Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[kaz]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

No, it doesn't .
Do you pay income tax to the chinese government . No
Do you have a work permit for china . No
Do you purchase using yuans. No

Those aren't economic arguments. They're irrelevant chaff.

If trade barriers between NY and China are good, then why are trade barriers between NY and CA bad?

That's it exactly, aren't NY and California both harmed if they are good? Should southern California trade with northern California? It's just costing them jobs, right?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

No, it doesn't .
Do you pay income tax to the chinese government . No
Do you have a work permit for china . No
Do you purchase using yuans. No

Those aren't economic arguments. They're irrelevant chaff.

If trade barriers between NY and China are good, then why are trade barriers between NY and CA bad?

If you look at the circular economic model, you'll notice all those points are relevant, because they affect the money flow within the model.

Government, labour and banks ( including the central banks ability to print money) are all part of the circular flow of money.
You can read about it in chaptre 11 of the book basic Economics.
Basic Economics 9781111826642 Economics Books Amazon.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you look at the circular economic model, you'll notice all those points are relevant, because they affect the money flow within the model.

total idiot liberal. We're not talking about money flow but rather about whether the USA and NY and CA have a right to elect politicians to protect their jobs!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

No, it doesn't .
Do you pay income tax to the chinese government . No
Do you have a work permit for china . No
Do you purchase using yuans. No

Those aren't economic arguments. They're irrelevant chaff.

If trade barriers between NY and China are good, then why are trade barriers between NY and CA bad?

That's it exactly, aren't NY and California both harmed if they are good? Should southern California trade with northern California? It's just costing them jobs, right?

exactly, we can guarantee employment 24 hours a day for every person on earth by banning trade altogether. Then, everyone would be fully employed 24/7/365 trying to make stuff needed to survive.

The golden rule is, the more people with whom you trade the richer you get and the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get.

A liberal has no where near the conceptual IQ necessary to understand that very elementary concept..

 

[bripat9643]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

No, it doesn't .
Do you pay income tax to the chinese government . No
Do you have a work permit for china . No
Do you purchase using yuans. No

Those aren't economic arguments. They're irrelevant chaff.

If trade barriers between NY and China are good, then why are trade barriers between NY and CA bad?

If you look at the circular economic model, you'll notice all those points are relevant, because they affect the money flow within the model.

Government, labour and banks ( including the central banks ability to print money) are all part of the circular flow of money.
You can read about it in chaptre 11 of the book basic Economics.
Basic Economics 9781111826642 Economics Books Amazon.com

You failed to answer the question, and I have no idea what a "circular economic model" is. Either tariffs are good, or they are bad. If tariffs on Chinese products are good, then why aren't tariffs on California products good? Think of all the jobs that could be created if New York grew its own oranges. Imagine all the jobs just in making glass for greenhouses to grow them in!

 

[bripat9643]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

No, it doesn't .
Do you pay income tax to the chinese government . No
Do you have a work permit for china . No
Do you purchase using yuans. No

Those aren't economic arguments. They're irrelevant chaff.

If trade barriers between NY and China are good, then why are trade barriers between NY and CA bad?

That's it exactly, aren't NY and California both harmed if they are good? Should southern California trade with northern California? It's just costing them jobs, right?

Think of all the jobs that would be created if every state had to build its own cars!

 

[CultureCitizen]

That's it exactly, aren't NY and California both harmed if they are good? Should southern California trade with northern California? It's just costing them jobs, right?

Different scenarios. Both south and northern california pertain to the same ciruclar flow.
USA and China represent two different circular flows.

Regardless , in many instances such practices happen. Having a subsidy for corn is effectively protecting certain farmers both from foreign and big producers.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You failed to answer the question, and I have no idea what a "circular economic model" is. Either tariffs are good, or they are bad. If tariffs on Chinese products are good, then why aren't tariffs on California products good? Think of all the jobs that could be created if New York grew its own oranges. Imagine all the jobs just in making glass for greenhouses to grow them in!

