just bury me in the back yard when I croak.

[drboom]

[quote=briansd1]Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.

Most of the “nice” neighborhoods coveted by many around here just give me the creeps. I can’t understand why anyone would aspire to live amid such horrifying HOA-enforced uniformity.

Note that from an economic perspective, the marginal utility of a bigger house is zero at best. The only reason to have a big house is to provide shelter and sanitation for a big family. Otherwise it’s just a warehouse for used consumer goods.

My family of four is happy in our quiet patch of 92020, thank you, and somehow we manage to not feel imprisoned in the 1,000 sq. ft. 3/1 we bought last year. I’ll never move again if I can avoid it–just bury me in the back yard when I croak.

[drboom]

[quote=briansd1]Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.

Most of the “nice” neighborhoods coveted by many around here just give me the creeps. I can’t understand why anyone would aspire to live amid such horrifying HOA-enforced uniformity.

Note that from an economic perspective, the marginal utility of a bigger house is zero at best. The only reason to have a big house is to provide shelter and sanitation for a big family. Otherwise it’s just a warehouse for used consumer goods.

My family of four is happy in our quiet patch of 92020, thank you, and somehow we manage to not feel imprisoned in the 1,000 sq. ft. 3/1 we bought last year. I’ll never move again if I can avoid it–just bury me in the back yard when I croak.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….

[CA renter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….[/quote]

From my post above:

We are a debtor nation and a net importer now. Protectionism would hurt other countries far more than it would hurt ours. I favor *fair trade* where we trade with other countries that have the same labor and environmental protections (and wages) that we do.

—————

No, I don’t mind the least bit if we stopped importing inferior goods from countries where a lack of environmental protection standards and an abundance of cheap (slave) labor are exploited.

The only things we should be importing are things that we cannot reasonably produce here, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….[/quote]

From my post above:

We are a debtor nation and a net importer now. Protectionism would hurt other countries far more than it would hurt ours. I favor *fair trade* where we trade with other countries that have the same labor and environmental protections (and wages) that we do.

—————

No, I don’t mind the least bit if we stopped importing inferior goods from countries where a lack of environmental protection standards and an abundance of cheap (slave) labor are exploited.

The only things we should be importing are things that we cannot reasonably produce here, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….[/quote]

From my post above:

We are a debtor nation and a net importer now. Protectionism would hurt other countries far more than it would hurt ours. I favor *fair trade* where we trade with other countries that have the same labor and environmental protections (and wages) that we do.

—————

No, I don’t mind the least bit if we stopped importing inferior goods from countries where a lack of environmental protection standards and an abundance of cheap (slave) labor are exploited.

The only things we should be importing are things that we cannot reasonably produce here, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….[/quote]

From my post above:

We are a debtor nation and a net importer now. Protectionism would hurt other countries far more than it would hurt ours. I favor *fair trade* where we trade with other countries that have the same labor and environmental protections (and wages) that we do.

—————

No, I don’t mind the least bit if we stopped importing inferior goods from countries where a lack of environmental protection standards and an abundance of cheap (slave) labor are exploited.

The only things we should be importing are things that we cannot reasonably produce here, IMHO.

[Author]

Posts