I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
I don't know but slavery did retard the development of the South and allow the Yankees and their manufacturing to run over them. An educated work force even in mid 19th century standards and a paid work force allowed the industrial revolution to flourish in the north. An industrial society will crush an agrarian society particularly when you had free men farming within the borders of the industrial nation. Food production also out produces slave produced food
One could argue that paid labor did replace slave labor. At the cost of 500,000 lives or so but still.
The whole notion of Chivalry and slavery was never going to last in the modern world. It just wasn't
That's got to be the argument. It may even be the case that paid labor with basic means of self-sustaining oneself is more productive even in simple agrarian applications.
Agreed. It just wasn't going to last. It just wasn't.
“In the NFL they got a bunch of old white men owning teams, and they got that slave mentality. And it’s like, ‘This is my team. You do what the fuck I tell y’all to do or we get rid of y’all.’
“The players are who make the ship go. We make it go. Every Sunday, without Todd Gurley and without Odell Beckham, Jr. without those players, those guys, there is no football. And it’s the same in the NBA.”
I love how farmers and contractors openly say they have a need for a more exploited workforce.
I think they'd like any workforce. You can't grow an economy with our demographics while hating on immigration.
What a racist piece of shit you are.
Obviously.
"Poor whites can't pick crops. That's colored folk work."
-HHusky, CSA
We clearly need to make a lot more poor whites if you want the economy to grow in keeping with your racial preferences.
We just need to reduce the "assistance". If you can be on all the welfare programs and make well above minimum wage and have a place to live why go to work?
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
You can put every single TANF recipient to work and you still have a labor shortage. There aren’t many of them, and that’s not to ignore the fact that they can’t really all be put to work.
I love how farmers and contractors openly say they have a need for a more exploited workforce.
I think they'd like any workforce. You can't grow an economy with our demographics while hating on immigration.
What a racist piece of shit you are.
Obviously.
"Poor whites can't pick crops. That's colored folk work."
-HHusky, CSA
We clearly need to make a lot more poor whites if you want the economy to grow in keeping with your racial preferences.
We just need to reduce the "assistance". If you can be on all the welfare programs and make well above minimum wage and have a place to live why go to work?
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
You can put every single TANF recipient to work and you still have a labor shortage. There aren’t many of them, and that’s not to ignore the fact that they can’t really all be put to work.
A labor shortage all those millions of illiterate illegals can't fill
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
I don't know but slavery did retard the development of the South and allow the Yankees and their manufacturing to run over them. An educated work force even in mid 19th century standards and a paid work force allowed the industrial revolution to flourish in the north. An industrial society will crush an agrarian society particularly when you had free men farming within the borders of the industrial nation. Food production also out produces slave produced food
One could argue that paid labor did replace slave labor. At the cost of 500,000 lives or so but still.
The whole notion of Chivalry and slavery was never going to last in the modern world. It just wasn't
That's got to be the argument. It may even be the case that paid labor with basic means of self-sustaining oneself is more productive even in simple agrarian applications.
Agreed. It just wasn't going to last. It just wasn't.
Even our good old slave owning founding fathers recognized that slavery wasn't economically all that competitive. GW himself wondered how long the institution could last purely based on the underlying inefficiency. Without going into a ton of it it really boils down to motivation. It's really hard to force people to work for other people's benefits and not their own. This is also why socialismo continues it's poor track record. If you want to go into the tangent more I can but generally, slavery, the American institution of it, was quickly outpaced by free labor markets, automation, and free enterprise in the Norte.
I needed a brake booster, master cylinder and proportioning valve setup for an old Jeep CJ I have. So, there's this place called Pirate Jacks that builds cool setups in house in NC. Whole system was 475 bucks late last year when I first started looking at them. Went to buy one yesterday and they are 572. So I call the guy up and ask him why his prices jumped 100 bucks in less than 6 months. Tariffs was the response. I don;t know if tariffs are having an impact in China, but they are having an impact here. Cool story, I know.
It’s effecting China more.
Tariffs are bad, most here agree with this premise.
BUT Chinese manufacturing is imminently replaceable by other cheap developing nations, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc. Tariffs on China short term will speed up the cycle of US supply chains switching to these countries which will ultimately make the tariffs negligible to American consumers and American competitiveness. Many of these nations are also our allies and/or democracies as opposed to authoritarian regimes bent on our downfall.
The CCP is engaging in unrestricted warfare and have a billion people under slavery to be able to do so.
Here's a talk with General Robert Spalding who has a PHD in Economics on how China is gaining its advantages over the US.
TLDW the world view that open markets will eventually defeat the CCP is outdated. In part, because we don't actually have open markets.
That's exactly right. The assumption of the efficient market is helpful as a baseline to begin analysis. But of course we all know that markets contend with externalities. In the international context, especially with China, the externalities are many. You're always going to have a gross comparative advantage when you can make people do things they'd rather not do. It's not real. And then there's the stealing. When your trade counter-party is willing to break the rules and do other inefficient shit, you're not operating in a rational economic context.
It's analogous to arguing free markets would have ended slavery. Slavery was inefficient and in a vacuum paid labor may have replaced it but that completely ignores all political and historical context. Nevermind the additional moral implications.
That's an interesting argument. When I first read what you wrote, I thought, "how could free market labor ever displace slave labor?" But of course ..., it requires capital to 'own' anything. Housing, care (whatever care they provided, such as it was), food, costs of enforcing "ownership" rights. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to keep a slave.
Still, you didn't have to pay them, which is a big nut. And given that plantations raised much of their own food, that slave owners didn't really do much to care for their slaves (I assume that anyway), that you needed the equipment they used any way (so not a savings there), I don't know ... I find it hard to believe that even from a strictly rational economic point of view that a slave owner would hire labor that goes home every day and deals with their own housing and food.
From the labor supply side, you'd have to explain to me the argument, because I can't see it. How would an efficient market for labor result in paid labor replacing slave labor?
That's so interesting
I still think we should focus on this Bradley Cooper situation
Comments