Pete: On May 9, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Pete Theisen wrote:
> Hi Everybody! > > Interesting that the phrase was coined by US Supreme Court Justice > Louis > Brandeis in the 1933 case, Ligget Co. v. Lee (288 U.S. 517, 558-559). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom > > We have had ten years of "Globalization", more or less. The rich > are very > prosperous, and they argue that the poor are fully employed. The > issue of > full-time workers' wages not constituting a living seems to be > officially > ignored. > > Bob Calco regularly posts interesting essays to the effect that > import tariffs > would solve this, however, these tariffs could lead to trade war. First of all, tariffs would not themselves solve it. Tariffs might (as they did for the first 150 years of our national existence) encourage what would solve it, namely, it might induce capitalists to invest more in American labor, rather than to invest it in, say, Chinese labor. It is the increase in per capita capital investment in domestic labor that determines a nation's standards of living and overall wealth. (The Chinese by the way have HUGE tariffs. It doesn't stop American investors from investing in Chinese labor. Imagine that! Trade war indeed...) The issue is one of protecting our wage and price structure and the social fabric that holds it together, not punishing foreigners or trying to micromanage winners and losers. What our Founders invented was a revenue system entirely based on a modest ad valorem tariff on all articles of foreign manufacture (no "most favorite nations" crap). However, there was a flip side: No tax on income for American workers or the companies that employed them domestically. The idea is to encourage increased per capita capital investment in domestic labor. Tariffs might be one means; there may be others. Comparative advantage is a pig in a poke. The whole frame of reference is wrong, wrong, wrong, and stupid to boot. Free trade is not about trade between systems, it is about division of labor between systems--i.e., destroying any distinction between systems and building a single system. If most Americans understood the philosophy behind it and what it was really doing, they'd revolt against it. Which is why our education system has been diligent to turn out an entire generation that can't do basic math without a calculator (made in China, of course). - Bob > Never mind, > though, it is nearly inconceivable that such a last century idea > could pass > congress. > > How do we (non-rich) start back up to the top? > -- > Regards, > > Pete > http://www.pete-theisen.com/ > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
