tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4696414482124192558..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Michael Lind v. the Sputnik MomentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61453032050540031762011-01-30T09:51:32.160-08:002011-01-30T09:51:32.160-08:00"And don't say "the good half" ..."And don't say "the good half" or "the right half" without explaining what you mean."<br /><br />I meant that it would be great if the US government could adopt just some of Lind's policy positions although I would not mind too much if they adopted all of em. The only thing I really disagree with Lind on are environmental issues and investment in renewable energy.Pissed Off Chinamannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73835017516813681942011-01-29T08:41:47.233-08:002011-01-29T08:41:47.233-08:00Anon:
Yes, of course you're right. If only t...Anon:<br /><br />Yes, of course you're right. If only the government had somehow been involved in the subprime mortgage markets, we wouldn't be in this mess. <br /><br />In fact, I propose a bold new step away from markets here. We should establish quasigovernmental agencies to provide a market for mortgages. Politicians should apply pressure to lower lending standards, so more people bece homeowners. In the astronomically unlikely event that things go wrong, maybe we should even bail out the losses of the biggest, most politically connected investors in this market.<br /><br />What could possibly go wrong?none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88428426077722398482011-01-29T01:18:34.977-08:002011-01-29T01:18:34.977-08:00"it's hard to grow richer by forbidding t..."it's hard to grow richer by forbidding transactions".<br /><br />Well, just look at the example of tobacco smoking.Basically,the smoker is paying shedloads of cash to feed an addiction that will eventually kill him.<br /> The government and the tobacco companies benefit very handsomely from this arrangement, basically it's money for nothing.The poor old smoker is ripped off blind wasting money that he could have put to much better use for himself or his family.<br /> One side of the transaction gets rich, the other doesn't, nay, its impoverished and eventually killed.<br /> If you think hard enough , an infinite number of such transactions can be found.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56527987238830360142011-01-28T22:22:56.499-08:002011-01-28T22:22:56.499-08:00"It's really hard to grow richer by forbi..."It's really hard to grow richer by forbidding some transactions".<br /><br />Unfettered free-marketeering ends up with human flesh on the restaurant menu.JSMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40400667965879874112011-01-28T18:47:20.778-08:002011-01-28T18:47:20.778-08:00Lind's one of the few mainstream economists th...Lind's one of the few mainstream economists that doesn't believe the "education, education, education" BS. Only a small percentage of college graduates actually play a decisive role in wealth creation. Switzerland has one of the West's lowest rates of university participation yet is still one of the West's richest and most innovative countries. East Asian countries are educated because they love education, not because its essential to working on a Lexus production line. New Zealand's educated East Asians for example aren't actually doing much wealth creationg (their unemployment rate is twice that of whites.<br /><br />The English-speaking West is following an indirect neoliberal model, which assumes that wealth creating industries will magically appear if you have an educated population and a free market (which explains why big business has been strangely quiet about the pointless BA production line in our universities)<br /><br />However, not only does this model fail to create enough wealth creating industries, but it fails to supply the appropriate labour for those industries that do exist, because students are uncertain if these industries will still exist in 5 years time.<br /><br />This model needs turning upside down, focus on supporting the wealth creating industries, and then develop an education system which provides the appropriate labour as needed, with some form of protection for those unable to compete in a globalised economy (ie, immigration restrictionism for all skills where there is no absolute shortage).Mike Courtmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15226171376902020196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63829593851751337382011-01-28T11:05:10.327-08:002011-01-28T11:05:10.327-08:00It's really hard to grow richer by forbidding ...<i>It's really hard to grow richer by forbidding some transactions.</i><br /><br />Tell that to the Mafia.<br /><br />Of course, it's not the Mafia(s) that have much power to forbid economic transactions. It's their buddies in the Religious Right. They make their "thou shalt nots" into laws, or pressure politicians into doing so. Organized crime are simply the vultures that profit from the resulting black market.<br /><br />It was true in the Soviet Union when private capitalism was illegal. It was true in America when liquor was illegal.<br /><br />The only reason Prohibition ended was because the mob was getting too strong; heaven forbid the ayatollahs in government expressed <br />"libertarian" principles such as<br />the peasants having a right to alcohol!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60437614417106735322011-01-28T10:57:15.402-08:002011-01-28T10:57:15.402-08:00P.O.C.:
