Unemployment Down

[BuggedOut]

I should add that I do already advocate for sound money.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Too much shiney.

You have not beaten me with your arguments, but with your walls of text.

The line count in your posts has gone from 2 -> 6 -> 17 -> 41

That is an exponential escalation! I'm not taking the bait.

Not baiting, not trying to beat you with arguments, just trying to explain that because erecting barriers to trade is a subjective, value-laden principle its place is in the political world, not in sound economic policy. If you really are interested in preventing the debasement of employment opportunites in our country you would support policies that make best use of comparative advantage.

 

[BuggedOut]

If you really are interested in preventing the debasement of employment opportunites in our country you would support policies that make best use of comparative advantage.

Such as?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

If you really are interested in preventing the debasement of employment opportunites in our country you would support policies that make best use of comparative advantage.

Such as?

Don't put a 50% tariff on iphones?

 

[BuggedOut]

If you really are interested in preventing the debasement of employment opportunites in our country you would support policies that make best use of comparative advantage.

Such as?

Don't put a 50% tariff on iphones?

No.

That is a policy that you DONT support. I want to know what your proposed policy solution IS.

Caveat - Please keep it grounded in the (harsh) reality of our current system of government.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Such as?

Don't put a 50% tariff on iphones?

No.

That is a policy that you DONT support. I want to know what your proposed policy solution IS.

Caveat - Please keep it grounded in the (harsh) reality of our current system of government.

It's my proposed policy solution. :/

How about I put it this way, eliminate all tariffs?

 

[BuggedOut]

*sigh*

I do respect your views, but sometimes I wonder if you might be too detached from reality to be worth the effort of debating.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

*sigh*

I do respect your views, but sometimes I wonder if you might be too detached from reality to be worth the effort of debating.

Your concept of reality and mine are obviously vastly different.

Edit to add: you wouldn't believe how many statists have accused me of living in a bubble just because their own paradigm prevents them from understanding any alternate reality to the one they've been brainwashed to believe.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The owner of the bobcat has a comparative advantage compared to the owner of the shovel and wheelbarrow. Should the government artificially inflate the cost of hiring the bobcat in an attempt to keep the bloke with the shovel and wheelbarrow employed?

 

[SteveS]

The owner of the bobcat has a comparative advantage compared to the owner of the shovel and wheelbarrow. Should the government artificially inflate the cost of hiring the bobcat in an attempt to keep the bloke with the shovel and wheelbarrow employed?

I know what the Australian Government's response to this would be:

Offer unemployed shovel owners subsidised university degrees in origami.

 

[BuggedOut]

I'm no statist. You sound like a globalist sometimes even though I know it is really just extreme libertarianism that you espouse.

The reality is that our world is so far removed from libertarian ideals, and we have such great inequality between the 1st and 3rd world (labor, capital & consumer markets) and we have such enormous corruption and totalitarianism in the said 3rd world that pushing the "free trade, zero tariffs boosts productivity" mantra is just naive. We are empowering and enriching despots.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

We are empowering and enriching despots.

Actually what we would be really doing is making our market far more attractive to foreign investment and cheaper for consumers and all the added benefits that go with that.

Edit to add; I'm much more comfortable being labelled an extreme libertarian than someone who is not realistic.

 

[BuggedOut]

To invest in what? Nobody in their right mind would offshore a labor force to Australia.

Foreigners are interested in owning our assets (land, minerals, agriculture) and selling into our consumer markets but I don't see a lot of job creation due to foreign investment. Can you give me some good examples?

 

[BuggedOut]

I'm much more comfortable being labelled an extreme libertarian than someone who is not realistic.

When I have a look at how elections are going in places like Australia and the U.S. I am starting to think that even moderate libertarians are unrealistic

 

[mmm....shiney!]

To invest in what? Nobody in their right mind would offshore a labor force to Australia.

Foreigners are interested in owning our assets (land, minerals, agriculture) and selling into our consumer markets but I don't see a lot of job creation due to foreign investment. Can you give me some good examples?

Why wouldn't anyone offshore a labour force to Australia? If we're talking about the abolition of tariffs, we'd possibly be talking about the removal of all protectionist policies including the minimum wage. With a reduction in labour costs, our advanced infrastructure health care, and political stability, we'd be a much more attractive proposition for foreign investors than many other countries.

Initially, the investment would be in industries we're good at, primary production and mining. I don't have a crystal ball to tell you what other industries we may have a comparative advantage in in the future, maybe alternative energy, but that's the reason entrepreneurs exixt. To identify market opportunity and risk their capital.

 

[BuggedOut]

With a reduction in labour costs, our advanced infrastructure health care, and political stability, we'd be a much more attractive proposition for foreign investors than many other countries.

Compared to a 3rd world dictatorship that has cheaper labour costs, absolute political stability (who needs elections anyway) and who really gives a turtle about health care for employees? As for infrastructure? That's a good one :lol:

 

[mmm....shiney!]

With a reduction in labour costs, our advanced infrastructure health care, and political stability, we'd be a much more attractive proposition for foreign investors than many other countries.

Compared to a 3rd world dictatorship that has cheaper labour costs, absolute political stability (who needs elections anyway) and who really gives a turtle about health care for employees? As for infrastructure? That's a good one :lol:

Let's not forget our system of guaranteed private property rights, something lacking in many other countries.

 

[SpacePete]

With a reduction in labour costs, our advanced infrastructure health care, and political stability, we'd be a much more attractive proposition for foreign investors than many other countries.

Compared to a 3rd world dictatorship that has cheaper labour costs, absolute political stability (who needs elections anyway) and who really gives a turtle about health care for employees? As for infrastructure? That's a good one :lol:

Let's not forget our system of guaranteed private property rights, something lacking in many other countries.

Except when the government decides to compulsorily aquire your private property, or the change in the law that meant you don't own the mineral rights under your property.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Compared to a 3rd world dictatorship that has cheaper labour costs, absolute political stability (who needs elections anyway) and who really gives a turtle about health care for employees? As for infrastructure? That's a good one :lol:

Let's not forget our system of guaranteed private property rights, something lacking in many other countries.

Except when the government decides to compulsorily aquire your private property, or the change in the law that meant you don't own the mineral rights under your property.

Or decides you can't sell your pastoral property because it's not in the National Interest. Yes, there are protectionist policies all around (not referring to the mineral rights).

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The owner of the bobcat has a comparative advantage compared to the owner of the shovel and wheelbarrow. Should the government artificially inflate the cost of hiring the bobcat in an attempt to keep the bloke with the shovel and wheelbarrow employed?

I know what the Australian Government's response to this would be:

Offer unemployed shovel owners subsidised university degrees in origami.

Or shut the mechanised earthmoving industry down and hand out spoons instead, under the guise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.