Bripat,
You said : "Those aren't economic arguments. They're irrelevant chaff."
I am pointing you to a basic economics texts so you can understand that
a) It is an economic argument
b) It is not irrelevant chaff.

But then again, if jobs shift form CA to NY it is fairly easy to move over there ( there is labour mobility).
If the jobs shift from US to China ( or from Mexico to the US as our previous discussions), it wont be so easy to shift to your new work place .

 

[bripat9643]

That's it exactly, aren't NY and California both harmed if they are good? Should southern California trade with northern California? It's just costing them jobs, right?

Different scenarios. Both south and northern california pertain to the same ciruclar flow.
USA and China represent two different circular flows.

Regardless , in many instances such practices happen. Having a subsidy for corn is effectively protecting certain farmers both from foreign and big producers.

No, subsidizing corn is outright giving government handouts to corn farmers.

 

[bripat9643]

You failed to answer the question, and I have no idea what a "circular economic model" is. Either tariffs are good, or they are bad. If tariffs on Chinese products are good, then why aren't tariffs on California products good? Think of all the jobs that could be created if New York grew its own oranges. Imagine all the jobs just in making glass for greenhouses to grow them in!

Bripat,
You said : "Those aren't economic arguments. They're irrelevant chaff."
I am pointing you to a basic economics texts so you can understand that
a) It is an economic argument
b) It is not irrelevant chaff.

But then again, if jobs shift form CA to NY it is fairly easy to move over there ( there is labour mobility).
If the jobs shift from US to China ( or from Mexico to the US as our previous discussions), it wont be so easy to shift to your new work place .

When most people are asked why they are unemployed, they say it's because they don't want to move to get a new job.

 

[CultureCitizen]

When most people are asked why they are unemployed, they say it's because they don't want to move to get a new job.

And yet SA and Mexicans in particular have moved to the US "en masse" in search of job, in spite of all the barriers. So are they doing what's necesary to fill up the employment gap because the US citizens are not willing to move?

Now , I know you don't like illegals so I can tell you this much : If the US had not engaged in a FTA with Mexico, the number of illegal crossings would have stayed at much lower levels.

 

[bripat9643]

When most people are asked why they are unemployed, they say it's because they don't want to move to get a new job.

And yet SA and Mexicans in particular have moved to the US "en masse" in search of job, in spite of all the barriers. So are they doing what's necesary to fill up the employment gap because the US citizens are not willing to move?

Now , I know you don't like illegals so I can tell you this much : If the US had not engaged in a FTA with Mexico, the number of illegal crossings would have stayed at much lower levels.

What barriers? Some people are willing to move, and some aren't. When they are getting 2 years of unemployment, food stamps, SS disability, welfare, why would they move?

How would reducing the number of good paying jobs in Mexico reduce illegal immigration?

However, you still haven't addressed the issue: If tariffs on Chinese goods creates jobs in this country, then why would tariffs on California goods create jobs in New York? The fact that New Yorkers can move to California doesn't answer the question.

 

[georgephillip]

If you look at the circular economic model, you'll notice all those points are relevant, because they affect the money flow within the model

Is this the model you have in mind?

This version seems to represent a closed economy, i.e.,no trade, so perhaps this version is more useful?

Net exports between CA and NY
Really?

 

[georgephillip]

How has CA fared under NAFTA?
Massive Trade-Related Job Losses for California "California has lost more than 432,000 manufacturing jobs – more than one out of four – since the 1994 NAFTA and the World Trade Organization agreements took effect. Nearly five million manufacturing jobs have been lost nationwide. U.S. manufacturing workers that lose jobs to trade and find reemployment are typically forced to take pay cuts.

"Three of every five who were rehired in 2014 took home smaller paychecks, and one in three lost greater than 20 percent, according to Department of Labor data. More than 160,000 specific California jobs have been certified under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program as lost to offshoring or imports since NAFTA. These numbers significantly undercount trade-related job loss as TAA only covers a subset of jobs lost to trade."
http://www.citizen.org/documents/CA.pdf

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How has CA fared under NAFTA?
Massive Trade-Related Job Losses for California

so the liberal wants to ban trade and force Americans to make everything themselves!! Its stupid beyond belief but perfectly liberal!!