For what it's worth, Michael Lind is m...P.O.C.:<br /><i>For what it's worth, Michael Lind is my favorite political commentator and I wish we could adopt just half of his policy recommendations.</i><br /><br />Which half?<br /><br />And don't say "the good half" or "the right half" without explaining what you mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66406998038464705182011-01-28T07:59:21.587-08:002011-01-28T07:59:21.587-08:00nota: Economic models need to be taken with a lar...nota: <i>Economic models need to be taken with a large grain of salt, but in this case, I think they give us a very good rule-of-thumb: it's really hard to grow richer by forbidding some transactions. You may forbid them on other grounds--moral, military, because of externalities that aren't accounted for in prices, whatever--...</i><br /><br />Sorry to pile on here, nota, but no. There is no need to look at economic models for "very good rules of thumb" when empirical data is available. And the data say that plenty of nations (including both the U.S. and some recently-poor-but-now-rich countries) grew rich by judicious protectionist policies, policies based for the most part on long-term dollars-and-cents thinking, not "other grounds". Or, conversely, suffered serious economic beat-downs by adhering to a disastrous "free" trade ideology. Sometimes, yes, protectionist policies are stupid. <i>It all depends</i>.<br /><br />The one "very good rule of thumb" that applies to economics is "ideology has no place in non-insane economic thinking".<br /><br /><i>...but all else being equal, you're not going to make yourself richer by forbidding transactions people want to make.</i><br /><br />Wait, wait. There are two, <i>two</i> very good rules of thumb re economics. Rule two is: <i>Ceteris</i> is never ever ever ever <i>paribus</i>.Rohan Sweenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62959592688109988462011-01-28T07:10:39.613-08:002011-01-28T07:10:39.613-08:00"Pissed Off Chinaman said...
In the mid-..."Pissed Off Chinaman said...<br /><br /> In the mid-1960s we had higher income taxes, more manufacturing industries, and lower gaps in wealth. We also had a better funded public education system in the primary and secondary levels. I'd like to have that type of society but I would hardly call it conservative."<br /><br />Only if you define "conservatism" as "that economic regime that primarily benefits wealthy investors and bankers". Many of us don't. We do not see conservatism in solely economic terms.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70320869830260383592011-01-28T00:54:01.098-08:002011-01-28T00:54:01.098-08:00"It's really hard to grow richer by forbi..."It's really hard to grow richer by forbidding some transactions".<br /><br />What utter rot!!!<br />Only an economist could write something as crass, stupid, pompous and fundamentally wrong.<br /><br />Therefore, we are all 'richer' because sub-prime transactions were permitted.<br />In their own way cheerleaders for the far right/libertarians are just as dangerous and destructive as the hard left.Of course the same people regard uncontrolled immigration as a 'transaction' of their great god, the market.<br /> The wider point is for one reason or another many nations of the world experience balance of payments difficulties and foreign exchange crises.These are, in fact, the major cause of stunted growth and deflation across the world as in every case the chosen course of action for such a nation is to impose policies that deflate the economy (ie make people poorer).If one believes that allieviating poverty is the only justification of economics, then one must realise that governments have an interest in foreign trade.<br /> More on that horribly pompous grandeloquent phrase 'forbidding transactions'.'Transactions' in such goods as alcohol, drugs and gambling are generally forbidden - for good reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50208934566715500432011-01-27T23:11:39.121-08:002011-01-27T23:11:39.121-08:00I never said that South Korea didn't engage in...I never said that South Korea didn't engage in protectionism, but that isn't why the U.S. auto makers are doing poorly worldwide. As to why S. Korean automakers don't do well in Japan, well it could very well be that the Japanese hate South Korean products because they despise Koreans. On the other hand maybe the Japanese don't view S. Korean cars as worth buying because they can get the same thing from domestic manufacturers. The general impression I get of Korean cars is that they are cheap knock-offs of Japanese cars, particularly the Big 3 makers in Japan: Toyota, Honda, and Nissan.<br /><br />I think the underlying causes as to why both countries have low percentages of foreign cars is different however, despite superficial similarities. I think it is also abundantly clear that the South Korean government has been significantly more interventionist in it's economy all around than the Japanese have. The Japanese never heavily subsidized it's big companies like South Korea did. Considering that, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that bureaucrats in Seoul also more heavily protected their "investment" from foreign competition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62288447466358384362011-01-27T22:28:43.358-08:002011-01-27T22:28:43.358-08:00anon said, This brings me back to one of my earlie...anon said, <i>This brings me back to one of my earlier points which is that small, fuel-efficient cars play a much larger role in the Japanese auto market than in other industrialized nation's auto markets. This also happens to be where the Japanese excel...