Wind could provide 20 pct of world power by 2030: study

Oct 12, 2010
A windfarm is seen on the outskirts of Beijing in August 2010.Wind power could meet about a fifth of the world's electricity demand within 20 years, an industry group and environmental watchdog Greenpeace predicted in a new report released Tuesday.

Wind power could meet about a fifth of the world's electricity demand within 20 years, an industry group and environmental watchdog Greenpeace predicted in a new report released on Tuesday.

The global market for wind power grew 41.7 percent on year in 2009, beating average annual growth of 28.6 percent over the past 13 years, said Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, or GWEC.

China ranked second in the world in installed wind generating capacity in 2009 and was the largest buyer of wind technology, Sawyer told reporters at the launch of GWEC and Greenpeace's Global Wind Energy Outlook 2010 report.

"We would expect China to continue to be the largest market and perhaps even be the (overall) largest market in the world by the end of this year," he said.

The report's "advanced scenario" -- its most optimistic outlook -- projects the world's combined installed wind turbines would produce 2,600 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity by 2020 -- equal to 11.5 to 12.3 percent of power demand.

By 2030, wind energy would produce 5,400 TWh -- 18.8 to 21.8 percent of the world's power supply, the report said.

The more conservative "reference" scenario based on figures from the UN's International Energy Agency saw wind power triple in the next decade to cover up to 4.8 percent of electricity -- equal to Europe's current total production.

The "moderate" scenario based on current industry figures would see wind power meet up to 9.5 percent of the world's power demand by 2020, the report said.

"For more than the last 10 years, the actual performance of the wind industry has exceeded our advanced scenario every time," said Sawyer.

Under the advanced forecast, 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions would be saved each year, the report said.

This would increase to 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 saved each year by 2030.

The cumulative amounts of CO2 saved would be 10 billion tonnes by 2020 and 34 billion tonnes by 2030, the report said.

When asked to compare China's wind power industry to the US, Sawyer said Beijing was showing more leadership than Washington in alternative energy.

"At the moment, the Chinese market has most of the advantages in the sense that there's a clear and supportive policy framework and very clear government support for developing a domestic industry," Sawyer said.

"Neither of those have really been the case in the United States."

Explore further: Ukraine shuts down faulty nuclear power plant reactor

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China triples wind power capacity goal: report

May 04, 2009

China has more than tripled its target for wind power capacity to 100 gigawatts by 2020, likely making it the world's fastest growing market for wind energy technology, state press said.

China to be 3rd biggest wind power producer: media

Jan 01, 2010

China is set to become the world's third largest wind power producer in 2009, state media reported, as the Asian giant seeks various ways to expand energy supply to power its economic boom.

China harnesses mountain wind power

Nov 22, 2009

In the mountains above the southwestern Chinese town of Dali, dozens of new wind turbines dot the landscape -- a symbol of the country's sky-high ambitions for clean, green energy.

Recommended for you

Renewable energy companies use new clout in statehouses

Dec 24, 2014

Earlier this year, Ohio became the first state to freeze a scheduled increase in the amount of electricity that must be generated by wind, solar and other renewable sources. The move gave advocates of repealing states' mandatory ...

America's place in the sun: Energy report sets goal

Dec 24, 2014

A recent energy report said that America should build on the recent growth in solar energy by setting a goal of obtaining at least 10 percent of its electricity from solar power by 2030. "Star Power: The ...

User comments : 87

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2010
The variability of wind is almost 100% within the radius that you can sensibly transmit the electricity, yet the average output is only about 20...25% of the nominal, which means that you can't build any more nominal capacity than you can use at any times, and you have to pick up the slack 75...80% of the time through some other means.

That's why you can't use more wind than about 20% in the mix, and the rest of the production has to be fast adjusting and therefore inefficient.

Like in Denmark, which is one of the top countries in Europe in terms of most CO2 produced per kWh of electricity. The only thing that has made their emissions go down is the switch from oil to natural gas in the powerplants they run when the wind isn't blowing.
Yellowdart
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2010
Just think of all the poor birds thatll fly into the props :( poor birds.
3432682
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
This study is baloney. There are huge areas like the southeast US where wind is simply not viable. Within the viable areas, wind could possibly reach 20% of demand, but I doubt it. I won't be holding my breath to see this site ever carry a study skeptical of extravagant greenie-biased press releases.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
Well if the present congress and senate of the US is elected again, then we could reach the 20% because there wont be any demand for electricity as there wont be any businesses left. Mind you isn't that what green peace wants?
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
GARBAGE!!!!

did they allow for 50% losses for transmission from source to destination?

By 2030, wind energy would produce 5,400 TWh
really?
0.25 acres per turbine...

that means 4 turbines per acre
1000 kw per turbine... 1,000,000 watts...

and they want to generate
5.4e+15 watts
5400000000000000 watts.

thats great, we only need to build
5,400,000,000 windmills and cover
1,350,000,000 acres of land

all we need is an area equal to 13 californias

now.. dont forget that you have to smelt the metals, dig up the ores, build them, ship them, erect them, and so on.

let say we start tomoorow and we put in 1,000,000 a day it will only take 14,794,521 years till we are done!

and i certainly hope none of them need repairs or replacement in 14 million years, or else it will take longer.

did i miss a decimal place?
dont matter does it?
1.4 million might as well be 14
given that socialism will either re-educate us to death or starve us given this level of thought

loboy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
From what I can gather from the above comments, is that the US should sit on it hands and let other countries pass them by on wind tech. If anything the US should strive to be a leader.

@Yellowdart
Please go look up statistics concerning bird deaths from the airline industry. While your at it, maybe look up human death rates from coal mining.

@3432682
Please inform me how the study is baloney. I would like to know.

Using the term "greenie" is a mask for your true politics. I am sure you could easily replace "greenie" with "commie" and your politics would remain the same.

@freethinking
There won't be any businesses left? How about manufacturing windmill turbines and blades, and everything else associated with building out wind power infrastructure.

Yes, Green Peace has a hidden agenda to destroy the US economy. Gimme a break.

loboy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
@ArtflDgr

I don't where you got your 50% transmission line loss figure.

"Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997 and 6.5% in 2007." -Wikipedia

I don't understand what socialism has to do with this.

mertzj
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2010
@ArtflDgr

5 terrawatts would only be 1 million 5mw turbines at max cap. Still a lot but a LONG ways from 5.4 billion. Where do you come up with such outlandish figures? So if they built 1 million per day they would be done uhmmmm tomorrow? Probably a lot of which would be in the ocean. Not to mention they already have 10mw turbines and will probably be close to 20mw by 2030. It would only take 250k of those. They could be done by lunch at that rate. =)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2010
@ArtflDgr,
did i miss a decimal place?
Did you really need to ask?

It's not 5.4e+15 watts, it's 5.4e+15 watt-HOURS. PER YEAR. How many hours in a year? 24*365.25 = 8766.

At 25% utilization, you'd be talking 5.4e+15*4/8766 = 2.5e+12 W of installed capacity.

(That utilization ASSumption, by the way, applies to typical small-size land-based turbines. For 300+ ft towers, in wind corridors, and for off-shore installations, utilization will be more like 40% of nameplate. But never mind.)

Today's state of the art turbines reach up to 5e+6 W nameplate per tower. So all you need is about 500,000 of those to fulfill the 2030 vision. Assuming steady pace of construction and zero technology refinement over 20 years, this requires 25,000 turbines per year planet-wide.

But speaking of tech refinement, should we consider power kites, convective wind towers, and other such potentialities? Or are we absolutely assured technological stagnation, per your projections?
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010

this is 2002, and if you look up in the right hand corner and track the flows, you will see over 50% wasted...

www.energycrisis....2002.jpg

this is updated in the handbook of physics..

and forget the site i grabbed it from and their BS, and look at the source. Lawrence Livermore laboratories.

I don't understand what socialism has to do with this.

easy... socialism requires a dictatorship. and how or the means to get to that dictatorship is irrelevent. so there is a constant bias towards anything that brings more and more control, and through progressive gradualism obtain what cant be had suddenly thoruhg force.

since no one tries to prevent incrementalism, and denies it, the menshiviki (social democrats) were right...

you no longer have the morals to resist end justifies the means arguments... and so, they only need an end, and some contrive means, and voila, as you wont oppose such...

quick, become slaves to the state, the world is warming up!
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2010
5 terrawatts would only be 1 million 5mw turbines at max cap. Still a lot but a LONG ways from 5.4 billion. Where do you come up with such outlandish figures?

http://www.nrel.g...wind.php

1 terawatt = 1 000 000 000 kilowatts

1,000,000,000 times 5400 is what?

no wonder we are doomed, cant do straight conversions and multiplication..

windmills dont put out 5mW..
nuclear power plants do...

