The other view of EX-IM Bank - Page 5
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 60

Thread: The other view of EX-IM Bank

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    189

    Default

    [QUOTE=swliszka;1339520]Life is an "unfair" competition.



    For a second I thought you were talking about Retriever Field Trials.
    Walt Gedney

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    Nice try IBD but the reality is I am a big supporter of Free Markets and the only time I support Gov Regs is when they attempt to fix a problem that they previously made. Like creating monopolies and duopolies in the ISP world!

    Yet, you support the EX-Im Bank which is nothing but pure crony Capitalism or should I say, Corporatism. Corporatism is the anti-Capitalist system of robbing the tax payer through lobbyist and their bought and paid for politicians!
    I know Franco, as Chuck Knox the great football coach said, you are jst playing the cards you were dealt.

  4. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    1st I will answer your question. If all tariffs and subsidies are removed, then those sectors that have a comparative advantage in the marketplace will benefit. Those that don't will suffer. While I don't know specifically which are which, I suspect that those that benefit from subsidies and tariffs, will suffer. Those that do not benefit from subsidies and tariffs, will benefit.

    2nd, your answer if simply wrong. Further you might consider a SIMPLE assignment of reading the definitions of the words "Law" and "Theory", as they apply to science. They are not interchangeable.
    It was an easy question, your lack of an answer means your whole premise is bogus. I'll ask it again. If the US removes all tariffs and subsidies, but DOES NOT REQUIRE its trade partners to do the same, what industry will the US have a Comparative Advantage?

    OK, I'll just answer it for you, NONE. Because every country out there could subsidize an industry and create their own pseudo advantage and keep the U.S. from competing. Which is why I showed you out of a TEXTBOOK why Comparative Advantage fails with the outside influences of gov't subsidy.

    Comparative Advantage is a textbook theory that only works in classroom when discussing two or three trade partners with very simple economies where they produce only a couple items. In the complex global economy where there are several mega-countries with extremely diverse resources, it falls on its face. It also falls on its face because it completely ignores the competitive nature of human beings. No one is just going to let someone else produce a good because at the moment they are better at it and then go do something else. They innovate and make themselves better so they can compete.

    You point at me about Socialist Propaganda, Comparative Advantage is the Socialist blueprint of an engineered society where everyone only does what's best for the collective and there is no innovation to get better at something that might be a weakness.



    Further, Here is the definition of Comparative Advantage from Wikipedia. I added the emphasis to a few words you obviously skipped over. The theory doesn't work if there is not FREE TRADE.

    The theory of comparative advantage is an economic theory about the potential gains from trade for individuals, firms, or nations that arise from differences in their factor endowments or technological progress.[1] In an economic model, an agent has a comparative advantage over another in producing a particular good if he can produce that good at a lower relative opportunity cost or autarky price, i.e. at a lower relative marginal cost prior to trade.[2] One does not compare the monetary costs of production or even the resource costs (labor needed per unit of output) of production. Instead, one must compare the opportunity costs of producing goods across countries.[3] The closely related law or principle of comparative advantage holds that under free trade, an agent will produce more of and consume less of a good for which he has a comparative advantage.[4]
    David Ricardo developed the classical theory of comparative advantage in 1817 to explain why countries engage in international trade even when one country's workers are more efficient at producing every single good than workers in other countries. He demonstrated that if two countries capable of producing two commodities engage in the free market, then each country will increase its overall consumption by exporting the good for which it has a comparative advantage while importing the other good, provided that there exist differences in labor productivity between both countries.[5][6] Widely regarded as one of the most powerful[7]yet counter-intuitive[8] insights in economics, Ricardo's theory implies that comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage is responsible for much of international trade.
    Last edited by IowaBayDog; 07-30-2015 at 12:22 PM.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    Nice try IBD but the reality is I am a big supporter of Free Markets and the only time I support Gov Regs is when they attempt to fix a problem that they previously made. Like creating monopolies and duopolies in the ISP world!