</i><br /><br />And it also happens to be where the Koreans excel. So discounting American cars as bad and German cars as too expensive, why can't the Koreans capture more than 3% of the Japanese market given their excellence in small, efficient cars?<br /><br />I hate to use this term because I don't believe in AA, but this looks like a case of disparate impact in regards to free trade. Whatever the Japanese and Koreans are doing, whether or not they are even doing anything consciously to restrict trade, the fact that foreign makes only account for 5% or less of their markets looks like a case of disparate impact, given foreign market share in Germany and the USA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36727361596563860642011-01-27T21:06:15.641-08:002011-01-27T21:06:15.641-08:00Re: Anon, Yes in Japan the foreign market share is...Re: Anon, Yes in Japan the foreign market share is low, but Mercedes and BMW both sell about five times as many cars as Chevrolet did there in 2010 despite much higher prices. Volkswagen sells about 50 percent more in volume above that. Mercedes and BMW both sell around 30,000 cars which is only slightly less then Toyota's luxury flagship Lexus does which leads all high end brands in Japan. This also indicates that proportionately the Japanese don't buy a lot of bigger, more expensive cars. Sales for Lexus, Mercedes, and BMW are much higher in the US even after adjusting for population size.<br /><br />This brings me back to one of my earlier points which is that small, fuel-efficient cars play a much larger role in the Japanese auto market than in other industrialized nation's auto markets. This also happens to be where the Japanese excel and where the Big 3 are terrible at competing even in their own home market. My guess as to why the Japanese prefer smaller cars probably has to do with the paucity of available space in Japan and the attendant traffic congestion which is legendarily bad, and the fact that Japanese rail service is probably the best in the world, which probably reduces the need to drive to work and hence to own a car. <br /><br />Now as to S. Korea's low foreign sales, you are probably right, protectionism against everyone including the Japanese is probably the main reason, but S. Korea is not a huge market relative to Japan, North America, and Western Europe anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-92079204466478859782011-01-27T15:07:19.350-08:002011-01-27T15:07:19.350-08:00"Essentially, we'd like America to return..."Essentially, we'd like America to return to where it was mid 1960s."<br /><br />In the mid-1960s we had higher income taxes, more manufacturing industries, and lower gaps in wealth. We also had a better funded public education system in the primary and secondary levels. I'd like to have that type of society but I would hardly call it conservative.<br /><br />For what it's worth, Michael Lind is my favorite political commentator and I wish we could adopt just half of his policy recommendations.Pissed Off Chinamannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28745009514920520302011-01-27T14:54:22.038-08:002011-01-27T14:54:22.038-08:00Puerto Rico has a 45 percent poverty rate. 30 per...Puerto Rico has a 45 percent poverty rate. 30 percent of the income of the average Puerto Rican household comes from government transfers. Only 37 percent of the country is in the labor force. The economy is heavily dependent on welfare from the U.S. government, subsidizes, tax incentives, and tourism. <br /><br />http://www.topuertorico.org/economy.shtml<br /><br /><b>"By some economists Puerto Rico's economy is considered somewhat fictitious. Puerto Rico has very few natural resources of economic value and its economy relies mainly on Federal Aid from the United States Government, which depends on the industrialization programs and the tax incentives that U.S. offers."</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36108849141890356912011-01-27T13:00:29.536-08:002011-01-27T13:00:29.536-08:00anon said, You mention a lack of access to Japan a...anon said, <i>You mention a lack of access to Japan and S. Korea, I might agree with S. Korea, but seriously do you think the average Japanese would by the crap the Big 3 make?</i><br /><br />You missed the point I made. Let's assume US cars suck and their market share in Japan and Korea is zero. How does that account for the lack of Korean car sales in Japan? How does that account for the lack of Japanese car sales in Korea?<br /><br />If German,Swedish and Korean brands sell well in the US, why would the cumulative total of German, Swedish and Korean brands not break 3% of the Japanese market? Ditto for the Korean market. Why would Swedish, Japanese and German cars not break 5% of the Korean market when they sell well in the US?