• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Agman

Sandhusker

Well-known member
A couple of weeks ago, you wouldn't answer a question of mine - I guess you needed more time to think on it. Here it is again;

Let's talk about your lumber analogy. For those that don't remember, Agman used lumber in place of beef to explain the benefits of international trade. He explained how WE benefit when WE can buy cheaper trees abroad instead of locally to make lumber and make more money. He then said that WE can make even more money by turning that lumber derived of foreign trees into boards. Now, Agman, please bring this back to the beef industry and tell me who "WE" are and who the local tree seller represents and what is going to happen to them.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
A couple of weeks ago, you wouldn't answer a question of mine - I guess you needed more time to think on it. Here it is again;

Let's talk about your lumber analogy. For those that don't remember, Agman used lumber in place of beef to explain the benefits of international trade. He explained how WE benefit when WE can buy cheaper trees abroad instead of locally to make lumber and make more money. He then said that WE can make even more money by turning that lumber derived of foreign trees into boards. Now, Agman, please bring this back to the beef industry and tell me who "WE" are and who the local tree seller represents and what is going to happen to them.

It was over your head then and it most ceratinly is now. You cannot even explain my position correctly. No wonder you are so confused.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
A couple of weeks ago, you wouldn't answer a question of mine - I guess you needed more time to think on it. Here it is again;

Let's talk about your lumber analogy. For those that don't remember, Agman used lumber in place of beef to explain the benefits of international trade. He explained how WE benefit when WE can buy cheaper trees abroad instead of locally to make lumber and make more money. He then said that WE can make even more money by turning that lumber derived of foreign trees into boards. Now, Agman, please bring this back to the beef industry and tell me who "WE" are and who the local tree seller represents and what is going to happen to them.

It was over your head then and it most ceratinly is now. You cannot even explain my position correctly. No wonder you are so confused.

I'm not asking for anything too deep. I just want to know who "we" is and what happens to the local tree seller. This was your analogy, I would think you could answer the question instead of pulling your trademark "you wouldn't understand".
 

Tommy

Well-known member
agman...It was over your head then and it most ceratinly is now. You cannot even explain my position correctly. No wonder you are so confused.

Please explain it to the rest of us agman, or do you think it will be over all our heads? Surely there are some of us out here that are smart enough to understand, but probably not in your thinking.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
A couple of weeks ago, you wouldn't answer a question of mine - I guess you needed more time to think on it. Here it is again;

Let's talk about your lumber analogy. For those that don't remember, Agman used lumber in place of beef to explain the benefits of international trade. He explained how WE benefit when WE can buy cheaper trees abroad instead of locally to make lumber and make more money. He then said that WE can make even more money by turning that lumber derived of foreign trees into boards. Now, Agman, please bring this back to the beef industry and tell me who "WE" are and who the local tree seller represents and what is going to happen to them.

It was over your head then and it most ceratinly is now. You cannot even explain my position correctly. No wonder you are so confused.

I'm not asking for anything too deep. I just want to know who "we" is and what happens to the local tree seller. This was your analogy, I would think you could answer the question instead of pulling your trademark "you wouldn't understand".

If you don't understand then admit to it. Don't try to convince readers you understand something when you don't. If you did understand you would not be asking me to explain again. I not into your play on words.
 

agman

Well-known member
Tommy said:
agman...It was over your head then and it most ceratinly is now. You cannot even explain my position correctly. No wonder you are so confused.

Please explain it to the rest of us agman, or do you think it will be over all our heads? Surely there are some of us out here that are smart enough to understand, but probably not in your thinking.

I am certain there are many on this forum who are smart enough to understand my explanation which was merely an example of the benefit of "Comparative Advantage" in trade. That evidently is new to you or you would not need any further explanation. I suggest you could learn from this statement by Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations"...

"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. " (Book IV, Section ii, 12)

The idea here is simple and intuitive. If our country can produce some set of goods at lower cost than a foreign country, and if the foreign country can produce some other set of goods at a lower cost than we can produce them, then clearly it would be best for us to trade our relatively cheaper goods for their relatively cheaper goods. In this way both countries may gain from trade.

You might also want to read David Ricardo's book "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation". You might even learn something beneficial for a change Tommy.

The only addition I made to my explanation was to turn imported raw lumber into 2X4's, thus adding more value creating the possibility of exporting that added value. Is that so difficult to understand? Have you never heard of JAPAN? Enough said on this subject-you can learn the rest on your own if you have a genuine interest other than tagging along as a cheerleader with Sandhusker.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Yada yada yada. You still didn't answer my question. Is it that dang difficult? I'll type slow and rephrase; In the cattle industry, who is the "we" that profits from bypassing the domestic cattle markets in favor of foreign, and what happens to the domestic producers who are bypassed?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Tommy said:
agman...It was over your head then and it most ceratinly is now. You cannot even explain my position correctly. No wonder you are so confused.

Please explain it to the rest of us agman, or do you think it will be over all our heads? Surely there are some of us out here that are smart enough to understand, but probably not in your thinking.

I am certain there are many on this forum who are smart enough to understand my explanation which was merely an example of the benefit of "Comparative Advantage" in trade. That evidently is new to you or you would not need any further explanation. I suggest you could learn from this statement by Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations"...

"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. " (Book IV, Section ii, 12)

The idea here is simple and intuitive. If our country can produce some set of goods at lower cost than a foreign country, and if the foreign country can produce some other set of goods at a lower cost than we can produce them, then clearly it would be best for us to trade our relatively cheaper goods for their relatively cheaper goods. In this way both countries may gain from trade.

You might also want to read David Ricardo's book "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation". You might even learn something beneficial for a change Tommy.

The only addition I made to my explanation was to turn imported raw lumber into 2X4's, thus adding more value creating the possibility of exporting that added value. Is that so difficult to understand? Have you never heard of JAPAN? Enough said on this subject-you can learn the rest on your own if you have a genuine interest other than tagging along as a cheerleader with Sandhusker.

Agman, your misuse of Adam Smith and Ricardo is amazing. Just as the gun arguments over marketing agreements have shot yourself if the foot, so too has your lack of reading comprehension of these two pioneers of economics and world trade.

Do you think by just quoting these guys you have a higher standard of credibility? You must also have good reading comprehension and an intelligence that goes beyond the first grade.

Since you have brought up Ricardo twice (the first time I let is slide) let us take his arguments and how you seem to be a little mixed up. If need be we can go through an example to illustrate the points and if anyone would like a more detailed explanation posted, please send me a pm and I will try to work it in. Short of that I will go straight to the point of the free trade arguments.

In Ricardo's book there are some assumptions made about free trade. One of the main assumptions is that free trade is trade between individuals and that this free trade voluntary. If we take our industry for example, we see how these assumptions are not holding. How voluntary is telling the Japanese to forgo their sovereign right to food safety and adopt some mickey mouse "world body" standard that is lower than their own? How voluntary is it to threaten sanctions against them if they don't go along with lower food safety standards (bse testing)? The right not to trade is as important as the right to trade. The current situation in international beef trade typifies the fallacies you try to push.

Point number two, is the "free trade" in this scenario between indiviuals or between corporate oligopolies? Is it in the best interest of Japan to sell out its sovereign rights to these large business behomouths?

In the case of beef, since you bring it up, agman, the international beef trade is in the interests of big packers and their supply chains, not the domestic producers. We have allowed the middlemen to make free trade arguments for their own profit, not for the profit of the producers and other interests in a society.

What middlemen in trade do is arbitrage the differences between countries for their own benefit. They sell this as "free trade" when in reality they are the ones profiting. What do producers get in exchange in the beef trade, agman? Cheap fillers for ground beef and lower quality (select) meat being sold at walmart on price that has to be pumped up with artificial ingredients and gas to even make the apperance look good to customers? They are doing to beef exactly what happened in the red delicious apple market. They are ruining it just to make a buck. How has that helped consumers or producers?

On trade with China. The U.S. manufactoring and producer segments have been the real losers with "global trade". Cheap chinese labor is replacing U.S. labor in these instances while the intellectual rights to the products and to the production systems is being stolen by the chinese with no chance of restitution. Traders (Walmart) are benefiting. Another beneficiary to this trade is the overspending administration. When we arbitrage labor and give away the intellectual property from the the U.S. with chinese labor and backwardness we do get products at a lower cost. This benefit comes at the cost of the U.S. worker. Sure the goods are cheaper. This is another benefit that comes with the trade. This suppression of prices through this arbitrage would seem to be beneficial to both sides but in fact, by trading with the chinese, we are allowing their repressive regime to benefit. They have unleashed the benefits of limited capitalism while we have, by allowing suppression of the producer surplus by market power, have moved towards it.

