dagblog - Comments for "The Social Silences SHHH!"

I understand how the way

moat — Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:10:12 +0000

In reply to Integration came with rules.

I understand how changes in status put the onus on black communities and persons to negotiate or not the work of integration. But I do not have a clear view of the alternative path you think could have been taken.

If that alternative was a path not chosen, maybe it is vital to understand that idea at this point in time when the country has elected to run backwards for a spell.

Integration came with rules.

Danny Cardwell — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 04:01:00 +0000

In reply to Are you proposing an

Integration came with rules. The idea of an acceptable way to be black in public is one of the most insidious and psychologically challenging. While African Americans were fighting for social advancement, many other minority groups sat on the sidelines. The moment affirmative action was passed the minority groups who sat out the fight were, in many cases placed at the front of the line. Black people had more economic power when we were building our own institutions instead of joining institutions in a subservient role.

For those at the top of the corporate ladDer things are fine, but that's not the reality for a majority of blacks in America.

Are you proposing an

moat — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 02:45:50 +0000

In reply to Assimilation and gaining

Mr. Cardwell,

Are you proposing an alternate history where separate but equal policies somehow strengthened certain communities enough to gain more benefits for black people than the steps taken to permit greater access to higher education and equal opportunity as a matter of the fair application of law that has led to greater diversity in the workplace throughout the nation?

And most consumer PC & laptop

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:16:11 +0000

In reply to Just to correct your history,

And most consumer PC & laptop production is done in China, only a large amount of business PCs are *assembled* in the US, but even there, the components are made in China.

Just to correct your history,

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:01:01 +0000

In reply to In the mid-1800s, the South

Just to correct your history, Hal, the South's opposition to tariffs had little to do with wages. Tariffs were much higher for manufactured goods than raw materials. Southern states opposed high tariffs (before and after the Civil War) because their industries were primarily agricultural. So Southerners got screwed--higher prices for manufactured goods from the north without much benefit for their own industries.

Anti-trust action won't solve the problems of tariffs. You mention the Big 3 auto manufacturers. Well, there were 3 of them, so in theory, there was competition, enough to satisfy the Justice Dept. But they still stagnated.

Stagnation isn't the biggest problem though. It's corruption. As I mentioned to Peter, tariffs are honeypots for corporations seeking to increase profits. Which industries do you think Congress will protect? Small manufacturers in the heartland? No way. It will be the industries with the greatest clout in Washington, as it was since the dawn of the Republic.

You really believe Trump will

tmccarthy0 — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:27:51 +0000

In reply to It might be more accurate to

You really believe Trump will kill the TPP, like when he drained the swamp of lobbyists and wall streeters! Awesome.

Oh God, no one cares about

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:19:44 +0000

In reply to In the mid-1800s, the South

Oh God, no one cares about the trade deficit. They care about jobs, wages, security, something tangible.
"Trade deficit" is a wonk term. As Cheney said, "deficits don't matter"

Thx

rmrd0000 — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:19:26 +0000

In reply to In the mid-1800s, the South

Thx

Ill try to plow through this in the evening.

In the mid-1800s, the South

HSG — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:17:30 +0000

In reply to Can you point to a situation

In the mid-1800s, the South opposed tariffs because it had the cheapest workforce in the world. What southern planters feared more than anything else, besides slave revolts and emancipation, was tariffs being enacted by governments trying to protect their agricultural industries and workers from being undercut by slave-produced rice, tobacco, and cotton. The North supported tariffs b/c northern workers were sometimes/often better-paid than their counterparts in other countries. Thus, manufactured goods could sometimes be produced more cheaply overseas. The tariffs that protected Northern industry in the 1800s is one, certainly not the only, reason the American economy exploded after the Civil War.

Tariffs benefit countries with higher labor costs but also those with less efficient industries. I think we can all agree that the wages paid workers overseas in most of Latin America and southeast Asia - could not sustain an American family. To prevent corporations from abandoning $20/hour employees in favor of $1/hour piece workers, tariffs, or some other former of trade protection, are essential. When competing with countries where the standard of living is on a par with ours, tariffs are far less necessary. Where we have a competitive advantage, they will cost us jobs if/when countries retaliate.

Tariffs can be a problem to the extent they protect ossified domestic oligopolies like the big three automakers in the 1960s-70s or big sugar (as Mike describes it) in the early 1900s. This is where a robust antitrust division of the Justice Department must play its part. To the extent companies are not innovating because they face little or no domestic competition, the solution is to break them up into competitors not to introduce foreign competition that has enormous cost advantages due to cheap labor and less, little, or no regulation.

Mike points out that in the early 1900s, liberals opposed tariffs and conservatives supported them. When the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were enacted in 1930 by Republicans in an ill-fated attempt to stimulate American industry, the U.S. was a net exporter. Retaliation by our trading partners thus led to a net loss of jobs since more workers in export-producing firms lost jobs than were hired by firms who were manufacturing to replace now more expensive imports.

While conservatives may have been more protectionist in the early part of the last century, from the 1930s through the 70s, there was a general consensus that rigid ideological formulations were to be avoided when making economic policies. Instead all the tools in the toolbox should be considered when confronting changing economic circumstances. Thus, Eisenhower built the interstate highways, Kennedy lowered the top marginal tax rate, and Nixon imposed price controls.

Reagan was the first true free marketer in the White House since Hoover. He supported lifting government fetters, including tariffs, off big business whenever and wherever possible. Bill Clinton continued this trend in the teeth of opposition from organized labor.

Finally, PP notes that despite Obama's free-trading ways, we saw decreasing budget deficits during his administration. While true and somewhat relevant, the more important figure (when considering trade policy) is the trade deficit which remains at stubbornly high levels despite the fact that we are now (I believe) a net energy exporter.

Their is a current tariff on

rmrd0000 — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:28:28 +0000

In reply to It might be more accurate to

There is a current tariff on Brazilian ethanol?