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39127047452407282402011-01-27T10:50:58.363-08:002011-01-27T10:50:58.363-08:00As a nitpick, we don't have free trade. We ha...As a nitpick, we don't have free trade. We have heavily-negotiated trade, with all sorts of regulations, quotas, etc., enacted to protect domestic industries. "Free trade" is a slogan, not a description of US policy. (Similarly, "fair trade" means, in practice, something more like pushing the slider bar a bit further toward "protect US industry," not some fundamental change in how we're doing things.) Among other things, this is why corn syrup is used so heavily for junk food in the US; we impose tariffs on sugar to protect domestic sugar growers. <br /><br />Protectionism can help your companies do well, under some circumstances. I gather one really good place to use it is to allow some industry to grow in your country till it's big enough to compete with foreign competitors. <br /><br />But it also involves a transfer of wealth from the protected companies' customers to them. Raise tariffs on foreign cars, and you can force me to buy a domestic car. But since that wasn't my first choice, you made me poorer in order to make the domestic car maker richer. (Perhaps the American car cost more, perhaps it was lower quality and so worth less.)<br /><br />Now, you can imagine that this might work out for the best somehow--perhaps keeping that domestic car maker in business will long-term benefit me. But that's far from obvious. And given the way our political system works, political connections and donations drive the decisions of which industries and companies get trade protection, much as they do in determining which companies and industries get bailouts or favorable tax treatment or subsidies. <br /><br />I think you can see that now. We subsidize corn ethanol and impose high tariffs on foreign biofuels, even though neither of these make any economic or environmental sense, because that works out politically. (If the Iowa caucus weren't so important in the presidential race, I wonder if there would be any corn ethanol in US fuel right now.) <br /><br />Economic models need to be taken with a large grain of salt, but in this case, I think they give us a very good rule-of-thumb: it's really hard to grow richer by forbidding some transactions. You may forbid them on other grounds--moral, military, because of externalities that aren't accounted for in prices, whatever--but all else being equal, you're not going to make yourself richer by forbidding transactions people want to make.none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68930253296747978642011-01-27T08:04:22.083-08:002011-01-27T08:04:22.083-08:00Tariffs cannot create prosperity—they can only tra...<i>Tariffs cannot create prosperity—they can only transfer wealth to the protected industries. </i><br /><br />The trick, as the late UK economist Wynne Godley advised both Britain and the US, is to impose nondiscriminatory tariffs (so hits every import equally and doesn't single out shoes or tires) and use the revenue to cut taxes. That's the gist of the "Buffett Plan" I linked to above.beowulfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56544322428012727412011-01-27T04:59:33.380-08:002011-01-27T04:59:33.380-08:00But more importantly, business is purely self-moti...<i>But more importantly, business is purely self-motivated and solely motivated for the quest for profit.</i><br /><br />Sure, but you're saying that bribes don't count as profit?peter Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33367884031952931102011-01-27T04:54:27.562-08:002011-01-27T04:54:27.562-08:00Re: Anon, missing the point, like I pointed out be...Re: Anon, missing the point, like I pointed out before, the most profitable lines for the Big 3 over the last 20-25 years were trucks and SUV's which like I mentioned before were heavily protected. This gave the Big 3 huge profits until the price of oil inevitably went up after declining for 15-20 years. What did they and UAW do with this extra time and money? Nothing to improve their management and workforce structure, nothing to improve their relative quality compared to the Japanese and Germans, nothing to reduce their number of brands because of their declining overall market share. <br /><br />You mention a lack of access to Japan and S. Korea, I might agree with S. Korea, but seriously do you think the average Japanese would by the crap the Big 3 make? especially when for years they didn't make cars w/right hand drive and the fact that Big 3 can't even make quality small cars profitably in their own market which are the bread and butter of the Japanese market? From what I understand BMW does quite well relatively speaking in Japan but they have both a reputation for quality and prestige that the Big 3 lack. I'm not saying the Japanese haven't put up barriers, but it's not like North American built Big 3/UAW cars sell like hot cakes everywhere else in the world but East Asia.