Community >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To

Subj: Re: Milton Friedman: Economist
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:15:03 pm EDT (Viewed 613 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Milton Friedman: Economist
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:06:41 pm EDT (Viewed 636 times)

> Your response is taking your question completely off its orignal intent

Not really. My argument is that businesses are shirking their responsibility to America and its workers. Businesses that outsource are causing American workers financial detriment. If all outsourcing stopped tomorrow, American workers wouldn't have to compete with workers in third world countries as to who can absorb the lowest wage and shoddiest medical benefits.

> 1) Your definition of externality is not the economic definition of externality.

True, but the technically correct definition fits the context of my comments and doesn't negate them.

Quoting Wikipedia:
"In economics, an externality is an impact on any party not directly involved in an economic decision. An externality occurs when an economic activity causes external costs or external benefits to third party stakeholders who did not directly affect the economic transaction."

Outsourcing to other countries has an impact on American workers, who were not directly involved in the economic decision to outsource, who did not directly affect the economic transaction, and who incur cost: loss of job, lower wages, less robust medical benefits.

> Also, you are not considering the fact that globalization is a two-way street. Yes, American companies sometimes go overseas, but foreign companies and investors come here too. The US attracts foreign investment of all types in tremendous quantities.

And then the money they make goes back to their country. The key difference is that foreign investors don't usually build here. There are exceptions, but generally foreign investors buy assets that are already developed. Thus they don't create new jobs, so no new money is getting into American hands, and the profit is going to the foreign investor, who doesn't live in America.

> In fact, the US is so attractive it's created a downside of allowing us to live beyond our means through borrowing.

Foreign investment contributes to this? I know we borrow from other countries, such as China, but I think you mean something else.

> 2) Actually, outsourcing in terms of customer service and so forth is exactly like the export/import of goods. It's the export/import of services.

True. Good point. Yet it's still bad for American workers. If an American company creates a customer service phone bank in America, it's a net gain for the American worker. If that same company creates a customer service phone bank in some other country, it's a net loss for the American worker. American companies have a responsibility to post net gains for the American worker. This is the American company's version of patriotism.

> Labor service is just like anything else. Free trade has created far more jobs than have been lost.

But the jobs don't pay as well as they should. It's true that American corporations are growing and thus jobs are being created. But wages don't go up appropriately because instead of raising wages, the company can outsource. And fewer jobs are being created than under the scenario of zero outsourcing.

> While that may be of no solace to the person that lost their job due to outsourcing, many more have gotten jobs. The need to provide support to people adversely affected by trade is a separate issue, not evidence to eliminate free trade.

Oh, if support is given to people adversely affected, then all is well. But such isn't the case.

> 3) Free markets make people unequally rich. While looking at the average (or better, the median) can be useful, you can look at all sorts of other metrics to see that free markets improve living standards. For example, take the poorest 10% of Americans today and compare their material wealth and living standard to the poorest 10% of Americans 50 years ago (or 100 years, etc.) and you will see dramatic differences.

Fifty years ago was the 1950's. Wasn't the middle class in pretty good shape back then? Oh, but you're talking about the poorest ten percent. Your comment may be true, I don't know.

> 4) Your policy prescription to limit outsourcing won't work. By that same logic, U.S. states should pass laws so that companies headquartered in those states can't ship jobs to other states. Basically, if specialization has net benefits for individuals, cities, and states, it should for countries as well.

Your comment seems to imply that if other countries are enriched, that's as good as America being enriched. If I lived in those countries, I'd agree, but since I live in America, the only enrichment I value is that which occurs in America.

> Could more be done at a public policy level to help those that have been hurt by trade? Maybe. Globalization and the spread of capitalism more generally are exactly as Schumpeter would have commented "the perrenial gale of creative destruction."

Trouble is, the destruction falls on human beings. Any policy that is good for American workers is good. Any policy that is bad for American workers is bad. Because most Americans are workers.

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software