interesting breakdown of the economy

[Deleted member 159002]

http://www.progressive-economy.org/...ood-home-goods-by-40-percent-since-the-1970s/

Americans are able to get more bang for their buck when it comes to necessities like food and clothes, but have felt squeezed by increasing healthcare costs.

Leaving the healthcare issue aside for a moment, how do you think Americans would be doing financially if our country had gone protectionist since the 1970s?

 

[58miles]

Most of what people consider necessities today would be much more expensive and most luxuries would be completely of reach.

 

[uncommon]

Leaving the healthcare issue aside for a moment, how do you think Americans would be doing financially if our country had gone protectionist since the 1970s?

Maybe usa and russia role would be reversed to due oil control?

 

[Greoric]

Well easy solution for HC costs. Just repeal the layers of regulation, employer mandated insurance, occupational licencing, and otherwise arbitrary barriers to entry into that market that have accrued over the last century.

Or we could always make it simpler and go full retard by making the argument that a compulsory funded monopoly will be the best way to allocate that service....

 

[Higus]

http://www.progressive-economy.org/...ood-home-goods-by-40-percent-since-the-1970s/

Americans are able to get more bang for their buck when it comes to necessities like food and clothes, but have felt squeezed by increasing healthcare costs.

Leaving the healthcare issue aside for a moment, how do you think Americans would be doing financially if our country had gone protectionist since the 1970s?

Side note: this is why I get annoyed when people complain about poor people in America owning smartphones or air conditioners. Commodity items are smaller portions of our overall spending, but expenses to get out (or keep out) of poverty, like healthcare, education, or housing, are much larger.

Protectionism is a short term gain followed by a long term loss usually. If the US had a protectionist trade policy in place decades ago, the US ends up being less innovative and less competitive globally than we are today.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

@Higus so would you say Americans are in a better or worse economic position than any time since the 70s?

 

[Philo-Publius]

http://www.progressive-economy.org/...ood-home-goods-by-40-percent-since-the-1970s/

Americans are able to get more bang for their buck when it comes to necessities like food and clothes, but have felt squeezed by increasing healthcare costs.

Leaving the healthcare issue aside for a moment, how do you think Americans would be doing financially if our country had gone protectionist since the 1970s?

That is bullshit about food. Food has never been more expensive (at least not in my lifetime). And, some of that has to do with the fact that 10% or our gasoline is mandated to be corn ethanol. It raises the demand for corn, raises the cost of food (much of which has corn or corn syrup in it), and is shitty for car engines.

 

[Higus]

@Higus so would you say Americans are in a better or worse economic position than any time since the 70s?

Sorry it took me a while to respond. It's a great question and one I'll be thinking about for a while.

I'm not too familiar with the history of policy from the 70's and 80's, so I'll defer to others on that specific era.

I suspect that's not a question that can be given a meaningful yes or no answer. The American economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's largely influenced by technological advancements and by events happening across the world. A policy is a strategy, and implementing a strategy requires trade offs. Are Americans as a whole better off? I don’t know. Could they be doing better? Probably. Could they be doing worse? Absolutely.

A challenging part of this trying to answer this question is that people in general have not been very good about separating the concept of free trade/globalization from distribution of wealth. A free trade policy is better at generating wealth than a protectionist policy, this is pretty much fact, but the issue is who gets that wealth. The question isn't if a free trade policy is beneficial or harmful to Americans; the real question is what is the best mechanism to distribute that wealth to society? Unfortunately, it's not the question people are asking.

 

[VivaRevolution]

http://www.progressive-economy.org/...ood-home-goods-by-40-percent-since-the-1970s/

Americans are able to get more bang for their buck when it comes to necessities like food and clothes, but have felt squeezed by increasing healthcare costs.

Leaving the healthcare issue aside for a moment, how do you think Americans would be doing financially if our country had gone protectionist since the 1970s?

Well we would have 50,000 more factories to start with.

"America has lost over 50,000 manufacturing factories on other trade deals. America has turned its economy to a paper-shuffling service industry economy."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...s-schultz-trade-deals-closed-50000-factories/

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Well we would have 50,000 more factories to start with.

"America has lost over 50,000 manufacturing factories on other trade deals. America has turned its economy to a paper-shuffling service industry economy."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...s-schultz-trade-deals-closed-50000-factories/

That doesn't mean cheaper goods and thus more purchasing power for people not employed in manufacturing?