The "free traders" have arbitraged the differences between the U.S. and China to the benefit of the chinese and the traders as well as a suppression of the inflation rate that the overspending Congress benefits from. Producers are left holding the bag. We have higher taxes in in this instance, but the producers are the ones paying for these higher taxes.

Go read Ricardo again, answer Sandhusker's questions, and stop selling out producers in this country for your own self interest, agman.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Yada yada yada. You still didn't answer my question. Is it that dang difficult? I'll type slow and rephrase; In the cattle industry, who is the "we" that profits from bypassing the domestic cattle markets in favor of foreign, and what happens to the domestic producers who are bypassed?

If you have not figured that out on your own there is nothing I can do to help you. As I said I, am not into playing your little word games.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Yada yada yada. You still didn't answer my question. Is it that dang difficult? I'll type slow and rephrase; In the cattle industry, who is the "we" that profits from bypassing the domestic cattle markets in favor of foreign, and what happens to the domestic producers who are bypassed?

If you have not figured that out on your own there is nothing I can do to help you. As I said I, am not into playing your little word games.

I'm not playing any "little word games", it's YOUR analogy! Why won't you answer a simple question? You're showing what you're made of, Agman.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Yada yada yada. You still didn't answer my question. Is it that dang difficult? I'll type slow and rephrase; In the cattle industry, who is the "we" that profits from bypassing the domestic cattle markets in favor of foreign, and what happens to the domestic producers who are bypassed?

If you have not figured that out on your own there is nothing I can do to help you. As I said I, am not into playing your little word games.

In this argument Sandhusker is only trying to help you help yourself, agman. If you can not answer the question maybe you should stick to something more simple.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "In the cattle industry, who is the "we" that profits from bypassing the domestic cattle markets in favor of foreign, and what happens to the domestic producers who are bypassed?"

When Japanese consumers bypass their domestic cattle markets in favor of US beef, we benefit.

What happens to the Japanese producers who are bypassed? Nothing if they sell that beef to the US consumer at the same price they would have received domestically.

Hope that answers your question. LOL!

Gee, thought you really had a live one there huh? ZZZzzzzzzzzz!


In a global cattle market, if domestic cattle are passed up by domestic consumers for foreign cattle, it means that more domestic cattle are available for foreign consumers on the world market. There is only so many world market cattle and there is only so many world market consumers. If you play in a world market, one person's loss will be another's gain. If we don't import cattle from Canada, Canada will send those cattle to Japan and Japan will need that many less cattle from the US. That's what import blamers like you and the rest of the R-CALF clan can't get through your import blaming heads. Stopping imports will not remove that imported beef from the global market. If all foreign trade is to cease, we will take less money for our cattle since we have historically, 7 years pre-bse, exported more dollars of beef and beef by products than we have imported to the tune of about $28 more per head. FACT!



~SH~
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
He can answer the question, he just won't. Answering the question would show where producers really place in his world.

No, answering your question would be playing into your little word game. If you have a problem with what I explained then state your case or go play in your sandbox with kids your age.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Tommy said:
agman...It was over your head then and it most ceratinly is now. You cannot even explain my position correctly. No wonder you are so confused.

Please explain it to the rest of us agman, or do you think it will be over all our heads? Surely there are some of us out here that are smart enough to understand, but probably not in your thinking.

I am certain there are many on this forum who are smart enough to understand my explanation which was merely an example of the benefit of "Comparative Advantage" in trade. That evidently is new to you or you would not need any further explanation. I suggest you could learn from this statement by Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations"...

"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. " (Book IV, Section ii, 12)

The idea here is simple and intuitive. If our country can produce some set of goods at lower cost than a foreign country, and if the foreign country can produce some other set of goods at a lower cost than we can produce them, then clearly it would be best for us to trade our relatively cheaper goods for their relatively cheaper goods. In this way both countries may gain from trade.

You might also want to read David Ricardo's book "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation". You might even learn something beneficial for a change Tommy.

The only addition I made to my explanation was to turn imported raw lumber into 2X4's, thus adding more value creating the possibility of exporting that added value. Is that so difficult to understand? Have you never heard of JAPAN? Enough said on this subject-you can learn the rest on your own if you have a genuine interest other than tagging along as a cheerleader with Sandhusker.

Agman, your misuse of Adam Smith and Ricardo is amazing. Just as the gun arguments over marketing agreements have shot yourself if the foot, so too has your lack of reading comprehension of these two pioneers of economics and world trade.

Do you think by just quoting these guys you have a higher standard of credibility? You must also have good reading comprehension and an intelligence that goes beyond the first grade.

Since you have brought up Ricardo twice (the first time I let is slide) let us take his arguments and how you seem to be a little mixed up. If need be we can go through an example to illustrate the points and if anyone would like a more detailed explanation posted, please send me a pm and I will try to work it in. Short of that I will go straight to the point of the free trade arguments.

In Ricardo's book there are some assumptions made about free trade. One of the main assumptions is that free trade is trade between individuals and that this free trade voluntary. If we take our industry for example, we see how these assumptions are not holding. How voluntary is telling the Japanese to forgo their sovereign right to food safety and adopt some mickey mouse "world body" standard that is lower than their own? How voluntary is it to threaten sanctions against them if they don't go along with lower food safety standards (bse testing)? The right not to trade is as important as the right to trade. The current situation in international beef trade typifies the fallacies you try to push.

Point number two, is the "free trade" in this scenario between indiviuals or between corporate oligopolies? Is it in the best interest of Japan to sell out its sovereign rights to these large business behomouths?

In the case of beef, since you bring it up, agman, the international beef trade is in the interests of big packers and their supply chains, not the domestic producers. We have allowed the middlemen to make free trade arguments for their own profit, not for the profit of the producers and other interests in a society.

What middlemen in trade do is arbitrage the differences between countries for their own benefit. They sell this as "free trade" when in reality they are the ones profiting. What do producers get in exchange in the beef trade, agman? Cheap fillers for ground beef and lower quality (select) meat being sold at walmart on price that has to be pumped up with artificial ingredients and gas to even make the apperance look good to customers? They are doing to beef exactly what happened in the red delicious apple market. They are ruining it just to make a buck. How has that helped consumers or producers?

On trade with China. The U.S. manufactoring and producer segments have been the real losers with "global trade". Cheap chinese labor is replacing U.S. labor in these instances while the intellectual rights to the products and to the production systems is being stolen by the chinese with no chance of restitution. Traders (Walmart) are benefiting. Another beneficiary to this trade is the overspending administration. When we arbitrage labor and give away the intellectual property from the the U.S. with chinese labor and backwardness we do get products at a lower cost. This benefit comes at the cost of the U.S. worker. Sure the goods are cheaper. This is another benefit that comes with the trade. This suppression of prices through this arbitrage would seem to be beneficial to both sides but in fact, by trading with the chinese, we are allowing their repressive regime to benefit. They have unleashed the benefits of limited capitalism while we have, by allowing suppression of the producer surplus by market power, have moved towards it.

The "free traders" have arbitraged the differences between the U.S. and China to the benefit of the chinese and the traders as well as a suppression of the inflation rate that the overspending Congress benefits from. Producers are left holding the bag. We have higher taxes in in this instance, but the producers are the ones paying for these higher taxes.


Go read Ricardo again, answer Sandhusker's questions, and stop selling out producers in this country for your own self interest, agman.

As usual, who would care of your interpretation of events including Ricardo and Adam Smith. The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have excess time on your hands to type meaningless discretions of your distorted view of events. You have demonstrated a clear willingness to lie, distort and accuse at every turn without ever providing any support for those accusations. You want others to answer questions but when you are asked to provide evidence of your claims you just conveniently fail to ever answer. You continue to fool no one but yourself.

As far a me selling this country out only a total uniformed fool and liar like yourself would make such a stupid and unsupportable statement. Get off your medication and get a real life.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
He can answer the question, he just won't. Answering the question would show where producers really place in his world.

No, answering your question would be playing into your little word game. If you have a problem with what I explained then state your case or go play in your sandbox with kids your age.

My problem is that you refuse to answer a little question. It was your analogy, Agman. I'm not playing word games. I'm just asking questions about the players. Who is this "we" who makes all the money and what happens to the domestic supplier who is bypassed? Pretty simple questions, I would think.
 
Top