5 ms·

>I've made an argument in kind, this is an argument of degree. Yes, of course it is. The degree to which you restrict participation in a market matters. >its

>I've made an argument in kind, this is an argument of degree. Yes, of course it is. The degree to which you restrict participation in a market matters. >its just as much rent as any positive effect on real wages. What does that matter? >Monopoly power does not require having a single actor, it can happen with many. The "mono" part of "monopoly" disagrees with you. But there is no point in squabbling over words here. We both understand that there are degrees to which you can restrict participation in a market, and the more you restrict participation, the more severe are the effects of the restriction. >It is to the employer: they are unable to buy from someone else. They have tens of millions of people to buy from. >The result is that the cost of manufacture rises for everyone. I'm not sure why you're bothering to mention this. No one is disputing that restricting imports raises the price of goods, or that restricting the importation of labor raises the price of labor. >the US would enjoy higher tax revenues and have the exact same GDP (ceteris paribus). There is of course a third alternative, which is to impose duties on imports of goods in addition to restricting the importation of labor, which would substantially raise wages for low and medium skilled workers in this country. >Countries were people leave enter a spiral of misery, countries were people enter have the exact opposite effect! That depends on who is coming and going, and why they are doing so. >Ban any foreign product from your consumption today and you will see why: everything would turn insanely expensive and inconvenient. Why not mention the lesser alternative to banning, which is to impose duties? Of course outright banning things for which our existing chain of production is insufficient would cause massive problems. >In any case, I reiterate that your model of how an economy can prosper with protectionism is only in the rhetoric of politicians and in the real of climate denialism or flat-earthers. You keep talking about the economy prospering, by which I assume you mean GDP going up fast. My goal is for the people to prosper, not the economy. Of course the economy must prosper to a degree for the people to prosper, and it's attractive to try to optimize GDP because it's an easy thing to measure, but it's not the main goal. Sometimes optimizing for GDP is at odds with building healthy communities, and when it is, I would prefer to pick building healthy communities. Or perhaps you think those two things can never be at odds for some reason?

conanbatt 7y ago
Talk to a professional economist. You are going against the field of economics as a whole, and you will not find economists that agree with your models, factual statements or otherwise.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  On which point related to economics do you think we disagree?
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    > The "mono" part of "monopoly" disagrees with you. You are using a rhetorical definition, not an economics one. > its just as much rent as any positive effect on real wages. What does that matter? Economic efficiency is almost synonymous with reducing rents > They have tens of millions of people to buy from. Shocks to the supply curve change equilibrium points in markets. There's elasticity of demand/supply. > There is of course a third alternative, which is to impose duties on imports of goods in addition to restricting the importation of labor, which would substantially raise wages for low and medium skilled workers in this country. Economic literature has been arguing the exact opposite for literally centuries. > That depends on who is coming and going, and why they are doing so. This is almost a Malthusian model or labor and resources and it will give you dangerous and obviously wrong ideas, like the solution to economic prosperity is marginalizing and kicking people out. > Why not mention the lesser alternative to banning, which is to impose duties? Of course outright banning things for which our existing chain of production is insufficient would cause massive problems. A 100% duty is a ban. A 50% duty is half a ban. You are objecting to the crudeness of a ban. I am objecting on the value of any restriction whatsoever by any criteria or method. Look for any chart of economic liberty and see where countries stand in free trade and economic prosperity. This is not a topic of debate, it's absolutely settled. Im trying not to be callous about that, but really its not something that should be debated, akin to refuting gravity and there is more than enough documentation in the open wild to read about. > You keep talking about the economy prospering, by which I assume you mean GDP going up fast. My goal is for the people to prosper, not the economy Just a metric like any other, the goal is definitely people's desired prosperity. - In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people.

conanbatt 7y ago

Talk to a professional economist. You are going against the field of economics as a whole, and you will not find economists that agree with your models, factual statements or otherwise.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
On which point related to economics do you think we disagree?
- conanbatt 7y ago
  > The "mono" part of "monopoly" disagrees with you. You are using a rhetorical definition, not an economics one. > its just as much rent as any positive effect on real wages. What does that matter? Economic efficiency is almost synonymous with reducing rents > They have tens of millions of people to buy from. Shocks to the supply curve change equilibrium points in markets. There's elasticity of demand/supply. > There is of course a third alternative, which is to impose duties on imports of goods in addition to restricting the importation of labor, which would substantially raise wages for low and medium skilled workers in this country. Economic literature has been arguing the exact opposite for literally centuries. > That depends on who is coming and going, and why they are doing so. This is almost a Malthusian model or labor and resources and it will give you dangerous and obviously wrong ideas, like the solution to economic prosperity is marginalizing and kicking people out. > Why not mention the lesser alternative to banning, which is to impose duties? Of course outright banning things for which our existing chain of production is insufficient would cause massive problems. A 100% duty is a ban. A 50% duty is half a ban. You are objecting to the crudeness of a ban. I am objecting on the value of any restriction whatsoever by any criteria or method. Look for any chart of economic liberty and see where countries stand in free trade and economic prosperity. This is not a topic of debate, it's absolutely settled. Im trying not to be callous about that, but really its not something that should be debated, akin to refuting gravity and there is more than enough documentation in the open wild to read about. > You keep talking about the economy prospering, by which I assume you mean GDP going up fast. My goal is for the people to prosper, not the economy Just a metric like any other, the goal is definitely people's desired prosperity. - In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people.