 

[Greoric]

That doesn't mean cheaper goods and thus more purchasing power for people not employed in manufacturing?

Not necessarily, but I like where you were going with that.

 

[Pwent]

People are quick to say "things would be more expensive." But people would have more money too since not only will there be more manufacturing jobs, those people would have more money to spend throughout the economy

I think there would be a larger middle class and our wealth would have a different distribution

To put in graphic terms

Very rich
(Gap 1)
American middle class
(Gap 2)
3rd world/developing countries

Gap 1 would be smaller due to the middle clas being wealthier and the very rich being less wealthy

Gap 2 would be smaller due to the middle class being wealthier and developing countries being poorer

 

[IGIT]

Well we would have 50,000 more factories to start with.

"America has lost over 50,000 manufacturing factories on other trade deals. America has turned its economy to a paper-shuffling service industry economy."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...s-schultz-trade-deals-closed-50000-factories/

hiya there Viva,

your quote doesn't reflect the findings of politifact, though. that was a quote from Ed Schultz, which politifact was analyzing.

within the body of article you quoted, there were also dissenting opinions, such as economists Robert Z. Lawrence and Lawrence Edwards;

"Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade," they wrote.

politifact rated Schultz's conclusions as "half true".

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

People are quick to say "things would be more expensive." But people would have more money too since not only will there be more manufacturing jobs, those people would have more money to spend throughout the economy

I think there would be a larger middle class and our wealth would have a different distribution

To put in graphic terms

Very rich
(Gap 1)
American middle class
(Gap 2)
3rd world/developing countries

Gap 1 would be smaller due to the middle clas being wealthier and the very rich being less wealthy

Gap 2 would be smaller due to the middle class being wealthier and developing countries being poorer

hi Pwent,

i've thought about this issue along the same lines.

the thing is, why isn't it possible that the result hyperprotectionist policies wouldn't be that the american middle class would be smaller, since our export market would be crippled by A) a strong dollar and B) trade barriers that would go up as a result of our own tariffs?

there are other downsides too.

everyone at my company, for example, would be forced to use Kodak digital cameras (which would be awful), instead of the Canons and Nikons we use. Kodak would be insulated from foreign competition and have a captive market here in the United States if the US went full protectionist to save their ailing industries.

wouldn't that be a bad thing?

- IGIT

 

[Greoric]

People are quick to say "things would be more expensive." But people would have more money too since not only will there be more manufacturing jobs, those people would have more money to spend throughout the economy

I think there would be a larger middle class and our wealth would have a different distribution

To put in graphic terms

Very rich
(Gap 1)
American middle class
(Gap 2)
3rd world/developing countries

Gap 1 would be smaller due to the middle clas being wealthier and the very rich being less wealthy

Gap 2 would be smaller due to the middle class being wealthier and developing countries being poorer

Economies don't grow because of greater spending and consumption. They grow because people do the opposite.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The question isn't if a free trade policy is beneficial or harmful to Americans; the real question is what is the best mechanism to distribute that wealth to society? Unfortunately, it's not the question people are asking.

I thought progressive taxation and social programs for the poor took care of that. Or is there a better suggestion than tweaking these two things to achieve more desirable results?

 

[Greoric]

I thought progressive taxation and social programs for the poor took care of that. Or is there a better suggestion than tweaking these two things to achieve more desirable results?

Yes, by first not diverting those funds through the black hole of bureaucracies.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yes, by first not diverting those funds through the black hole of bureaucracies.

Isn't the IRS supposedly understaffed? Aren't most social programs administered on the state level?

 

[Greoric]

Isn't the IRS supposedly understaffed? Aren't most social programs administered on the state level?

Maybe. I wish the IRS was even more understaffed. That modality to help the less well off is still the most inefficient and wasteful way to do it. That's leaving aside the obvious problem of it being also a completely unethical way of doing it (which we don't need address if you don't want to).

 

[VivaRevolution]

hiya there Viva,

your quote doesn't reflect the findings of politifact, though. that was a quote from Ed Schultz, which politifact was analyzing.

within the body of article you quoted, there were also dissenting opinions, such as economists Robert Z. Lawrence and Lawrence Edwards;

"Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade," they wrote.

politifact rated Schultz's conclusions as "half true".

- IGIT

If losing 0ver 50,000 factories is a half truth, it is still a problem that has had enormous effects on the average Americans life. So that seems to be a difference without meaning.