The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Chrysler to Mexico? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2013-10-12 23:21, Bob1Dog wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-12 23:01, Dannydoyle wrote:
Chrysler has no obligation to America.

Correct. Chrysler is obligated only to the folks who purchase its shares and invest in the company, be they Russian, Chinese, Canadians, Americans, and, well y'alls get the picture. That's all. If some of y'alls don't like that notion, then get 'em out of your portfolios and go green, as it were. I personally like to invest in companies that make money. And I let my financial advisor worry about all that, so don't even ask me if I own Chrysler, because I frankly don't know and I don't shiv a git as long as I keep getting the good returns I've been getting since 2008. Smile

That's good, because it is doubtful that you could own any shares in Chrysler (which is majority owned these days by the Italian company Fiat) even if you wanted to. Chrysler stock stopped trading publicly and was delisted from the exchange years ago (in 1998).

Apparently Fiat wants Chrysler shares to start trading again but only so that it can purchase the remaining shares it does not own, that are presently in an employee union trust.

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la......09.story
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 12:22, landmark wrote:
. . . discourage, through tax policy, the export of jobs to other countries.

At whose expense?

Quote:
On 2013-10-13 12:22, landmark wrote:
What if we actually made decisions that favored us as workers, not just investors?

What if we actually made decisions that favored having workers (re-)trained in jobs for which we have a relative advantage, rather than naïvely trying to hold onto jobs for which we have a relative disadvantage?
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 13:30, S2000magician wrote:

What if we actually made decisions that favored having workers (re-)trained in jobs for which we have a relative advantage, rather than naïvely trying to hold onto jobs for which we have a relative disadvantage?

I am sure you will correct me if I am mistaken, but your assumption seems to be that enough of these other jobs (those for which you have a relative economic advantage) exist to go around. And that they are as "good" (in a variety of senses) as the ones they are replacing.

Maybe by your argument you should all be mushroom pickers and Starbucks baristas?

I suspect there are good reasons for all manner of different jobs to exist and be maintained in a particular nation, even if they are not those for which the nation has a relative economic advantage.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 13:45, balducci wrote:
I suspect there are good reasons for all manner of different jobs to exist and be maintained in a particular nation, even if they are not those for which the nation has a relative economic advantage.

What do you suppose that those reasons are?
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
I alluded to two already: To reduce unemployment even further. And to provide "better" jobs (e.g., wrt pay or working conditions).

Two more: To retain essential skill sets in a nation. And to preserve manufacturing capability until the economy 'flips'. (For instance, wouldn't these relative economic advantages be affected by exchange rates? Those are always changing.)

What about those assumptions I suggested you were implicitly making? Were you? If not, how do you respond to those criticisms?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 13:45, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 13:30, S2000magician wrote:
What if we actually made decisions that favored having workers (re-)trained in jobs for which we have a relative advantage, rather than naïvely trying to hold onto jobs for which we have a relative disadvantage?

I am sure you will correct me if I am mistaken, but your assumption seems to be that enough of these other jobs (those for which you have a relative economic advantage) exist to go around. And that they are as "good" (in a variety of senses) as the ones they are replacing.

I'm not making such an assumption.

I am saying that if a country (or continent, or state, or city, or individual) cannot be competitive in a particular industry, then they shouldn't be in that industry. Your citation of "good" jobs seems to suggest that if a country (or continent, or state, or city, or individual) has heretofore been accustomed to a certain standard of living, then they're entitled to that standard of living even if the world changes and they're no longer competitive. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your position.

Quote:
On 2013-10-13 13:45, balducci wrote:
Maybe by your argument you should all be mushroom pickers and Starbucks baristas?

We'll let that one lie, shall we?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
I alluded to two already: To reduce unemployment even further. And to provide "better" jobs (e.g., wrt pay or working conditions).

It doesn't necessarily reduce unemployment (and to the extent that it does, it does so by requiring everyone else to subsidize it). I covered the "better" jobs argument above.

Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
To retain essential skill sets in a nation.

I'm not sure how a skill set in an industry in which you are not competitive can be considered essential. Please explain that one.

Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
And to preserve manufacturing capability until the economy 'flips'.

I'm not sure what you mean by the economy "flipping". Are you suggesting that the US should have a number of factories devoted to producing, say, Barbie dolls, in anticipation of the day that it becomes more expensive to manufacture them in China?

Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
(For instance, wouldn't these relative economic advantages be affected by exchange rates? Those are always changing.)