<br /><br />Almost all GM and Ford cars sold in Europe are made in European factories with European workers and designed by separate European divisions. The reason? GM and Ford's European cars have a higher level of quality that Europeans demand, which is why the new " Buick Regal " is actually being made by GM's European division Opel and being re-branded a Buick. GM did the same thing a few years ago when re-badged the Pontiac G8 from their Australian division, Holden. GM and Ford can actually build high quality cars, they just don't make them in North America with UAW contracts. Yet this same American workforce does produce high quality cars for Japanese and German companies, it's just that none of them are organized by the UAW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26183938071239702362011-01-27T00:06:27.042-08:002011-01-27T00:06:27.042-08:00Good point about Japan and Korea not having much o...Good point about Japan and Korea not having much of each other's markets. I think that East Asians are, at their core, very insular and conservative people that shun outsiders - outside people, outside ideas, outside goods. Once in a while, if their government forces it, they'll change, but the fundamental trend is to keep to the familiar and be afraid of the foreign. Protectionist policies combined with an insular culture are a good combination for keeping foreign goods unpopular.<br /><br />Heck, Microsoft can hardly sell any XBoxs in Japan, despite bringing on tons of Japanese developers and Japanese-focused exclusive killer apps. Why? It's foreign and the Japanese want their own domestic companies (Nintendo, Sony). Even without strident protectionism, the Asians have a culture that protects the home market. We don't, so our companies get screwed.<br /><br />Free trade policy doesn't adjust for culture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50252915429543567972011-01-26T23:58:55.562-08:002011-01-26T23:58:55.562-08:00Real "cognitive elitists" are racist, pr...<b>Real "cognitive elitists" are racist, protectionist, and nationalist.</b><br /><br />We're not "racist" in any sense of the word. We're political moderates that want to take net immigration to zero, protect our borders, enforce our laws, and take back the size of government to more moderate levels. Essentially, we'd like America to return to where it was mid 1960s. That's moderate. The extremists are the liberals/neoconservaatives that want a tidal wave of immigration at home and out of control government. The liberals are also racist, as they seek to pursue demographic policies that alter the makeup of the country. We, on the other hand, don't want immigration policies that advance any group.<br /><br />Never refer to us as racists. It's bad tactics and untrue. If we ever want conservative ideas to be implemented on a national level, we need to portray our liberal/neconservative establishment as extreme and ourselves as sensible centrists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34515350267121961242011-01-26T21:45:34.392-08:002011-01-26T21:45:34.392-08:00On a related note… you China-phobes do realize tha...<i>On a related note… you China-phobes do realize that all this deflationary talk about balancing budgets and stopping inflation, does nothing but make the pieces of paper we've sent to the Chinese more valuable. In politics it's always good advice to follow the money.</i><br /><br />Who's a China-phobe? I'm the <i>real</i> "cognitive elitist"; I want to do the same things the Chinese, Indians, and Israelis are doing.<br /><br /><i>Real</i> "cognitive elitists" are racist, protectionist, and nationalist.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23403295060291262812011-01-26T21:42:38.400-08:002011-01-26T21:42:38.400-08:00This is a continuation of the previous comment on ...This is a continuation of the previous comment on foreign market share in the Japanese and Korean markets.<br /><br />Contrast the foreign market share in <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2009/gb20091021_165496.htm" rel="nofollow">Japan </a>and South Korea to <a href="http://www.suite101.com/content/best-selling-car-manufacturers-in-germany-2009-a186740" rel="nofollow">Germany. </a> Foreign makes have a much higher presence in Germany.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80455031562523636052011-01-26T21:33:44.322-08:002011-01-26T21:33:44.322-08:00anon said, Free trade certainly didn't destroy...anon said, <i>Free trade certainly didn't destroy the Japanese and German auto industries which are thriving for the most part even in the recession.</i><br /><br />I guess it helps when you can practice free trade in somebody else's market while practicing protectionism at home. Given over 30 years of free trade worship on our side, foreign car makers still can't crack the the Japanese, or South Korean markets. I doubt that can be explained away as a case of inferior foreign autos. Even if one believes Asian cars are superior, wouldn't Japanese and Korean manufacturers be able to obtain more than 5% of each other's markets? This suggests that Japan and Korea are not just playing unfair with Uncle Sam, they don't play fair with <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2009/gb20091021_165496.htm" rel="nofollow">anyone.</a><br /><br /><i>For most foreign brands, Japan remains one of the toughest markets on earth to sell cars. In the fiscal year through March 2009, just 3% of sales in Japan were accounted for by foreign carmakers. Partly because of the recession, that's down from 5% just a few years ago. It also makes Japan an even tougher market for foreigners than Korea, where about 5% of sales are made to non-Korean automakers.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com