    Yet, you support the EX-Im Bank which is nothing but pure crony Capitalism or should I say, Corporatism. Corporatism is the anti-Capitalist system of robbing the tax payer through lobbyist and their bought and paid for politicians!
    Like the good liberal you are, you think the answer to a problem the Gov't created is more big government. Got it.

  7. #45
    Senior Member swliszka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,085

    Default

    Well while we were busy saving other worldly problems Boeing's outgoing President at the Economic Club of Washington (29 July , 2015) announced that if Ex-Im is not renewed that Boeing will continue to move many of its operations offshore. Further Washington Democratic politicos warned of the impending crisis and urged its renewal. Apparently , Washington State also gave Boeing $9 billion in tax aids. Further that GE is ready to move out as well.

    Comment- why don't we just let VW and Toyota take over the USA because obviously they are smarter than us ,and otherwise China will win. Who wants to learn Manderin?

    "Boeing chairman: We're considering moving parts of company to other countries," Chris Sullivan , July 30 , 2015 KIRO Radio Reporter

    http://mynorthwest.com/11/2790359/Bo...-moving-parts-

    OR

    "Businesses fume as Congress lets Export-Import Bank stay dead," Victoria Guida, July 30 , 2015 , Politico

    htpp://www.politico.com.story/2015/07/businesses-fume-as-congress-lets-

    Walt- "There can only be one!"
    Last edited by swliszka; 07-30-2015 at 01:11 PM.

  8. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    It was an easy question, your lack of an answer means your whole premise is bogus. I'll ask it again. If the US removes all tariffs and subsidies, but DOES NOT REQUIRE its trade partners to do the same, what industry will the US have a Comparative Advantage?

    OK, I'll just answer it for you, NONE. Because every country out there could subsidize an industry and create their own pseudo advantage and keep the U.S. from competing. Which is why I showed you out of a TEXTBOOK why Comparative Advantage fails with the outside influences of gov't subsidy.

    Comparative Advantage is a textbook theory that only works in classroom when discussing two or three trade partners with very simple economies where they produce only a couple items. In the complex global economy where there are several mega-countries with extremely diverse resources, it falls on its face. It also falls on its face because it completely ignores the competitive nature of human beings. No one is just going to let someone else produce a good because at the moment they are better at it and then go do something else. They innovate and make themselves better so they can compete.

    You point at me about Socialist Propaganda, Comparative Advantage is the Socialist blueprint of an engineered society where everyone only does what's best for the collective and there is no innovation to get better at something that might be a weakness.



    Further, Here is the definition of Comparative Advantage from Wikipedia. I added the emphasis to a few words you obviously skipped over. The theory doesn't work if there is not FREE TRADE.

    The theory of comparative advantage is an economic theory about the potential gains from trade for individuals, firms, or nations that arise from differences in their factor endowments or technological progress.[1] In an economic model, an agent has a comparative advantage over another in producing a particular good if he can produce that good at a lower relative opportunity cost or autarky price, i.e. at a lower relative marginal cost prior to trade.[2] One does not compare the monetary costs of production or even the resource costs (labor needed per unit of output) of production. Instead, one must compare the opportunity costs of producing goods across countries.[3] The closely related law or principle of comparative advantage holds that under free trade, an agent will produce more of and consume less of a good for which he has a comparative advantage.[4]
    David Ricardo developed the classical theory of comparative advantage in 1817 to explain why countries engage in international trade even when one country's workers are more efficient at producing every single good than workers in other countries. He demonstrated that if two countries capable of producing two commodities engage in the free market, then each country will increase its overall consumption by exporting the good for which it has a comparative advantage while importing the other good, provided that there exist differences in labor productivity between both countries.[5][6] Widely regarded as one of the most powerful[7]yet counter-intuitive[8] insights in economics, Ricardo's theory implies that comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage is responsible for much of international trade.