 

[CultureCitizen]

What barriers? Some people are willing to move, and some aren't. When they are getting 2 years of unemployment, food stamps, SS disability, welfare, why would they move?

How would reducing the number of good paying jobs in Mexico reduce illegal immigration?

I was refering to the barriers faced by illegals : crossing a desert and then moving to a city where there is an available job.

A number of entrepreneurs (farmers) broke because of the low corn prices exported by the US ( with a subsidy lets remember that). So there was no net gain of employments.
Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

 

[bripat9643]

What barriers? Some people are willing to move, and some aren't. When they are getting 2 years of unemployment, food stamps, SS disability, welfare, why would they move?

How would reducing the number of good paying jobs in Mexico reduce illegal immigration?

I was refering to the barriers faced by illegals : crossing a desert and then moving to a city where there is an available job.

A number of entrepreneurs (farmers) broke because of the low corn prices exported by the US ( with a subsidy lets remember that). So there was no net gain of employments.
Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

We've already established the fact that the price of corn is higher than ever because of Ethanol mandates. American jobs always pay more than Mexican jobs, but NAFTA hasn't decreased wages in Mexico. It has increased them.

 

[CultureCitizen]

What barriers? Some people are willing to move, and some aren't. When they are getting 2 years of unemployment, food stamps, SS disability, welfare, why would they move?

How would reducing the number of good paying jobs in Mexico reduce illegal immigration?

I was refering to the barriers faced by illegals : crossing a desert and then moving to a city where there is an available job.

A number of entrepreneurs (farmers) broke because of the low corn prices exported by the US ( with a subsidy lets remember that). So there was no net gain of employments.
Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

We've already established the fact that the price of corn is higher than ever because of Ethanol mandates. American jobs always pay more than Mexican jobs, but NAFTA hasn't decreased wages in Mexico. It has increased them.

No , we didn't establish that.

Prices went up after 2006.

" Plotting the dynamics of Mexican drug cartels against the price of corn between 1990 and 2010, "From Maize to Haze" posits a new dynamic in the drug trade, in which a plummeting corn price leads farmers to shift to growing poppies or marijuana, which then spurs violence as cartels fight over control over the newly created drug production."



Mexican drug cartels got a boost from plummeting corn prices The Verge

 

[kaz]

That's it exactly, aren't NY and California both harmed if they are good? Should southern California trade with northern California? It's just costing them jobs, right?

Different scenarios. Both south and northern california pertain to the same ciruclar flow.
USA and China represent two different circular flows.

Regardless , in many instances such practices happen. Having a subsidy for corn is effectively protecting certain farmers both from foreign and big producers.

When is your book coming out? I have a title to suggest, "How I learned liberal lawyers are right and the field of economists is full of crap." You can subtitle it "They feel terrible bad the truth is completely self serving to them, really, they do, but unfortunately it just is." I bet a movie deal will follow.

Look guy, this is my field. Again, economics isn't just words, the math behind it all makes complete sense and I was a math major as well. And everything I observe is supported by my education and experience.

You are coming in and saying this ridiculous crap is like you telling a physicist that E = MC2 is wrong with no explanation as to how you know that. Color me crazy, but you don't know what you are talking about and you are wrong. And the California / New York example is just like the China / US example. It has nothing to do with the circular flow of income, it has to do with what you get for your $$$. When consumers get more for their money, that increases their real wealth and creates jobs because the money they saved doesn't disappear

 

[georgephillip]

so the liberal wants to ban trade and force Americans to make everything themselves!! Its stupid beyond belief but perfectly liberal!!

What distinction do you draw between "cyclical" versus "structural" causes for the global economic slowdown we've seen since China joined the WTO? If Europe and the US each ran a $200 billion to $300 billion annual trade deficit with your capitalists heroes for a decade, or more, wouldn't that explain the "structural" basis for the stagnant global economy we see today?