Reply
Tue 22 Apr, 2008 01:25 am
Why are so many from both major political parties so averse to freedom and capitalism?
Video
"I hold this truth to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez."
-Steven E. Landsburg
Quote:Xenophobia and Politics
Steven E. Landsburg, 03.28.05
Why protectionism is a lot like racism.
Not long ago in American history accidents of birth were considered legitimate grounds for employment discrimination. Political platforms contained phrases like: "Federal contracts, whenever possible, should be performed by white workers." Politicians demanded tax incentives to reward firms for hiring whites instead of blacks or showing other kinds of favoritism. Those same politicians endorsed "Right to Know" legislation to alert consumers when products were produced by the "wrong" kind of workers. They embraced slogans like "Buy white!"
When I say this kind of thing was commonplace "not long ago," I really mean not long ago. Except for one minor and morally insignificant difference, I got all of the above from John Kerry's Web site. The only change I made is this: Where Kerry said "American," I substituted "white."
It's not just Kerry, of course. Both major parties (and most of the minor ones) are infested with protectionist fellow travelers who would discriminate on the basis of national origin no less virulently than David Duke or any other overt racist would discriminate on the basis of skin color. But if racism is morally repugnant-and it is-then so is xenophobia, and for exactly the same reasons.
Now hold on a minute, you might say. Isn't the U.S. government elected by Americans to serve Americans? Indeed, don't governments exist in the first place for the express purpose of favoring their own citizens? The U. S. Army discriminates by defending American soil more vigorously than the soil of, say, Peru. We discriminate against Icelanders by locating our interstate highways in North America for our own convenience rather than in Reykjavik for theirs. So why shouldn't American government policies favor American workers at the expense of foreigners?
I have answers.
First: Yes, the U.S. government is elected by Americans to serve Americans. There was a time when a lot of southern sheriffs could have said they'd been elected by white citizens to serve white citizens. It does not follow that it's okay to run roughshod over the rights of everyone else.
Second: Defense and interstate highways are great collective undertakings. We pay for them through our taxes. It makes sense that those who pay the costs should reap the benefits. It is no more inappropriate for the U.S. Army to defend Americans instead of Peruvians than it is for Burger King to provide food for Burger King customers instead of McDonald's customers.
But the labor market isn't like that at all. When General Motors hires an American in Detroit or a Mexican in Ciudad Juarez, the rest of us are not footing the bill. And that makes it none of our business. Nor should we want it to be.
I hold this truth to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez. Of course we care most about the people closest to us-our families more than our friends and our friends more than our acquaintances. But once you start talking about total strangers, they all ought to be on pretty much the same footing. You could say you care more about white strangers than black strangers because you've got more in common with whites. Does that make it okay to punish firms for hiring blacks?
It's also worth mentioning that laws intended to "protect" Americans raise the price of goods that Americans buy. I won't dwell on this because it's already obvious to anyone with a dollop of economic literacy. Besides, it's tangential to my main point, which is this: Even if Kerry-style (or Nader-style or Buchanan-style) protectionism could improve Americans' well-being at the expense of foreigners, it would still be wrong.
After all, if it's okay to enrich ourselves by denying foreigners the right to earn a living, why not enrich ourselves by invading peaceful countries and seizing their assets? Most of us don't think that's a good idea, and not just because it might backfire. We don't think it's a good idea because we believe human beings have human rights, whatever their color and wherever they live. Stealing assets is wrong, and so is stealing the right to earn a living, no matter where the victim was born.
Steven E. Landsburg, adjunct economics professor at the University of Rochester
We are not afraid of those things. AMERICA FIRST is what you are afraid of.
We should be afraid of the empty and mindless slogans that people, who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag, use when they champion the "public good" over the individual's right to freedom.
Mexica wrote:We should be afraid of the empty and mindless slogans that people, who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag, use when they champion the "public good" over the individual's right to freedom.
As opposed to the people that burn the U.S. flag and demand everything be handed to them? No thanks.
McGentrix wrote:Mexica wrote:We should be afraid of the empty and mindless slogans that people, who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag, use when they champion the "public good" over the individual's right to freedom.
As opposed to the people that burn the U.S. flag and demand everything be handed to them? No thanks.
No, as opposed to people who do not believe in freedom and believe that the "public good" trumps the individual's right to freedom.
Mexica wrote:McGentrix wrote:Mexica wrote:We should be afraid of the empty and mindless slogans that people, who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag, use when they champion the "public good" over the individual's right to freedom.
As opposed to the people that burn the U.S. flag and demand everything be handed to them? No thanks.
No, as opposed to people who do not believe in freedom and believe that the "public good" trumps the individual's right to freedom.
We do believe in freedom for all American citizens. All American Citizens rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. Non US Citizens have no rights under our Constitution.
Is that your problem?
woiyo wrote:Mexica wrote:McGentrix wrote:Mexica wrote:We should be afraid of the empty and mindless slogans that people, who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag, use when they champion the "public good" over the individual's right to freedom.
As opposed to the people that burn the U.S. flag and demand everything be handed to them? No thanks.
No, as opposed to people who do not believe in freedom and believe that the "public good" trumps the individual's right to freedom.
We do believe in freedom for all American citizens. All American Citizens rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. Non US Citizens have no rights under our Constitution.
Is that your problem?
How can that be my problem? I have no idea what you're blathering about.
The post is about so-called U.S. protective policies, which unfairly limits the rights of so-called Americans to take their property abroad. It has nothing to do with and no mention (besides yours) of non-citizens having or not having rights under the U.S. constitution.
Re: Why protectionism is a lot like racism
Mexica wrote:Quote: But the labor market isn't like that at all. When General Motors hires an American in Detroit or a Mexican in Ciudad Juarez, the rest of us are not footing the bill. And that makes it none of our business. Nor should we want it to be.
His argument falls apart right here. GM gets several major tax breaks at the expense of U.S. citizens. (Other countries may grant them tax considerations too. I don't know.) We are footing the bill - or a t least a portion of it.
Once they start feeding at the public tit, it
is our business.
I will state that I do agree with him in general. It's just that his argument sucks.
Mexica wrote:woiyo wrote:Mexica wrote:McGentrix wrote:Mexica wrote:We should be afraid of the empty and mindless slogans that people, who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag, use when they champion the "public good" over the individual's right to freedom.
As opposed to the people that burn the U.S. flag and demand everything be handed to them? No thanks.
No, as opposed to people who do not believe in freedom and believe that the "public good" trumps the individual's right to freedom.
We do believe in freedom for all American citizens. All American Citizens rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. Non US Citizens have no rights under our Constitution.
Is that your problem?
How can that be my problem? I have no idea what you're blathering about.
The post is about so-called U.S. protective policies, which unfairly limits the rights of so-called Americans to take their property abroad. It has nothing to do with and no mention (besides yours) of non-citizens having or not having rights under the U.S. constitution.
The point is protectionism is NOT ANYTHING like RACISM. For some reason, you think someones country of origin relates to a "race". There is nothing wrong with putting Americans first with respect to companies hiring practices. I object to companies selling out their manufacturing to foreign countries for "profit" and they ship back inferior products.
woiyo wrote:Mexica wrote:McGentrix wrote:Mexica wrote:We should be afraid of the empty and mindless slogans that people, who often wrap themselves in the U.S. flag, use when they champion the "public good" over the individual's right to freedom.
As opposed to the people that burn the U.S. flag and demand everything be handed to them? No thanks.
No, as opposed to people who do not believe in freedom and believe that the "public good" trumps the individual's right to freedom.
We do believe in freedom for all American citizens. All American Citizens rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. Non US Citizens have no rights under our Constitution.
Is that your problem?
First, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are not restricted to American Citizens. Not only is this restriction nowhere to be found in the Constitution... the Courts (who have Constitutional authority) have clear stated several times have stated that non-citizens do have Constitutional rights.
This makes sense when you consider the principles our country was founded on...
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In the real world of geo-political / global economics there is no such thing as a level playing field.
Protectionism from many sources (tax breaks, tax incentives, soft money, tariffs, duties, borders, government military spending, any number of other less visible barriers) are common.
On a global basis things are definably better than they were some years ago however. Canadian / US economic relations are a good example of the mutual benefits of a more level playing field.
I believe that many of those Americans that don't like American corporations to move their factories outside the U.S. reflects an unwritten agreement in the minds of American citizens that there was a contract of sorts each time this country asked its citizens to fight in a war going back to the War of Independence. Now along comes some corporations that only are concerned about the bottom line profit for the share holders, and the jobs go elsewhere. Well, that just isn't fair; ask Americans to die for the country in bad times, but then give Americans no way to survive in good (peaceful) times?
The argument that corporations have is that competing in a global marketplace, the American wage earner has made his/her labor too expensive for the corporation to survive in the U.S., and they must go elsewhere for the cheaper labor.
So, for a few decades one country gets the factory, and as wages go up there the corporation decides to go to another country with even cheaper labor. Eventually, the country that can keep its labor force living, the most meager of existences, gets the factories.
The supposed answer is to have an unending supply of new higher paid jobs for American workers. That doesn't seem to be happening, so the next best thing is to automate many functions in a factory, so wages here can stay higher with fewer workers. But, I don't like jobs going outside the U.S. for American corporations.
In effect, workers in foreign countries have not earned the right to make a living from American corporations. This is not racism or xenophobia; it's called taking care of one's family first, in my opinion. If corporations choose to take their factories elsewhere, Americans, good consumers that they are, can also choose to stop buying that product.
I object to companies selling out their manufacturing to foreign countries for "profit" and they ship back inferior products.
-woiyo
Well, thankfully in a free-market economy you don't have to buy a company's "inferior" product. Of course, it would seem that many "Americans" are just fine with buying these "inferior" products.
For some reason, you think someones country of origin relates to a "race".
-woiyo
That simply isn't true. But tell you what: why don't you quote where I equated "country of origin to race" or even quote where you think I implied that and then explain why you think I made that implication. But I'm sure you wont, because I never said I think that "someone's country of origin relates to race."
The point is protectionism is NOT ANYTHING like RACISM. There is nothing wrong with putting Americans first with respect to companies hiring practices.
-woiyo
I know you're arguing against the idea that caring more for people because they happen to be "American" than for others because they happen to be Mexican isn't like racism. What you haven't done is explain why. If you go to the 3:20 mark of the video Landsburg explains why discrimination on he basis of national origin is a lot like discrimination on the basis of race. To care more for people who happen to be American than for people who happen to be Mexican is fundamentally no different than to care more for people who happen to be white than for people who happen to be black.
Now I'm fairly sure, like the fox interviewer, you will disagree; but hopefully you'll succeed where he failed. Can and will you explain why there is a difference. As Mr. Landsburg's unanswered question challenged, "what's the difference?"
I believe that many of those Americans that don't like American corporations to move their factories outside the U.S. reflects an unwritten agreement in the minds of American citizens that there was a contract of sorts each time this country asked its citizens to fight in a war going back to the War of Independence...In effect, workers in foreign countries have not earned the right to make a living from American corporations.
-Foofie
According to you, one earns this "right" [although it does seem rather contradictory to have to earn a right] when he or she fights in a war. What about those "Americans" who have not fought in a war: have they "earned the right to make a living from American corporations?" Seems a rather flawed line of reasoning, in my opinion.
Re: Why protectionism is a lot like racism
I will state that I do agree with him in general. It's just that his argument sucks.
-fishin
Well then, maybe he should read your posts and learn how to make arguments that wont "suck." lol
His argument falls apart right here. GM gets several major tax breaks at the expense of U.S. citizens. Once they start feeding at the public tit, it is our business.
-fishin
So "tax breaks" equates to "feeding at the public tit" and such feeding makes "it our business?" People who claim their children as dependents also receive tax breaks. So it wold seem that they too, ironically enough, are feeding at the public tit, and that "it" becomes "our business." Of course, I'd like to know what you mean by "it." What, exactly, is our business?
Hey, this is America. When Detroit had more car assembly lines, the workers were a rainbow. So, for the U.S., protectionism is not like racism, since the Americans that work in the U.S. are from all races, colors, and heritages.
So, I am happy when a Mexican-American gets a good salary in a U.S. based factory. I am not happy when that same job gets exported to Mexico (for example) and that worker's cousin now has the job. No racism; just protectiing Americans' livlihoods. And, Americans come in all colors, races, heritages, religions.
I reiterate. American families have earned the right to expect a livlihood from a rich country like the U.S.A. No reason, other than the bottom line profit motive, to send American jobs elsewhere. Other country's workers have no right to expect to have jobs from American corporations (in their countries), other than for the fact they expect less and get less pay.
Todo el mundo no debe vivir como la gente in los Estados Unidos. Entiende?
Hey, this is America. When Detroit had more car assembly lines, the workers were a rainbow. So, for the U.S., protectionism is not like racism, since the Americans that work in the U.S. are from all races, colors, and heritages.
-Foofie
No one has disputed that "Americans come in all colors, races, heritages, religions." You're making a straw-man argument; perhaps, it is because you do not understand the challenge
Of course protectionism is like racism. To value someone more simply because they happen to be American is fundamentally no different than value someone more because they happen to be white. Both conditions are (as far as the individual in question is concerned) matters of chance.
American families have earned the right to expect a livlihood from a rich country like the U.S.A.
-Foofie
I know, you said by fighting in past wars. But since not all "Americans" have fought in wars, you must think that not all Americans have earned the right "to expect a livlihood from a rich country like the U.S.A."
Of course, people do have the right to expect a livelihood, they just aren't entitled to one - last time I checked, there was no Amendment guaranteeing US citizens a right to work.
Would Canada rather hire Americans or Canadians to work in their local companies?
Would Mexico rather hire Mexicans or Americans to work in their local companies?
A simple yes or no question.
woiyo wrote:Would Canada rather hire Americans or Canadians to work in their local companies?
Would Mexico rather hire Mexicans or Americans to work in their local companies?
A simple yes or no question.
True, those are rather simple questions. However, how can I answer honestly or accurately questions that would be better asked of Mexicans and Canadians? I can only answer for myself.
Now, I know my questions wasn't simple, like yours, but why don't you at least
try to answer it? Discussions tend to be more fruitful when people honetly answer questions directed towards them.
Mexica wrote:woiyo wrote:Would Canada rather hire Americans or Canadians to work in their local companies?
Would Mexico rather hire Mexicans or Americans to work in their local companies?
A simple yes or no question.
True, those are rather simple questions. However, how can I answer honestly or accurately questions that would be better asked of Mexicans and Canadians? I can only answer for myself.
Now, I know my questions wasn't simple, like yours, but why don't you at least
try to answer it? Discussions tend to be more fruitful when people honetly answer questions directed towards them.
Than Canada and Mexico would be "guilty" of "racism" in your opinion.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace