U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2017, 10:47 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,915,741 times
Reputation: 3787

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
You can't help but move the goalposts... can you?
It's more a case of pointing out the errors and weaknesses in claims made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2017, 10:53 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,915,741 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
Real median incomes have been flat for 40 years. Incidentally this is right when the globalization project began.
Incidentally, this is right when Ronald Reagan and a bunch of union-bashing, pro-business Republicans came to popularity and power. The labor-share of GNP/GDP has been falling ever since.

As for globalization, it has been going on for centuries. It's why the Commerce Clause exists in the Constitution. It's also why we went off to battle the Barbary pirates in the early 1800's.

And of course, the global trade balance is always equal to zero. The expectation is that large, rich, successful economies will run trade deficits to allow poor developing countries the option of export-driven growth. This is what allows them to grow a middle-class that defines new markets for foreign partners to profit from.

Last edited by Pub-911; 04-23-2017 at 11:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,747,020 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
The expectation is that large, rich, successful economies will run trade deficits to allow poor developing countries the option of export-driven growth.
The US is the only country doing this. Look at the chart I posted on the last page. On average the other industrial economies run a surplus.

Gutting union power was just one piece of the puzzle. We also got government encouragement for moving production, big tax cuts for the rich, loose credit and private debt escalation, and "deficits don't matter". Those along with increasing workforce participation (women) masked the negative effects (flat wages) long enough that most people have no concept of how it used to be. In prior history real wages kept pace with per capita GDP gains.

Don't fool yourself! This wasn't done so that poor countries could industrialize. Follow the money. A 10x increase in the real incomes of the top .01% are the real reason for this.

Globalization is not old! Prior to 1960 US imports were less than 1% of GDP. Now it's over 15%.

But globalization isn't a problem at all, rather the way it's been structured in the US. Fundamentally, the perpetual large trade deficit is the issue. Along with the supporting policies, it's what has allowed the oligarchs to drain wealth from the US middle class into their own accounts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 01:46 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,915,741 times
Reputation: 3787
Running a bale of bogus notions through a blender doesn't help matters. Try to focus on one thing at a time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
5,722 posts, read 1,695,891 times
Reputation: 4821
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
We or any country doesn't want a perpetual trade deficit is because it necessarily depresses wages. Real wages. We aren't better off and we aren't getting cheaper goods, because our loss of income more than compensates.
This cannot be true. The manufacturing sector employs only 10% of the workforce. You're forgetting the other 90%, who benefit from the lower prices of imports and would not gain anything from running a trade surplus (which would send up the prices of goods since production in the US is more expensive). Even if that 10% were raised to, say, 15%, that is still a minority. So you might raise the purchasing power of the 10% or 15% of the workforce who would gain, but you would lower the purchasing power of the 90% or 85% who would not gain. Needless to say that would be a net loss in purchasing power.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

We will even ignore the question of who you would expect to run trade deficits if the US started running trade surpluses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,747,020 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Running a bale of bogus notions through a blender doesn't help matters. Try to focus on one thing at a time.
They aren't bogus notions and they all fit together, working in concert. It's impossible to understand what is happening if you look at one thing at a time.

Seems simple to me, but I'm sure that 40 years ago it took some very clever people to work this out. And then to convince leaders of other countries that it would make them all richer. The Chinese especially. If you can hatch a trade scheme that makes the oligarchs on both sides a lot richer, then you can be sure that will get done.

Ever wonder why the US single handedly industrialized China by buying all their excess production? Most industrial countries sell China more than they import! But not the US, we run a massive deficit with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,747,020 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
This cannot be true.
It is. All you need to do is look at the real income statistics. These are already corrected for inflation and the cost of goods. Since 1980 our incomes have been flat. Relative to percapita GDP they are less than half of what they should be.

Were you aware that you took ~50% pay cut so you could save ~1% of your income buying cheap Chinese stuff at Walmart?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:37 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,915,741 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
They aren't bogus notions and they all fit together, working in concert.
No, your reports are fouled up on multiple fronts and don't represent any sort of consistent, workable whole. That's life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
13,456 posts, read 24,259,357 times
Reputation: 24811
It's not declining, it's pretty much gone. Whatever is still made here is done mostly by robots using parts imported from other places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:41 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,915,741 times
Reputation: 3787
Why does this not count? These same effects after all have been felt by manufacturing economies all over the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top