US Senate Passes PRO-IP Act
I hope your comment isn't serious and I wasted my time writing this comment, because if it is, nearly everything in it is entirely wrong and bass ackwards.
First, your comment about âoewe'll do laissez-faireâ but penalize you and tax you, blah blah blah, is ridiculous. Clearly taxes, quotas, and tariffs are not laissez faire.
The arguments against outsourcing and for protective tariffs are a total joke. They necessarily rest on the faulty mercantilist assumption that there is a fixed amount of labor in the world and when a company outsources labor to another country, US consumers are just that much worse off. I'll address that imaginary problem of eliminating âoeinternal jobsâ later. Regardless, when one argues that outsourcing is bad and tariffs are good, one is unquestionably arguing that it is 1) better for US consumers to pay higher prices for their goods than they otherwise would, and 2) that US workers should work in less-productive jobs than they otherwise would. Both of these will be explained and argued against in the quote from a book I have copied below.
The two largest reasons why people like yourself favor ridiculous economic legislation like high tariffs are that 1) you only look at the immediate consequences of the legislation, and 2) you clearly do not have a background in economics. Sure, tariffs help prevent foreign competition in US markets. This is good for the US producers of the product. However, it also keeps prices higher for US consumers, and keeps people employed in underproductive, less-than-competitive firms.
Every dollar over the world price that US consumers have to pay for a product is another dollar that they don't have to buy other items. For example, say China was producing sweaters for $25 and the US sweater industry produced them for $30. There is a protective tariff on foreign sweaters to allow US producers to compete. Now suppose the tariff is repealed. I'll quote directly from Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson:
"The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost retail $30 apiece can be bought for $25. Consumers can now buy the same quality of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money. If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $25 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment-as the American manufacturer no doubt predicted-in the sweater industry in England. With the $5 left over they help employment in any number of other industries in the UNited States. But the results do not end there. By buying English sweaters they furnish the English with dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as fluctuating exchange rates, loans, credits, etc.) is teh only way in which the British can eventually make use of these dollars. Because we have permitted the British to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain perpetually unused. So as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And although fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed-and much more efficiently empoloyed-in, say, the American washing-machine or aircraft-building business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being force to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to buy what they want where they can get it cheapest. American consumers are better provided with sweaters, and British consumers are better provided with washing machines and aircraft.â
Please, try to argue that higher prices, less productivity, and fewer exports are all bad things for the economy. Hopefully I have adequately demonstrated the fallacies that outsourcing hurts the economy and protective tariffs help it.
Google Reveals Wireless Vision — Open Networks
Like anyone uses any other search engine anyway... :)
Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app
While I agree with you, the 9th Amendment states that just because some rights are enumerated therein doesn't mean people don't have other rights that aren't enumerated. I'm definitely not saying that people have the "right" to use a cell phone in any manner they wish, just that the enumeration of certain rights wasn't meant to "deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's Apple's product and if they are able to, there is nothing wrong with controlling what apps there are in the app store.
Interestingly and perhaps contradictorily, I have the opposite opinion regarding DRM and music/movies.
Posted from a macbook pro.
New Rifle Tech Offers Variable Muzzle Speed
You posted a link to a story about anti-globalization protesters. If you're going to complain about the (violent) suppression of free speech, at least use an example of the suppression of a legitimate claim. Globalization is good for everyone in almost every way imaginable. If trade between various states/provinces in a nation is good, then it is highly unlikely that trade between nations is bad, considering the only differences are the color of the flags and perhaps the languages the people speak and the colors of their skin.