http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaS-vwZ77x8
6:02
Can anyone debunk this?
The term "domestic" is used arbitrarily. I could, if I wanted, draw a border around San Diego and proclaim everything outside of it "foreign," but this doesn't change the fundamental fact of the benefits of a growing division of labor. And, domestic production hasn't "weakened;" it has ceased to grow as quickly as the service sector, but neither does this imply a "weakening" economy (i.e. that a growing service sector at the expense of employing the same amount of people in manufacturing will weaken the economy).
Oh, good more libertarian subjectivism. Nothing redundant about claiming the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over again waiting for someone to verify that you are the smartest one in the room.
First of all genius boy, "domestic" is used to refer to nation-states...it is not arbitrary in our terms of discussion.
And, domestic production hasn't "weakened;"
How can you tell if "domestic" is arbitrary?
it has ceased to grow as quickly as the service sector, but neither does this imply a "weakening" economy
Oh, and here we admit that there is a decline in growth (which is the definition of weakening according to the state; recession) and it does (according to that pesky definition) imply a weakening economy (according to the state).
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp#ixzz21aeWsMpQ We are all familiar with the usual libertarian arguments against such statistical measurments...no need to point them out. Frankly, I understand why mainstream people hiss at libertarian argument strategies. Claiming everything is subjective or arbitrary... "The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19 | Post Points: 20
Aristophanes,
There's no reason to get flustered for being challenged on a public forum.
Regarding the arbitrariness of "domestic," you missed the point. If it's good for society to expand the division of labor throughout the territorial expanse of the United States, then it's arbitrary to just claim that expanding it to China is bad. The fact that these two territories have different governments is not reason enough to argue that globalizing the division of labor is bad; i.e. that we are worse off because of it. In other words, if it's good for the division of labor to grow beyond municipal and state borders, it's not inherently bad for the division of labor to grow beyond national borders. In fact, national borders are arbitrary in that they're political demarcations.
But, the economy isn't in a recession due to the lack of manufacturing jobs; it's in a recession because of a previous bout of malinvestment, a moribund banking sector that hasn't delevaraged sufficiently, and bad public policy. We could employ all of the United States' workers in the non-manufacturing sector if we exported our manufacturing, and this wouldn't lead to a loss of wealth or productivity — it would, in fact, make us wealthier.
Instead of railing at me for "repeating libertarian arguments," why don't you provide an actual argument of your own?
hahaha
Regarding the arbitrariness of "domestic," you missed the point.
No, I didn't. I said that the 'libertarian usual' is not sufficient to stifle the acceptance of the other parameters discussed. (Borders, Nationalism)
If it's good for society to expand the division of labor throughout the territorial expanse of the United States, then it's arbitrary to just claim that expanding it to China is bad.
Zero Sum? It is absolutley NOT arbitrary if their growth comes at our loss. Is that not possible with credit expansion taking over the channels of distribution in that arbitrary geographic location where a particular language, currency, and judicial system operate?
It it was arbitrary, then people would have no problem moving between the locations if they choose to follow their trade around to its most profitable location. But, unfortunately, culture, language, tradition, etc. all prevent most people from moving in between polarized societies en masse. So borders are not arbitrary. They are statist, but they have a life of their own beyond their simple enforcement.
The fact that these two territories have different governments is not reason enough to argue that globalizing the division of labor is bad; i.e. that we are worse off because of it.
Or, if we pretend that nationalism is a thing that prevails over the 'assumption of arbitrary borders' (as reality posits), then we can say that it is bad when production jobs leave one non-arbitrary geographic location to go to another non-arbitrary geographic location.
In other words, if it's good for the division of labor to grow beyond municipal and state borders, it's not inherently bad for the division of labor to grow beyond national borders.
I notice you use the word "inherently" to descibe the "bad" consequences of an expanding division of labor. That couldn't possibly be because there are "superficial" "bad" consequences that relate to the topic of the OP? i.e., national borders
Also, when you have said that the division of labor expands you neatly gloss over the contraction of the division of labor that happens in the U.S. (you know that totally arbitrary geographic location that totally arbitrarily has a much higher standard of living than some of the other totally arbitrary geographic locations and their centuries of culture and history and even present day traditions).
You also might want to consider the contraction of the division of labor in Europe when the U.S. started to draw immigrants. Your logic says that it meant no difference to Europe that masses of people wanted out...it is absurd. It meant no difference to Egypt that their Jewish labor force wanted to expand beyond the national borders...
But, you do repeat the same idiotic juvenile libertarian "subjective interpretation" BS. "We don't have to think very hard about borders because they are immoral. Who cares if they exist and have for all of history? They don't need to be accounted for in social theory because they are immoral." I used to think the people on these boards were smart, but now I think they are like parrots. Whether you like it or not, you have to deal with statist problems.
I didn't tell you this would happen some day. I forecasted it.
This isn't "juvenile libertarian BS." Ironically, what's more juvenile is dismissing your opponent's argument as juvenile. I hate to sound like a douche, but I consider myself a much better economist than you (and Schiff).
You did, because you didn't even address the actual argument being made!
Zero Sum? It is absolutley NOT arbitrary if their growth comes at our loss. Is that not possible with credit expansion taking over the channels of distribution in that arbitrary geographic location where a particular language, currency, and judicial system operate? It it was arbitrary, then people would have no problem moving between the locations if they choose to follow their trade around to its most profitable location. But, unfortunately, culture, language, tradition, etc. all prevent most people from moving in between polarized societies en masse. So borders are not arbitrary. They are statist, but they have a life of their own beyond their simple enforcement.
In Spain, Cataluña contains people who speak Catalán and have a culture that's very different to Castillian Spain. The same is true for el País Vasco and Galicia. But, nobody would claim that it's bad to trade with them, or that given the political situation all these regions are aggregated under the same national border of Spain.
And, nowhere in the above rant did you actually make a case for trade with China to be a zero sum exercise, or that "their growth comes at our loss" (which is actually completely false, since their growth is stimulated by subsidizing our imports).
I'm sorry, this isn't an economic argument (or a good argument, at all). Manufacturing aren't the only type of jobs an economy can create; in the United States, for instance, service sector jobs have become more prominent. This has been made possible by the growing division of labor. Labor is, ultimately, the most scarce good; the practical scarcity of other goods is due to the scarcity of labor (if labor weren't scarce then we'd produce any other good up to the physical limit). The export of manufaturing jobs, together with the introduction of better labor-saving technology (which is actually what's been hapenning in the United States -- note that manufacturing has continued to increase, but employment has stagnated), has allowed a structural transition to different types of jobs. This isn't "bad" or wealth-destroying, but productive.
i.e., national borders
You have yet to make a coherent case why national borders, in this case, matter.
What contradiction? What does this even mean?
People moved to the United States because there was a benefit in doing so. What does this have to do with China and exporting manufacturing jobs to China?
Instead of stringing random bullshit together and attacking me for my "juvenile libertarian" arguments, why don't you provide a solid argument of your own? My guess is that you don't really have one, because it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. ;)
So, I guess in the end we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I hate to sound like a douche, but I consider myself a much better economist than...Schiff...
Having seen your stuff and his, I disagree.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I hate to sound like a douche, but I consider myself a much better economist than you (and Schiff).
This is like coming up with a pun, then saying "no pun intended."
Where are your millions of dollars? btw?
Manufacturing aren't the only type of jobs an economy can create; in the United States, for instance, service sector jobs have become more prominent. This has been made possible by the growing division of labor.
hahahahahhahahhaahah
Not all jobs are created equal.
This much should be apparent since there is so much evidence (Shiff knows it) that service sector jobs can only be sustained in such large numbers by the massive amounts of credit expansion that must take the place of production and manufacturing jobs.
You are willfully ignoring the points that are relevant to this.
...Oh, no you're not ignoring them, you just aren't putting it together yet.
Don't pretend like the "benefit" in moving to the U.S. had nothing to do with the political system and its jurisdiction.
why don't you provide a solid argument of your own?
Second time you've said that. (ironic, eh?; "Juvenile")
What does this even mean?
How are you about to say that I don't have a solid argument if you don't know what my words mean in their particular order?