    1st, I DID NOT skip over the concepts of "Free Trade" and "Free Market". I will suggest that you must read more carefully the definition with respect to Free Market and Free Trade. I will assume that you believe that subsidies, loan guarantees, government grants or charitable donations, restrict Free Trade.k NOT SO. Bowing may get subsidies, loan guarantees, Gov. grants, or charitable donations, that lower the price of their jumbo jet, but so long as Bowing can sell the planes to any prospective buyer without any Gov. interference, THAT is Free Trade. Now if the Gov. decides that Boeing selling its jets jeopardizes national defense and will not allow it to sell at a price given the demand, then there is no free trade for that company. Now let me give you an example of a sector of the economy that is neither Free Market nor Free Trade. It is the Single Employer Healthcare System. It has no Free Trade because the provider cannot sell to anyone other that the Gov. It has no Free Market because the government controls totally the distribution of the service.

    Now, the difference between "LAW AND THEORY". A theory is a concept that while, cannot be proven, cannot also be disproven. Best example that comes to mind is the THEORY of Global Warming. A Law is a concept that has withstood a RIGOROUS PROOF. Simply put, it has been proven to hold not only for 1 possibility but for an INFINITY of possibilities. A good example of a law would be Ohm's law which quantifies the relationships between voltage, amperage, and resistance. I have no idea as to what Ricardo's "THEORY of Comparative Advantage", is but I suspect it may simply be an expansion of the Law. I do know that it evidently can't be proven or disproven.

    I think you might confuse Free Trade with what many mean by "Fair" Trade. Economics does not deal with the Concept of "Fair Trade"

  9. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    1st, I DID NOT skip over the concepts of "Free Trade" and "Free Market". I will suggest that you must read more carefully the definition with respect to Free Market and Free Trade. I will assume that you believe that subsidies, loan guarantees, government grants or charitable donations, restrict Free Trade.k NOT SO. Bowing may get subsidies, loan guarantees, Gov. grants, or charitable donations, that lower the price of their jumbo jet, but so long as Bowing can sell the planes to any prospective buyer without any Gov. interference, THAT is Free Trade. Now if the Gov. decides that Boeing selling its jets jeopardizes national defense and will not allow it to sell at a price given the demand, then there is no free trade for that company. Now let me give you an example of a sector of the economy that is neither Free Market nor Free Trade. It is the Single Employer Healthcare System. It has no Free Trade because the provider cannot sell to anyone other that the Gov. It has no Free Market because the government controls totally the distribution of the service.

    Now, the difference between "LAW AND THEORY". A theory is a concept that while, cannot be proven, cannot also be disproven. Best example that comes to mind is the THEORY of Global Warming. A Law is a concept that has withstood a RIGOROUS PROOF. Simply put, it has been proven to hold not only for 1 possibility but for an INFINITY of possibilities. A good example of a law would be Ohm's law which quantifies the relationships between voltage, amperage, and resistance. I have no idea as to what Ricardo's "THEORY of Comparative Advantage", is but I suspect it may simply be an expansion of the Law. I do know that it evidently can't be proven or disproven.

    I think you might confuse Free Trade with what many mean by "Fair" Trade. Economics does not deal with the Concept of "Fair Trade"
    Free Trade and Free Market means without barriers, subsidies and tariffs are barriers. One of us needs to read up on Economics, its not me, I minored in it. Whether you call it a theory or law, its from the early 1800s and has no application whatsoever in today's economy.

    Sorry Cary but you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've wasted my last keypress on this debate.

    Features of free trade[edit]

    Free trade policies generally promote the following features:

    • Trade of goods without taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for producers)
    • Trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers
    • The absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations, or laws) that give some firms, households, or factors of production an advantage over others
    • Unregulated access to markets
    • Unregulated access to market information
    • Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power
    • Trade agreements which encourage free trade.

  10. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    Free Trade and Free Market means without barriers, subsidies and tariffs are barriers. One of us needs to read up on Economics, its not me, I minored in it. Whether you call it a theory or law, its from the early 1800s and has no application whatsoever in today's economy.

