US places tariffs on Chinese solar cells

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by oirg

The rationale is a shift in emphasis to producing, which would result in long-term economic benefits far outweighing access to cheap products from market manipulators.

Market manipulators? You mean like Obama bailing out Goldman Sachs or auto companies, printing money, not balancing the budget, having a trade deficit with China and using them to borrow from to prop up our economy?

[FormLetter]

The externalities of their manufacturing industries will likely yield significant public outcry over time. You can only decimate peoples' homelands for so long before they give you a reason to kill them or imprison them.

[Loner]

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan

Just that it's scary. Didn't think I'd see the day when Loner went all booga! on us.

Anyway, we'll have all the pollution cleanup knowledge they'll need in a few decades. Or, next week. We can export that, in exchange for low-cost imports that their factory children are making for us.

Well, there was some hyperbole. But I do think there's a certain amount of our national self-interest to consider in these things. I'm not bothered all that much, for example by the existence of farm subsidies as I think we have a national security interest in preserving the ability to grow (enough of) our own food. HOW those subsidies are implemented and where they are targeted is another matter.

[oirg]

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan

You'll need to convince us better than merely saying things. Meaning, any link to a proof to the bolded statement?

And, yes, what you are suggesting sounds like someone centrally planning the economy. The past economy (producing) worked not because of central planning. It worked due to (relatively) smart and rational businessmen making decisions that benefitted them. Current economy suggests that we prefer other countries do the producing. (Pollution, mainly.) So, why try to change it?

I'll provide some links in a few days.

[Loner]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

The externalities of their manufacturing industries will likely yield significant public outcry over time. You can only decimate peoples' homelands for so long before they give you a reason to kill them or imprison them.

You're talking about a governmnet that had no problem with letting tens of millions of its own people starve to death. That could be a mighty long wait.

[Heywood J]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

Something that doesn't imply the posession of knowledge of what is best for all of us when the subject matter is subject to our individual values and judgements.

And that applies how to this discussion?

[FormLetter]

Originally Posted by oirg

The rationale is a shift in emphasis to producing, which would result in long-term economic benefits far outweighing access to cheap products from market manipulators.

Originally Posted by FormLetter

What does "shift in emphasis" mean? It smacks of central command and control of the economy.

Originally Posted by Heywood J

What doesn't smack of central command and control to you people?

Originally Posted by FormLetter

Something that doesn't imply the posession of knowledge of what is best for all of us when the subject matter is subject to our individual values and judgements.

Originally Posted by Heywood J

And that applies how to this discussion?

It was a direct answer to your question.

[FormLetter]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

The externalities of their manufacturing industries will likely yield significant public outcry over time. You can only decimate peoples' homelands for so long before they give you a reason to kill them or imprison them.

Originally Posted by Loner

You're talking about a governmnet that had no problem with letting tens of millions of its own people starve to death. That could be a mighty long wait.

Maybe I worded it a little too subtly (I say "too subtly" because that is way better than to admit to having worded it "too clumsily").

My second sentence might make more sense to you if you read it as:
You can only decimates peoples' homelands for so long before they [meaning those people whose homelands you decimated (with industrial refuse and damage)] give you a reason to kill them or imprison them.

[oirg]

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan

You'll need to convince us better than merely saying things. Meaning, any link to a proof to the bolded statement?

And, yes, what you are suggesting sounds like someone centrally planning the economy. The past economy (producing) worked not because of central planning. It worked due to (relatively) smart and rational businessmen making decisions that benefitted them. Current economy suggests that we prefer other countries do the producing. (Pollution, mainly.) So, why try to change it?

Here are a couple of links:

http://wealthisnottheproblem.blogspo...e-anatomy.html

We can not improve the general standard of living simply by boosting consumption. The apparent chicken-and-egg of production and consumption has an essential fulcrum: the productivity of labor. Progress in prosperity is only made by figuring out and applying ways to do more with less. More goods with less effort and/or less material.

Increasing the productivity of labor makes the real cost of goods go down. As labor is valued by how productive it is, through increasing the productivity of labor, you also increase real wages. Cheaper goods and higher wages are the source of true prosperity and progress.

http://mises.org/daily/2079

[Pseudolus]

Cheaper goods and higher wages are the source of true prosperity and progress.

Also, you're not really trying to quote mises.org in support of your pro-tariff position, are you?