Relative advantage (or comparative advantage) has nothing to do with currency exchange rates.
Slide
View Profile
Special user
533 Posts

Profile of Slide
"I am saying that if a country (or continent, or state, or city, or individual) cannot be competitive in a particular industry, then they shouldn't be in that industry.'

countries, continents, states, cities, and individuals are not competitive in any industry because countries, etc are not businesses. Business can be competitive or not competitive in a particular industry and they may reside in a particular local, but it is the business that is competitive or not, regardless of where they reside. Detroit doesn't make automobiles. GM makes automobiles, sometimes in Detroit.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:39, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
(For instance, wouldn't these relative economic advantages be affected by exchange rates? Those are always changing.)

Relative advantage (or comparative advantage) has nothing to do with currency exchange rates.

In theory, but not in practice. E.g.

http://www.siue.edu/GEOGRAPHY/ONLINE/zhou.htm

http://www.siue.edu/artsandsciences/geography/Zhou.shtml

"All the textbooks mentioned above carry their discussion of comparative advantage in economies but the role of money appears either to be ignored or is implicitly assumed at its long term equilibrium (no money illusion). This barter exchange approach not only generates an illusion that trade always proceeds according to comparative advantage, but also neglects the role of money in shaping spatial exchange patterns at least in the short run ... [C]omparative advantage indicates the long-run pattern of trade. Since no country is able to maintain a balanced trade at every moment, it is important to recognize that no country trades exactly according to what its comparative advantage and the equilibrium terms of trade would suggest. A meaningful discussion of comparative advantage should necessarily include the role of money."
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 12:37, Slide wrote:
"I find it fascinating that large corporations are frequently appealing for tax breaks, access to resources,infrastructure exemptions etc. etc. etc. Yet a number of people blandly repeat the assertion that corporations have no obligations except to their shareholders.

Back in the 60s and 70s we called this "corporate welfare". And the CEOs were disparagingly called "corporate welfare bums". How in the world did we get to the point where corporations are applauded for taking from the taxpayer, laying off the people who underwrote the cheque, moving the facilities elsewhere, while giving themselves and the shareholders huge (tax-funded) dividends?

Oh how our minds have changed.
"

Magnus, while I certainly sympathize with your sentiments, it is the way business, big business I should say, has always run. It is a major aspect of any capitalist system. And I am 100% a capitalist If corporations are given incentives to come into your state, the idea is that corporation is also bringing jobs, it is a quid pro quo. And while a corporation may feel the need to be a good corporate steward in the areas they move into, this is more often than not to engender positive feelings about the company, in other words a product of marketing, not conscious.

The traditional role of government has been to mitigate the worst aspects of capitalism by providing oversight and by passing laws protecting its citizens against the extremes that a corporation may engage in to service their shareholders at the expense of the local population. And while I'm a capitalist, I'm also a big believer in strong government that protects its citizens against abuse. Ying and Yang balance each other. When one or the other get out of balance, there is trouble.


We agree with the way things are. We disagree about how they ought to be.

Quote:
No regulations are not the answer and restrictive unnecessary regulations stifle economic growth. Knowing where the balance point is, is what good governance is all about, something sadly lacking in washington and the US congress.


Regulations can and should be about finding a livable balance. For example, I live in a country with significant mineral wealth (including oil). As a citizen, what is my stake in this? Should we just give it away to corporations, hoping that whatever employment occurs is sufficient compensation? Or should the extraction of mineral wealth carry a price that is a legacy to the legitimate holders of this wealth--i.e. the citizens? And should the corporations who get access to the mineral wealth be expected to have obligations to the hand that fed it?

In short, why should I happily give away my inheritance, hoping that a few neighbours get jobs for a little while?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:48, Slide wrote:
"I am saying that if a country (or continent, or state, or city, or individual) cannot be competitive in a particular industry, then they shouldn't be in that industry.'

countries, continents, states, cities, and individuals are not competitive in any industry because countries, etc are not businesses. Business can be competitive or not competitive in a particular industry and they may reside in a particular local, but it is the business that is competitive or not, regardless of where they reside. Detroit doesn't make automobiles. GM makes automobiles, sometimes in Detroit.

Fair enough; insert "companies in" before "countries", "continents", "states", "cities".
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:50, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:39, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
(For instance, wouldn't these relative economic advantages be affected by exchange rates? Those are always changing.)

Relative advantage (or comparative advantage) has nothing to do with currency exchange rates.