    Sorry Cary but you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've wasted my last keypress on this debate.

    Features of free trade[edit]

    Free trade policies generally promote the following features:

    • Trade of goods without taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for producers)
    • Trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers
    • The absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations, or laws) that give some firms, households, or factors of production an advantage over others
    • Unregulated access to markets
    • Unregulated access to market information
    • Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power
    • Trade agreements which encourage free trade.
    I prefer a discussion without the argument that "I have more education than you". But you started it so I shall reply. Even though I graduated undergraduate school with a BS in Math, I did have enough hours in economics for a major, including a post graduate course taught by Dr. David McFarland, current chairman of the Graduate School of Economics and the Chairman of the Dept. of Economics the next year. Dr. Joseph Michael Finger received his PHD at Carolina and was hired to teach at Duke University. At his invitation, I was invited to teach his introductory economics courses for a week which involved money and banking. He retired as chief economist for the World Bank and should you look him up you will see his many accomplishments, including guest lectures around the world. Only a couple of months ago, he informed me that his son who teaches at the Univ. of South Carolina, has Lou Gehrig's disease.

    Not sure but I believe Ohm's law was proven in the 18th century but could have been in the 19th. You should thank him EVERY time you turn your light on. To imply let alone state that the date a Law was proven, says MUCH about your education.

    I do find one thing for which you are correct. The discussion should end.

  11. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    I prefer a discussion without the argument that "I have more education than you". But you started it so I shall reply. Even though I graduated undergraduate school with a BS in Math, I did have enough hours in economics for a major, including a post graduate course taught by Dr. David McFarland, current chairman of the Graduate School of Economics and the Chairman of the Dept. of Economics the next year. Dr. Joseph Michael Finger received his PHD at Carolina and was hired to teach at Duke University. At his invitation, I was invited to teach his introductory economics courses for a week which involved money and banking. He retired as chief economist for the World Bank and should you look him up you will see his many accomplishments, including guest lectures around the world. Only a couple of months ago, he informed me that his son who teaches at the Univ. of South Carolina, has Lou Gehrig's disease.

    Not sure but I believe Ohm's law was proven in the 18th century but could have been in the 19th. You should thank him EVERY time you turn your light on. To imply let alone state that the date a Law was proven, says MUCH about your education.

    I do find one thing for which you are correct. The discussion should end.
    It would have ended regardless. Once IBD discovers that he is intellectually over matched he runs, diverts, and or resorts to irrelevant personal attacks

  12. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    I prefer a discussion without the argument that "I have more education than you". But you started it so I shall reply. Even though I graduated undergraduate school with a BS in Math, I did have enough hours in economics for a major, including a post graduate course taught by Dr. David McFarland, current chairman of the Graduate School of Economics and the Chairman of the Dept. of Economics the next year. Dr. Joseph Michael Finger received his PHD at Carolina and was hired to teach at Duke University. At his invitation, I was invited to teach his introductory economics courses for a week which involved money and banking. He retired as chief economist for the World Bank and should you look him up you will see his many accomplishments, including guest lectures around the world. Only a couple of months ago, he informed me that his son who teaches at the Univ. of South Carolina, has Lou Gehrig's disease.

    Not sure but I believe Ohm's law was proven in the 18th century but could have been in the 19th. You should thank him EVERY time you turn your light on. To imply let alone state that the date a Law was proven, says MUCH about your education.

    I do find one thing for which you are correct. The discussion should end.
    Ohms Law is a law of Physics, Comparative Advantage is NOT a law of science. Comparing the two in any manner ludicrous. In 1850 electrons flowed in exactly the same manner as they do today, Ohms Law holds. Commerce in the World Market flows in a way that was unimaginable in the 1850s, Comparative Advantage does NOT hold in the modern era.

    So I showed you a link that proved your entire definition of Free Trade was completely wrong and you reply with your professor's resume??? I'm sure he was a smart man, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You obviously went pretty thirsty at the economics trough you've been wrong about every concept discussed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •