But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Duh.

Follow the money.

The main reason is money.  If you choke off international trade Walmart's prices skyrocket, along with everyone else's. 

Also some things are just not available in the US, and some things are done better overseas.

But the main reason is economics.

price is actually a terrible argument. It assumes a materialism worldview.

Capitalist companies tend to have a materialistic worldview.

But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Duh.

Follow the money.

The main reason is money.  If you choke off international trade Walmart's prices skyrocket, along with everyone else's. 

Also some things are just not available in the US, and some things are done better overseas.

But the main reason is economics.

price is actually a terrible argument. It assumes a materialism worldview.

Capitalist companies tend to have a materialistic worldview.

sure, but it isn't a good argument for policy unless you accept that consumption is always the best outcome.

But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Duh.

Follow the money.

The main reason is money.  If you choke off international trade Walmart's prices skyrocket, along with everyone else's. 

Also some things are just not available in the US, and some things are done better overseas.

But the main reason is economics.

price is actually a terrible argument. It assumes a materialism worldview.

Capitalist companies tend to have a materialistic worldview.

sure, but it isn't a good argument for policy unless you accept that consumption is always the best outcome.

That is a symptom of the favoring of growth and consumption vs sustainability in the market economy and investment arena.  Have you seen many business plans, let alone government economic strategies that focus on stasis (with continued employment) instead of growth?

This is definitely one of those is vs. ought issues.

But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Duh.

Follow the money.

The main reason is money.  If you choke off international trade Walmart's prices skyrocket, along with everyone else's. 

Also some things are just not available in the US, and some things are done better overseas.

But the main reason is economics.

price is actually a terrible argument. It assumes a materialism worldview.

Capitalist companies tend to have a materialistic worldview.

sure, but it isn't a good argument for policy unless you accept that consumption is always the best outcome.

That is a symptom of the favoring of growth and consumption vs sustainability in the market economy and investment arena.  Have you seen many business plans, let alone government economic strategies that focus on stasis (with continued employment) instead of growth?

This is definitely one of those is vs. ought issues.

Missing my point. Business plans are categorically different from trade policy.

But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Duh.

Follow the money.

The main reason is money.  If you choke off international trade Walmart's prices skyrocket, along with everyone else's. 

Also some things are just not available in the US, and some things are done better overseas.

But the main reason is economics.

price is actually a terrible argument. It assumes a materialism worldview.

Capitalist companies tend to have a materialistic worldview.

sure, but it isn't a good argument for policy unless you accept that consumption is always the best outcome.

That is a symptom of the favoring of growth and consumption vs sustainability in the market economy and investment arena.  Have you seen many business plans, let alone government economic strategies that focus on stasis (with continued employment) instead of growth?

This is definitely one of those is vs. ought issues.

Missing my point. Business plans are categorically different from trade policy.

But in most cases, trade policy is bought and paid for by the same folks who write the business plans.

Not the way it should be, but unfortunately, the way it is.

But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Duh.

Follow the money.

The main reason is money.  If you choke off international trade Walmart's prices skyrocket, along with everyone else's. 

Also some things are just not available in the US, and some things are done better overseas.

But the main reason is economics.

price is actually a terrible argument. It assumes a materialism worldview.

Capitalist companies tend to have a materialistic worldview.

sure, but it isn't a good argument for policy unless you accept that consumption is always the best outcome.

That is a symptom of the favoring of growth and consumption vs sustainability in the market economy and investment arena.  Have you seen many business plans, let alone government economic strategies that focus on stasis (with continued employment) instead of growth?

This is definitely one of those is vs. ought issues.

Missing my point. Business plans are categorically different from trade policy.

But in most cases, trade policy is bought and paid for by the same folks who write the business plans.

Not the way it should be, but unfortunately, the way it is.

well, the topic was about the way it ought to be, not how it is, as jon pointed out. But my point was that trade policy determines business practices to a large degree rather than vice-versa. That the global capitalists are writing rules that favor the current business practices is evidence for that, not against it.

But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Duh.

Follow the money.