In theory, but not in practice. E.g.

http://www.siue.edu/GEOGRAPHY/ONLINE/zhou.htm

http://www.siue.edu/artsandsciences/geography/Zhou.shtml

"All the textbooks mentioned above carry their discussion of comparative advantage in economies but the role of money appears either to be ignored or is implicitly assumed at its long term equilibrium (no money illusion). This barter exchange approach not only generates an illusion that trade always proceeds according to comparative advantage, but also neglects the role of money in shaping spatial exchange patterns at least in the short run ... [C]omparative advantage indicates the long-run pattern of trade. Since no country is able to maintain a balanced trade at every moment, it is important to recognize that no country trades exactly according to what its comparative advantage and the equilibrium terms of trade would suggest. A meaningful discussion of comparative advantage should necessarily include the role of money."

Reasonable point. But if the comparative advantage is sufficiently high, the exchange rate fluctuations will be moot.

On to the other points.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:39, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
I alluded to two already: To reduce unemployment even further. And to provide "better" jobs (e.g., wrt pay or working conditions).

It doesn't necessarily reduce unemployment (and to the extent that it does, it does so by requiring everyone else to subsidize it). I covered the "better" jobs argument above.

But having additional job opportunities available will certainly not make unemployment any worse. And those who would be otherwise unemployed would be subsidized in one way or another by everyone else in any case.

You did address the "better" jobs argument, but I'm afraid I did not find your reply convincing.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:39, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
To retain essential skill sets in a nation.

I'm not sure how a skill set in an industry in which you are not competitive can be considered essential. Please explain that one.

I think some obvious examples would have to do with national security and arms development.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:04, balducci wrote:
You did address the "better" jobs argument, but I'm afraid I did not find your reply convincing.

Sorry.

So, do you believe that if people have heretofore had a certain standard of living entitles them to that standard of living henceforth, irrespective of changes in the world? If so, why? If not, then why support jobs in industries in which they aren't competitive?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:09, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:39, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
To retain essential skill sets in a nation.

I'm not sure how a skill set in an industry in which you are not competitive can be considered essential. Please explain that one.

I think some obvious examples would have to do with national security and arms development.

National defense and infant industries are the common expections to sticking with comparative advantage. No argument there.

Into which of those categories does Chrysler fall? National defense, or infant industry?
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:13, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:09, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:39, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
To retain essential skill sets in a nation.

I'm not sure how a skill set in an industry in which you are not competitive can be considered essential. Please explain that one.

I think some obvious examples would have to do with national security and arms development.

National defense and infant industries are the common expections to sticking with comparative advantage. No argument there.

Into which of those categories does Chrysler fall? National defense, or infant industry?

Irrelevant to me as to whether or not Chrysler falls into one or the other.

My main point is that major exceptions exist demonstrating that comparative advantage is not the be all and end all as to whether or not certain jobs should be preserved.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:20, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:13, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:09, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:39, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
To retain essential skill sets in a nation.

I'm not sure how a skill set in an industry in which you are not competitive can be considered essential. Please explain that one.

I think some obvious examples would have to do with national security and arms development.

National defense and infant industries are the common expections to sticking with comparative advantage. No argument there.

Into which of those categories does Chrysler fall? National defense, or infant industry?

Irrelevant to me as to whether or not Chrysler falls into one or the other.

My main point is that major exceptions exist demonstrating that comparative advantage is not the be all and end all as to whether or not certain jobs should be preserved.

And, noting the exceptions I mentioned, neither do I.

Chrylser falls into neither category, so the exceptions don't apply.

If that's irrelevant to you, then it appears that this discussion is at an impasse.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:35, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:20, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:13, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:09, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:39, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 14:14, balducci wrote:
To retain essential skill sets in a nation.

I'm not sure how a skill set in an industry in which you are not competitive can be considered essential. Please explain that one.

I think some obvious examples would have to do with national security and arms development.

National defense and infant industries are the common expections to sticking with comparative advantage. No argument there.

Into which of those categories does Chrysler fall? National defense, or infant industry?

Irrelevant to me as to whether or not Chrysler falls into one or the other.

My main point is that major exceptions exist demonstrating that comparative advantage is not the be all and end all as to whether or not certain jobs should be preserved.

And, noting the exceptions I mentioned, neither do I.

Chrylser falls into neither category, so the exceptions don't apply.

If that's irrelevant to you, then it appears that this discussion is at an impasse.


Yeah, but since I'm learning from you guys, please do continue!
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:10, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-13 15:04, balducci wrote:
You did address the "better" jobs argument, but I'm afraid I did not find your reply convincing.

Sorry.

So, do you believe that if people have heretofore had a certain standard of living entitles them to that standard of living henceforth, irrespective of changes in the world? If so, why? If not, then why support jobs in industries in which they aren't competitive?

The part of my post that you deleted answered (i.e. was one answer to) your question.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Chrysler to Mexico? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.28 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL