Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by pmward » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:33 am

shekels wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:24 am
pmward wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:42 am


By "not that long ago" I really mean just 3-4 years ago, prior to Trump. My how times have changed. This new "conservative" view does not make any sense to me, to me it goes against every "conservative" fundamental I've ever known, and I do not support it one bit. I am an independent, and while there are things I agree with and disagree with on both sides of the isle, I consider myself to be more on the "conservative" side (at least old school conservative, I’m not so sure about this modern conservative views mentioned above). I'm definitely not a fan of Trump though. I generally dislike him as a person; I don’t trust him, I don’t think he had any integrity, I don’t think he is a good leader, I don’t think he is a good person, I have serious questions about his sanity and mental stability, history has proven him time and time again to be a liar and a cheat, and I don’t think he has any interest beyond self interest.
I do not believe Trump is a true conservative. The term Conservative to label someone of a different opinion gets thrown around way to often. Trump is hated and reviled yes, but he is also revered. If you don’t believe in the messenger, you probably won’t believe the message. On the reverse note. If you believe in the message, you probably believe the messenger.
All great points. I think that I especially agree with your comments on the disparity in the term "conservative". That's kind of why I've been using quotes on the term, because it's so hard to define these days. I think both "conservatives" and "liberals" kind of have two sects right now, and old school sect a modern sect. I find that I really strongly disagree with the modern sects of both sides, haha.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by Kriegsspiel » Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:11 pm

I was going to add that I didn't want to assume that you and ocho were liberals. You aren't Trumpies, and you seem to think they irrationally hate Mexicans and want to nuke them. IE, you don't understand what their viewpoint is. That's what reminded me of that study*. Your response is full of stuff that could be interesting to discuss, but wasn't what I was referring to by "reaching."

* pugchief, here is a Jonathan Haidt article discussing a study he did. I don't know if that's the only study where they found that, but I do think it was Haidt where I first heard it:
In a study I conducted with colleagues Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and con­servatives could understand each other. We asked more than 2,000 American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a "typical liberal" would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a "typical conservative" would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people's expectations about "typical" partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as "very liberal." The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as "one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" or "justice is the most important requirement for a society," liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.
Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.
- Gaius Sallustius Crispus
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by pmward » Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:22 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:11 pm
I was going to add that I didn't want to assume that you and ocho were liberals. You aren't Trumpies, and you seem to think they irrationally hate Mexicans and want to nuke them. IE, you don't understand what their viewpoint is.
Admittedly, I was exaggerating and being a bit facetious there. But the Trumpies I personally know really do have a passionate dislike of Mexico, and really any other country that could provide labor cheaper than they are willing to supply it. They feel threatened and fearful, and that does cause an irrational hatred.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by stuper1 » Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:48 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:22 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:11 pm
I was going to add that I didn't want to assume that you and ocho were liberals. You aren't Trumpies, and you seem to think they irrationally hate Mexicans and want to nuke them. IE, you don't understand what their viewpoint is.
Admittedly, I was exaggerating and being a bit facetious there. But the Trumpies I personally know really do have a passionate dislike of Mexico, and really any other country that could provide labor cheaper than they are willing to supply it. They feel threatened and fearful, and that does cause an irrational hatred.
Are you familiar with this newfangled economic idea called the law of supply and demand? It applies to labor as well as products. It's really not irrational or racist to oppose abundant immigration if a person feels their livelihood is threatened. I'm one of the least racist people around, but I'd like to see immigration slowed down greatly.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by pmward » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:05 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:48 pm
pmward wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:22 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:11 pm
I was going to add that I didn't want to assume that you and ocho were liberals. You aren't Trumpies, and you seem to think they irrationally hate Mexicans and want to nuke them. IE, you don't understand what their viewpoint is.
Admittedly, I was exaggerating and being a bit facetious there. But the Trumpies I personally know really do have a passionate dislike of Mexico, and really any other country that could provide labor cheaper than they are willing to supply it. They feel threatened and fearful, and that does cause an irrational hatred.
Are you familiar with this newfangled economic idea called the law of supply and demand? It applies to labor as well as products. It's really not irrational or racist to oppose abundant immigration if a person feels their livelihood is threatened. I'm one of the least racist people around, but I'd like to see immigration slowed down greatly.
Of course it applies to labor. That's the whole point of my comment. What I said would make no sense if this wasn't the case.

So since it applies to labor we need to think this all the way through because trying to manipulate supply and demand is a double-edged sword. Every effect has innumerable side and counter effects. You have to be careful what you wish for. It is good for the economy, individuals, and business to purchase labor and supplies as cheap as possible. It leaves people more money to spend on other things. It leaves businesses and investors more money to invest in other places. All of these things create more economic activity, which in turn creates jobs. There are plenty of things the U.S. can supply cheaper and more efficiently than foreign counties, and it benefits all involved if we are focusing on these things we are efficient at, instead of trying to block competition so we can produce goods that we are not super efficient at. The economic tides are always changing, it makes no sense to cling to the past, we should be focused instead on moving forward. We should be focusing on what we do well, not on what we don't. In capitalism people need to learn to adapt. Its a constant wave of adaptation. Farmers were pissed back in the early 1900s, just like industrial workers are pissed now, just like people in the software industry like me will be pissed at some point in the future. The economy doesn't thrive when we focus on preventing change, it thrives when we move forward and innovate. The unfortunate cost is that those that refuse to adapt get left behind.

Also, it's common knowledge that the biggest predictor of economic growth is a growing population. Since we are no longer organically growing our population, we need immigration, or else we will turn into Japan.
Last edited by pmward on Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8146
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by moda0306 » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:10 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:48 pm
pmward wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:22 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:11 pm
I was going to add that I didn't want to assume that you and ocho were liberals. You aren't Trumpies, and you seem to think they irrationally hate Mexicans and want to nuke them. IE, you don't understand what their viewpoint is.
Admittedly, I was exaggerating and being a bit facetious there. But the Trumpies I personally know really do have a passionate dislike of Mexico, and really any other country that could provide labor cheaper than they are willing to supply it. They feel threatened and fearful, and that does cause an irrational hatred.
Are you familiar with this newfangled economic idea called the law of supply and demand? It applies to labor as well as products. It's really not irrational or racist to oppose abundant immigration if a person feels their livelihood is threatened. I'm one of the least racist people around, but I'd like to see immigration slowed down greatly.
There are other things that would be far-less pernicious and more effective...

1) More class-consciousness, generally. Knowing what your true risks and resources are as a worker and who your lot is in with vs who is most opposed to your economic interests.

2) Union membership and activism.

3) Opposing trade deals in how mobile they allow capital to be. Trade deals are more "investor rights" deals than anything else, and any dollar invested overseas is a dollar not invested here. Put another way, If labor can't cross borders, why should capital be able to? If a brown body can't go from Mexico to the US, why should some US "investor" be able to purchase profitable property in Mexico?

4) Encourage economic independence, rather than submission to US capital interests, of other countries.

5) Tariffs based heavily on labor protections and environmental protections in the foreign country in question to prevent a "race to the bottom" of capital to the country with "leaders" most willing to allow their country and populace to be exploited.

6) Citizen's dividend to give workers more bargaining power by giving them more non-disappearing financial safety-net.

There are many ways to protect your real wages... I'm amazed that the only way some want to explore is by a myriad of draconian policies to make millions of peoples lives hopefully miserable enough to make them move out of the country.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by pugchief » Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:04 pm

Kriegs, thanks for the link. I found this particularly fascinating:
To escape from this political mess, I believe that psychologists must work with political scientists to identify changes that will indirectly undermine Manichaeism. I ran a 2007 conference at Princeton University that tried to do this. We learned that much of the increase in polarization was unavoidable. It was the natural result of the political realignment that took place after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The conservative Southern states, which had been solidly Democratic since the Civil War (because Lincoln was a Republican), then began to leave the Democratic Party, and by the 1990s the South was solidly Republican. Before this realignment there had been liberals and conservatives in both parties, which made it easy to form bipartisan teams that could work together on legislative projects. But after the realignment, there was no longer any overlap, either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. Nowadays the most liberal Republican is typically more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. And once the two parties became ideologically pure—a liberal party and a conservative party—there was bound to be a rise in Manichaeism.
I previously did not know this; a lot of things just got clearer on the whole left/right topic.
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2511
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by ochotona » Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:28 pm

It's all about tribe now, not ideology. Ideas are used as tribal badges, not as the basic material for solutions to real-world problems. "Conservatives" virtue-signal just as much as the Millennial Snowflake Social Justice Warriors. It's all the same.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by Kriegsspiel » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:58 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:22 pm
Admittedly, I was exaggerating and being a bit facetious there. But the Trumpies I personally know really do have a passionate dislike of Mexico, and really any other country that could provide labor cheaper than they are willing to supply it. They feel threatened and fearful, and that does cause an irrational hatred.

So since it applies to labor we need to think this all the way through because trying to manipulate supply and demand is a double-edged sword. Every effect has innumerable side and counter effects. You have to be careful what you wish for. It is good for the economy, individuals, and business to purchase labor and supplies as cheap as possible. It leaves people more money to spend on other things.
Hah, ok. You can't be sure nowadays. So, the people you know personally passionately dislike Mexico because it facilitates people illegally coming into America and depressing their wages/tekken thur jurb. When you say it like that it is not irrational, but you still think it's irrational. I can tell that you mean it on a macro level, because of what you wrote below it; but on a micro, personal level of the people you know, you should be able to tell that it isn't irrational, because those actual people would have less/no money to purchase labor and supplies, and therefore wouldn't have more money to spend on other stuff.
pmward wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:05 pm
It leaves businesses and investors more money to invest in other places. All of these things create more economic activity, which in turn creates jobs.
It is not an acceptable situation for illegal immigration to be the catalyst for job creation.

Now, I think I know what you're going to say after you read that, "Exactly, we need more workers."

(I guess that's pretty much what you said already, maybe you'd add "and we need the illegal immigration because our immigration limits are too low." ?)

I say we don't actually know what's going on, because we do not have secured borders and we don't know how many illegal immigrants are here. If we were reasonably sure how many people were even living here, we could probably figure out if we needed to let more people in and what kinds were needed. If we determine we need more people, and there are qualified people that want to become Americans (or maybe just get a work visa?), then that's how we should fill jobs, the answer isn't just letting anyone sneak across the border or overstaying a visa or whatever.

That's more of a "we need a logical process" angle, though. In a more practical sense, businesses don't need to save money on wages in order to create more jobs. Banks are desperate to lend money, at low interest rates, for good ideas that create jobs.

But, to go along with your statement, if Americans are already competing with illegal immigrants for jobs at a given skill level (and being undercut, presumably, so that wages are lowered), and business owners need the lower wages so that they can invest in other areas, what are they investing in? If they're creating jobs at a higher skill/wage level, the low skilled Americans competing with the illegal immigrants won't get those jobs anyways, and we'd need to import more immigrants at that skill level (assuming full employment among Americans) to fill them. If those same Americans were capable of performing higher level work, said business people could create those jobs right now for them, and they wouldn't be competing for low skill work. Again, in this instance, our supply of low-skill workers would be insufficient and we should legally bring in people interested in doing them.

SO, even if you want more people here, could we could agree our current illegal immigration situation isn't part of the solution?
There are plenty of things the U.S. can supply cheaper and more efficiently than foreign counties, and it benefits all involved if we are focusing on these things we are efficient at, instead of trying to block competition so we can produce goods that we are not super efficient at.
You're referring to Ricardo's law of comparative advantage. What if the other countries are only comparatively advantaged producing them because of state subsidies and import restrictions? That's what I was referencing when I brought up Japan's former MITI, and it's Trump's view, AFAIK. When he talks about China getting one over on us, it's because they haven't abided by the trade agreement they were supposed to abide by when they joined the WTO. In fairness, I guess other countries could say we've done the same thing.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier about each country looking out for its own interests, instead of aspiring to a theoretical free trade world. It makes me think of the Cartel Problem in economics, where a group agrees to fix prices, but one member lowers their to sell more so they gain an advantage. I'm sure there's a nice economics term for countries agreeing to trade freely, but then one of them doesn't to gain an advantage, but I don't know it.
The economic tides are always changing, it makes no sense to cling to the past, we should be focused instead on moving forward. We should be focusing on what we do well, not on what we don't.
I wonder if we really know what we do well? For instance, we pretty much import all of our TVs, despite an American inventing them. Is that because Korea, China, and Japan have a natural comparative advantage, or because they utilized state subsidies and trade-deal-facilitated industrial espionage, and import restrictions to gain one? I'm not sure anymore. Maybe we do more things well than we know, and we could be creating more goods/services here, but other countries have gotten one over on us like Trump says.

In general, I agree with you though. Always be improving.
In capitalism people need to learn to adapt. Its a constant wave of adaptation. Farmers were pissed back in the early 1900s, just like industrial workers are pissed now, just like people in the software industry like me will be pissed at some point in the future. The economy doesn't thrive when we focus on preventing change, it thrives when we move forward and innovate. The unfortunate cost is that those that refuse to adapt get left behind.
You tweeted "learn to code" at reporters, didn't you :P

Macro- agree, though. It's good to be a winner. For instance, I don't really think about how pissed the shit tons of Europeans and various tribes were that died of contagious disease, but because my line was resistant I'm still here.
Since we are no longer organically growing our population, we need immigration, or else we will turn into Japan.
You say "we will turn into Japan" like you think it's a bad thing? I think they're doing alright. Minimal crime, high social cohesiveness and trust, high technology, high culture, good food, low obesity, almost free housing, etc.
Also, it's common knowledge that the biggest predictor of economic growth is a growing population.
It's a big one, sure. But growth can't go on forever, of course. It also makes sense that we don't need to have a growing economy for a good quality of life if our population isn't growing/is declining, per capitally (if that's a phrase, which I don't think it is). Evolving to a more steady-state economy at our current standard of living doesn't sound awful to me. Personally, I think it would be beneficial if the world population went down. But at the same time, I don't think it would be a good thing if the advanced countries curtailed their fertility, while ALSO importing tons of immigrants to bolster their population. The same per capitalness (shit, again) applies to them too; their quality of life would increase if they had fewer kids too.

Anyways, come at me bros.
Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.
- Gaius Sallustius Crispus
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by Kriegsspiel » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:02 pm

ochotona wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:28 pm
virtue-signal ... Millennial Snowflake Social Justice Warriors.
Damn Boomers, takin' our jabs!
Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.
- Gaius Sallustius Crispus
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by Kriegsspiel » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:41 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:10 pm
1) More class-consciousness, generally. Knowing what your true risks and resources are as a worker and who your lot is in with vs who is most opposed to your economic interests.
I'd say more "personal finance" consciousness. Nobody really has to be working class their whole life, even if they start there. I think it would be a harder mental transition to become wealthier if you have a bunch of animosity towards wealthy peo... the bourgeoisie.
2) Union membership and activism.
Eh. I was in a union, they weren't too happy with it. There are a lot of problems with unions in general, and probably more so nowadays. moda would probably agree with half that sentence.
3) Opposing trade deals in how mobile they allow capital to be. Trade deals are more "investor rights" deals than anything else, and any dollar invested overseas is a dollar not invested here. Put another way, If labor can't cross borders, why should capital be able to? If a brown body can't go from Mexico to the US, why should some US "investor" be able to purchase profitable property in Mexico?
I've posted this before, but Keyne's probably would agree:
I sympathize, therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would maximize, economic entanglement among nations. Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel--these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national. Yet, at the same time, those who seek to disembarrass a country of its entanglements should be very slow and wary. It should not be a matter of tearing up roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.

For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that, after the transition is accomplished, a greater measure of national self-sufficiency and economic isolation among countries than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise. At any rate, the age of economic internationalism was not particularly successful in avoiding war; and if its friends retort, that the imperfection of its success never gave it a fair chance, it is reasonable to point out that a greater success is scarcely probable in the coming years.
I'd say there is less reason to be opposed to international investing than to allowing foreigners to purchase assets in your country. If, say, Mexico was willing to let me buy shares in one of their companies, why would Americans, or the Mexican owners of the company, be pissed? I could see Mexicans who want to own shares in the company being pissed that foreigners are inflating its price., though. But it would amount to me redirecting Mexican profits into the American economy (well, wherever I buy stuff from, if I buy stuff from Mexico with them I guess it's a wash?). It's the inverse that I would expect you to be opposed to: a Mexican taking American profits back to Mexico.

More in line with your thinking, if I buy an unproductive asset in Mexico, like a vacation beach house, that money is gone from America. So Americans could be pissed. But also Mexican non-property owners, because I'm driving up the cost of housing for the locals with my big purchasing power. Last I heard, Vancouverites and New Zealanders aren't too happy with foreigners driving up their housing costs and they're putting up obstacles.
4) Encourage economic independence, rather than submission to US capital interests, of other countries.
Well... maybe, right? I don't see why I'd want to encourage a country to be so economically independent that it was a threat. But encourage them to be able to produce something to trade with us, or to have a country we could visit? Sure, that's a win win. That's one of the catch-22's of immigration; if we siphon off a countries brainpower, how are they going to develop enough that we can be buddies?
5) Tariffs based heavily on labor protections and environmental protections in the foreign country in question to prevent a "race to the bottom" of capital to the country with "leaders" most willing to allow their country and populace to be exploited.
You are saying that countries with cheap labor, where corporations want to locate a factory or whatever, should resist them in order to protect local wages? Or that countries should restrict corporations from shifting operations to a lower cost locale (IE, what Trump is doing)?
6) Citizen's dividend to give workers more bargaining power by giving them more non-disappearing financial safety-net.
Maybe.
There are many ways to protect your real wages... I'm amazed that the only way some want to explore is by a myriad of draconian policies to make millions of peoples lives hopefully miserable enough to make them move out of the country.
Well, it's not the only thing we (I) want to explore, but it's what were were talking about.
Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.
- Gaius Sallustius Crispus
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Immediate 5% across-the-board Mexican tariffs

Post by Kriegsspiel » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:42 pm

pugchief wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:04 pm
Kriegs, thanks for the link. I found this particularly fascinating:
To escape from this political mess, I believe that psychologists must work with political scientists to identify changes that will indirectly undermine Manichaeism. I ran a 2007 conference at Princeton University that tried to do this. We learned that much of the increase in polarization was unavoidable. It was the natural result of the political realignment that took place after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The conservative Southern states, which had been solidly Democratic since the Civil War (because Lincoln was a Republican), then began to leave the Democratic Party, and by the 1990s the South was solidly Republican. Before this realignment there had been liberals and conservatives in both parties, which made it easy to form bipartisan teams that could work together on legislative projects. But after the realignment, there was no longer any overlap, either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. Nowadays the most liberal Republican is typically more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. And once the two parties became ideologically pure—a liberal party and a conservative party—there was bound to be a rise in Manichaeism.
I previously did not know this; a lot of things just got clearer on the whole left/right topic.
He expanded that article (I think it was that article) into a book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion.
Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.
- Gaius Sallustius Crispus
Post Reply