The main reason is money.  If you choke off international trade Walmart's prices skyrocket, along with everyone else's. 

Also some things are just not available in the US, and some things are done better overseas.

But the main reason is economics.

price is actually a terrible argument. It assumes a materialism worldview.

Capitalist companies tend to have a materialistic worldview.

sure, but it isn't a good argument for policy unless you accept that consumption is always the best outcome.

I.m not talking about policy, I'm talking about the reasons things are as they are.

But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Duh.

Follow the money.

The main reason is money.  If you choke off international trade Walmart's prices skyrocket, along with everyone else's. 

Also some things are just not available in the US, and some things are done better overseas.

But the main reason is economics.

price is actually a terrible argument. It assumes a materialism worldview.

Capitalist companies tend to have a materialistic worldview.

sure, but it isn't a good argument for policy unless you accept that consumption is always the best outcome.

I.m not talking about policy, I'm talking about the reasons things are as they are.

Yabbut Dave's post (quoted in the nested mess above) reads:

What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

which is about ought rather than is.

"Toyota factories in the USA."

Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.

What makes no sense to me is to ship steel from 5000 miles away to Japan and then make cars and ship them 10,000 miles away.

Sort of like growing grain in Kansas and shipping it to Missouri to feed cows which are then milked and then shipping the milk back to Kansas.

You still don't understand economies of scale (which is why you still don't understand how your operation won't scale up as you envision it).

I understand it far better than you do. But go ahead. Try to educate me.

Um, no you clearly DO NOT.  As is indicated by your comment right here.  You say "What makes no sense to me is to ship steel from 5000 miles away to Japan and then make cars and ship them 10,000 miles away", which is indicative that you do not understand economies of scale.  WHY do you think manufacturers and retailers do this kind of thing?  For kicks?  It is exactly the same reason why your project, if you attempt to scale it up, produces massive infrastructure and transportation costs, along with massive inefficiencies in production of goods - milking by hand, having everyone travel to their goods, everybody doing food production inefficiently, everyone living in a drafty house with terrible insulative power requiring big energy inputs, people trying to smelt their own ore to have a blacksmith build their tools, etc.

You really don't get it, or wouldn't have said what you did.

No I DO get it and you don't.

Think man.

Cars being built in Japan and being shipped to the United States have fuck all to do with economies of scale.

One of the major reasons why Japan has car factories which make some of the worlds best cars is because the Japanese are very smart and very hard-working.

Again... Fuck all to do with economies of scale.

You're an idiot.

No I DO get it and you don't.

You're an idiot.

no u

"Toyota factories in the USA."

Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.

What makes no sense to me is to ship steel from 5000 miles away to Japan and then make cars and ship them 10,000 miles away.

Sort of like growing grain in Kansas and shipping it to Missouri to feed cows which are then milked and then shipping the milk back to Kansas.

You still don't understand economies of scale (which is why you still don't understand how your operation won't scale up as you envision it).

I understand it far better than you do. But go ahead. Try to educate me.

Um, no you clearly DO NOT.  As is indicated by your comment right here.  You say "What makes no sense to me is to ship steel from 5000 miles away to Japan and then make cars and ship them 10,000 miles away", which is indicative that you do not understand economies of scale.  WHY do you think manufacturers and retailers do this kind of thing?  For kicks?  It is exactly the same reason why your project, if you attempt to scale it up, produces massive infrastructure and transportation costs, along with massive inefficiencies in production of goods - milking by hand, having everyone travel to their goods, everybody doing food production inefficiently, everyone living in a drafty house with terrible insulative power requiring big energy inputs, people trying to smelt their own ore to have a blacksmith build their tools, etc.

You really don't get it, or wouldn't have said what you did.

No I DO get it and you don't.

Think man.

Cars being built in Japan and being shipped to the United States have fuck all to do with economies of scale.

One of the major reasons why Japan has car factories which make some of the worlds best cars is because the Japanese are very smart and very hard-working.

Again... Fuck all to do with economies of scale.

You're an idiot.

no u

Of course it has to do with economies of scale.  If Japan only sold to Japanese buyers, they wouldn't benefit from economies of scale.  The bigger the market, the greater the potential gains from scaling up. 

I mean, I'm on your side with the absurdity of some aspects of globalism - air freighting Irish prawns to Thailand to be shelled then re exporting to the UK.  And a lot of global trade is a way of making economies from cheap ununionised labour, not from scale.  But some aspects of it work well - farming out some aspects of car production, for instance. to Mexico, who can do it for less, then reimporting the products for further work to be done by Americans.

The fact is that globalisation DOES increase profits - it's why it happens.  It's why Trump uses Chinese steel, and has his Trump-branded clothing lines made outside the US.

No I DO get it and you don't.

You're an idiot.

no u

Have there been any past discussions with Dave about cost benefit analyses? I feel like there have, but I can't remember them. You'd think he'd have come across them in the business world too, but I really have trouble imagining him grasping even the basic concept, since it takes it for granted that not every proposition is either the world-savingest best thing ever or the world-killingest worst thing ever.

his business experience involves being a glorified office manager.

Office bankrupter.

...
The fact is that globalisation DOES increase profits - it's why it happens.  It's why Trump uses Chinese steel, and has his Trump-branded clothing lines made outside the US.

... and why he thinks Canadians should buy U.S. milk.
Which is why we're discussing this.
So Hawkins's whole point here is that Trump is wrong?
About Canadian milk, steel in Trump buildings, and selling foreign-made Trump-brand clothing?

So the guy that used to drive a Volvo is complaining about Toyotas not being made in the US?

The Toyota Camry is the most American made car in the US, ffs. It's made in Kentucky and Indiana

Nah, even in the 18th Century there was tonnes of trade, spices, cotton, wool, gold, all kinds of stuff from the colonies, and then manufactured goods back to them. Plus industries making things there springing up, etc, etc. I'm probably ignoring rampant protectionism, etc, but nations weren't in any way self sufficient then. He'll even in the Bronze age there was extensive trade around the Mediterranean and it wasn't limited to just there, it had routes going as far as Cornwall, the Indus Valley, etc, etc.

Yeah. Dave's idea of trade is basically Neolithic. Early Neolithic.

"The People of the Plains trade with the People of the Coast because the People of the Coast can't get hides, and the People of the Plains can't get seashells and beads. Such is the Way of Things, as Great Mother intended.
But no Brave from the People of the Plains will ever trade his beads with the People of the Valley, just because their hides are warmer and they ask less beads for them! If they do, Terrific Chief has the right, within the lawful extent of his Bigly power, to take their beads and bash their skulls in, according to the Taboo Act of 9834."

Nah, even in the 18th Century there was tonnes of trade, spices, cotton, wool, gold, all kinds of stuff from the colonies, and then manufactured goods back to them. Plus industries making things there springing up, etc, etc. I'm probably ignoring rampant protectionism, etc, but nations weren't in any way self sufficient then. He'll even in the Bronze age there was extensive trade around the Mediterranean and it wasn't limited to just there, it had routes going as far as Cornwall, the Indus Valley, etc, etc.

Eh, Dave's argument feels like the mercantilist argument to me. Maybe, maybe not.

"Toyota factories in the USA."

Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.

What makes no sense to me is to ship steel from 5000 miles away to Japan and then make cars and ship them 10,000 miles away.

Sort of like growing grain in Kansas and shipping it to Missouri to feed cows which are then milked and then shipping the milk back to Kansas.

You still don't understand economies of scale (which is why you still don't understand how your operation won't scale up as you envision it).

I understand it far better than you do. But go ahead. Try to educate me.

Um, no you clearly DO NOT.  As is indicated by your comment right here.  You say "What makes no sense to me is to ship steel from 5000 miles away to Japan and then make cars and ship them 10,000 miles away", which is indicative that you do not understand economies of scale.  WHY do you think manufacturers and retailers do this kind of thing?  For kicks?  It is exactly the same reason why your project, if you attempt to scale it up, produces massive infrastructure and transportation costs, along with massive inefficiencies in production of goods - milking by hand, having everyone travel to their goods, everybody doing food production inefficiently, everyone living in a drafty house with terrible insulative power requiring big energy inputs, people trying to smelt their own ore to have a blacksmith build their tools, etc.

You really don't get it, or wouldn't have said what you did.

No I DO get it and you don't.

Think man.

Cars being built in Japan and being shipped to the United States have fuck all to do with economies of scale.

One of the major reasons why Japan has car factories which make some of the worlds best cars is because the Japanese are very smart and very hard-working.

Again... Fuck all to do with economies of scale.

You're an idiot.

no u

Of course it has to do with economies of scale.  If Japan only sold to Japanese buyers, they wouldn't benefit from economies of scale.  The bigger the market, the greater the potential gains from scaling up. 

I mean, I'm on your side with the absurdity of some aspects of globalism - air freighting Irish prawns to Thailand to be shelled then re exporting to the UK.  And a lot of global trade is a way of making economies from cheap ununionised labour, not from scale.  But some aspects of it work well - farming out some aspects of car production, for instance. to Mexico, who can do it for less, then reimporting the products for further work to be done by Americans.

The fact is that globalisation DOES increase profits - it's why it happens.  It's why Trump uses Chinese steel, and has his Trump-branded clothing lines made outside the US.

Oh Good Lord.

Yes, the bigger the market, the greater the potential gains from scaling up.

But that has FUCK ALL to do with WHERE THE GODDAMN FACTORY IS LOCATED.

The factory could be in Japan ... or the US ... or Bum Fuck Egypt ... and "economies of scale" principles would apply.

What *I* am claiming - trying to cut through all the BS and confusion propagated here - is that it's STOOPID to have a car factory in Japan to sell to the US market if labor rates are comparable.   The obvious reason is (a) you have to ship materials from God knows where to Japan (b) you have to ship the cars here to the US market.  If you put the factory in the US, then you can source the materials from the US as well (we are resource rich) and you have much less shipping expense.

Moral of this story:  Make policy that encourages putting car factories in the USA for sales to the USA.

The end.

Yes, the bigger the market, the greater the potential gains from scaling up.

But that has FUCK ALL to do with WHERE THE GODDAMN FACTORY IS LOCATED.

The factory could be in Japan ... or the US ... or Bum Fuck Egypt ... and "economies of scale" principles would apply.

Right, so no reason to not build cars in Japan and ship them to the US. Sorted.

Yes, the bigger the market, the greater the potential gains from scaling up.

But that has FUCK ALL to do with WHERE THE GODDAMN FACTORY IS LOCATED.

The factory could be in Japan ... or the US ... or Bum Fuck Egypt ... and "economies of scale" principles would apply.

I do wish occasionally you would read instead of Hawkinsing. 

If the market extends beyond the country of manufacture i.e. is very big, then someone is going to be importing stuff that was made in a DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

OK?

If you abolish imports (every country consumes only its own goods) then you also abolish exports, right?

What *I* am claiming - trying to cut through all the BS and confusion propagated here - is that it's STOOPID to have a car factory in Japan to sell to the US market if labor rates are comparable. 

YOu would be less confused if you actually tried to understand what people are saying, instead of assuming that they, not you, are being stupid.

The obvious reason is (a) you have to ship materials from God knows where to Japan (b) you have to ship the cars here to the US market.  If you put the factory in the US, then you can source the materials from the US as well (we are resource rich) and you have much less shipping expense.

Moral of this story:  Make policy that encourages putting car factories in the USA for sales to the USA.

The end.

Ah, so this only applies to the US, not to Japan, or other smaller countries?

If so, what do you think happens to US export deals if the US bans imports?

(we are resource rich)

Well, yes and no.  A lot of critical stuff for today's cars and other products. comes from other countries.  Nickel from Canada.  Rare earths from China. We have bauxite but not enough to satisfy our needs; Australia, South America, and Africa have gobs. China, Russia, Portugal, Austria, and Bolivia give us tungsten. China, Russia, South Africa, Tajikistan, and Bolivia give us antimony.

Modern civilization requires many more different resources than your 14th century distopia.