Dems: We can not create "jobs, jobs, jobs", by exporting "jobs, jobs, jobs"! NO "FREE" TRADE. nt

[grahamhgreen]

[aquart]

1. You have quotes but no attributions or links.

I would like to be able to give credit where credit is due. Is any due?

[grahamhgreen]

8. "as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs." - Biden, link

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

--Joe Biden, Athens, Ohio, Oct. 15, 2008 (http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=85&f=10&su=p504.3.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/oh-that-joe-n-6.html)

[izzybeans]

2. Random string of words. eom

[Vinca]

3. We're overdue for some good, old fashioned protectionism.

[taught_me_patience]

4. How do you explain the fact that we've been losing manufacturing jobs

for over 50 years now? It not all free trade.

explain this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-manufacturing-employment-as-a-percentage-of-total-non-farm-payrolls-2010-8

[Hannah Bell]

6. part of it = automation. even china has lost manufacturing jobs.

the us produces as much steel as it did in the 70s & is the world's third-largest producer. it just does it with way fewer people.

http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2006/04/07/manufacturing-jobs-data-usa-and-china/

[grahamhgreen]

14. Then there is no reason to outsource.

[grahamhgreen]

18. What I look at is

the number of jobs, not the percentage.

The reason the percentage is down is due to the fact that many of the jobs of today did not exist in the 40's (DVD sales, IT & computer jobs, solar power, etc).

Note on this chart how the number of jobs increased until the outsourcing era:





I don't see a way out of this except by bringing our work back home.

[Riftaxe]

5. One major problem with protectionism is that

if we start implementing 100%+ import tariff's what is to prevent the countries that we require materials from implementing their own 200%+ export tariffs?

How would this affect the already strained economy (besides the obvious uncontrollable inflation)?

[taupe]

7. Protectionism never works

Read your economic history. When we export goods and services we create jobs here in America.

[comtec]

13. Proper use of tarrifs DOES however

and that's been a major problem.
that and an embargo on extra-national support is one of those solutions.
flat out make it illegal to be able to provide support more than 3000 miles away from any location for any business whose gross is over a million dollars.
over 1000 miles for $100 M+
that way mega corps have to have some kind of semi-local support centers, as opposed to farming everything to India, and go knows where.

obviously exceptions for non-contiguous US properties like guam, hawaii, and alaska would have to be made into the law.

but for the most part, all support centers would HAVE to be american (or canadian) in in origin.

That would go a very long way towards bringing jobs back.

Other countries do this kind of thing to great effect.

[grahamhgreen]

20. That is a great idea

But I would prefer that it read "illegal to provide support outside of the US."

[grahamhgreen]

21. Are you claiming that if we export a job, we create one here? Makes no sense to me.

[robcon]

9. Free Trade is the best jobs program there is.

We need more regional agreements, and strengthening of the WTO.

[grahamhgreen]

10. It is impossible to create jobs by outsourcing them. And the current job market is proof.

[robcon]

15. Read about Competitive Advantage. Here's Krugman's defense of it.

Here's his defense of David Ricardo's Theory of Competitive Advantage, first promulgated in 1803:

...I cannot offer any grand strategy for dealing with the aversion of intellectuals to Ricardo's difficult idea. No matter what economists do, we can be sure that ten years from now the talk shows and the op-ed pages will still be full of men and women who regard themselves as experts on the global economy, but do not know or want to know about comparative advantage. Still, the diagnosis I have offered here provides some tactical hints:

(i) Take ignorance seriously: I am convinced that many economists, when they try to argue in favor of free trade, make the mistake of overestimating both their opponents and their audience. They cannot believe that famous intellectuals who write and speak often about world trade could be entirely ignorant of the most basic ideas. But they are -- and so are their readers. This makes the task of explaining the benefits of trade harder -- but it also means that it is remarkably easy to make fools of your opponents, catching them in elementary errors of logic and fact. This is playing dirty, and I advocate it strongly.

(ii) Adopt the stance of rebel: There is nothing that plays worse in our culture than seeming to be the stodgy defender of old ideas, no matter how true those ideas may be. Luckily, at this point the orthodoxy of the academic economists is very much a minority position among intellectuals in general; one can seem to be a courageous maverick, boldly challenging the powers that be, by reciting the contents of a standard textbook. It has worked for me!

(iii) Don't take simple things for granted: It is crucial, when trying to communicate Ricardo's idea to a broader audience, to stop and try to put yourself in the position of someone who does not know economics. Arguments must be built from the ground up -- don't assume that people understand why it is reasonable to assume constant employment, or a self-correcting trade balance, or even that similar workers tend to be paid similar wages in different industries.

(iv) Justify modeling: Do not presume, as I did, that people accept and understand the idea that models facilitate understanding. Most intellectuals don't accept that idea, and must be persuaded or at least put on notice that it is an issue. It is particularly useful to have some clear examples of how "common sense" can be misleading, and a simple model can clarify matters immensely. (My recent favorite involves the "dollarization" of Russia. It is not easy to convince a non-economist that when gangsters hoard $100 bills in Vladivostock, this is a capital outflow from Russia's point of view -- and that it has the same effects on the US economy as if that money was put in a New York bank. But if you can get the point across, you have also taught an object lesson in why economists who think in terms of models have an advantage over people who do economics by catch-phrase). None of this is going to be easy. Ricardo's idea is truly, madly, deeply difficult. But it is also utterly true, immensely sophisticated -- and extremely relevant to the modern world.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

[grahamhgreen]

16. I'm operating on (i): the fundamental logical fallacy that by exporting jobs, you increase jobs.

This can not, will never, and is not happening - the proof is the current jobs market after 15+ years of aggressive outsourcing.

[Poboy]

17. Just like the 'lowering taxes increases revenue'. What a mind fuck. -nt

[grahamhgreen]

19. Exactly. Logical fallacies at the core level.

[inna]

11. .

[Chisox08]

12. You are 100% correct

Free trade is a great jobs program for India, China, Nigeria and whatever third world countries that the giant multinational corporations can get near slave labor.

[Lost4words]

22. are you kidding? we should disband world bank and wto IMO