Note: This value represents the area taken out of production on a farm. The area within the perimeter of the wind farm will be larger due to spacing of the turbines, but is still useable by the farm. Typical turbine spacing in wind farms is placing the towers 5 to 10 turbine diameters apart, depending on local conditions.
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
PinkElephant
its generating capacity..
and if a windmill does 1000kwh
and my target is in kwh, then i dont have to convert them, do i, as they are both kwh...

i converted them to watt hours not kwatt hours.
then i used the kwh of windmills from the government.

so if i need 5400 terawatt hours
and each windmill puts out 1000kwh
then dividing one by the other all in watts is correct.
here is a calc
convert terawatt to kilowatt
www.unitconversio...ion.html

convert terawatt hours to watt hours
convert kilowatt hours to watt hours
divide terawatt goal by kilowat goal using watt hours.
and you get what for watt?

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
@ArtflDgr,

5.4 PWh as mentioned in the article, is expressed in terms of the world's energy supply PER YEAR. Those 5.5 PWh do not need to be generated EVERY HOUR. They only need to be generated OVER THE COURSE OF 1 YEAR. That's 365.25 days (on average), at 24 hours per day, to get from 0 to 5.5 PWh of energy.

And no, power plant generating capacity is not expressed in Wh. It is expressed in W. Depending on how long you run the power plant, you will get a certain amount of energy from it -- expressed in Wh, or in other words, in Joules. The 'W' in Wh denotes the rate of energy production (that's what the term 'power' means in physics.) The 'h' in Wh denotes how long you've been producing. Thus Wh denotes total energy produced over a given time interval.

Oh, and as for "50% wasted", that's not what the figure you linked is about, either. (Add up the numbers at the right; they don't come out to 100%, so they aren't %.)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
(ctd.)
easy... socialism requires a dictatorship.
I didn't realize most of Europe, Canada, Japan, Singapore, etc. are all dictatorships. They're all far more socialist than we are, though.
so there is a constant bias towards anything that brings more and more control, and through progressive gradualism obtain what cant be had suddenly thoruhg force.
That's how money buys power. You're under control of Wall Street and their failed ideologies (or more appropriately designated, their Ponzi scams and morally bankrupt frauds.) You're captive of the established fossil energy industrial sector. You make a fine ideological sock puppet.
loboy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2010
@ArtflDgr

"easy... socialism requires a dictatorship"

No. I meant, what does socialism have to do with the thermodynamics of wind power? I don't understand why you want to mix your politics in with some simple math and science.

"no wonder we are doomed, cant do straight conversions and multiplication.."

Or write full sentences, capitalize, and punctuate correctly.

mertzj
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2010
@ArtflDgr

Show me a nuclear power plant that produces 5mw!
Nothing you are saying makes one bit of since...
mertzj
not rated yet Oct 12, 2010
um
mertzj
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2010
Ok I was off. Sorry

One terawatt-hour is equal to a sustained power of approximately 114 megawatts for a period of one year.

So 5,400 terewatts X 114 = 615,600

So you need 615,600mw worth of production to make 5,4000twh per year or 123,120 5mw turbines

mertzj
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2010
I was thinking 1million turbines sounded like an awful lot. 5,400,000,000 turbines would produce about 235,000,000twhs or enough to power roughly 9,000 earths. That would deffinitely make up for the less windy days =P

watt hours are determined by the amount of time they are talking about. In this case they are talking about a year which is typically the case.
Userless_Id
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2010
"Wind could provide 20 pct of world power by 2030: study [authored by Greenpeace]"

"Snake Oil can cure 20 pct of world cancers by 2030: study [authored by West of Pecos Carnival Snake Oil Paddlers' Association] "
Shootist
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2010
From what I can gather from the above comments, is that the US should sit on it hands and let other countries pass them by on wind tech. If anything the US should strive to be a leader.

Yes, Green Peace has a hidden agenda to destroy the US economy. Gimme a break.



Don't know much history do you, bub?

When USSR dissolved members of the Comintern flocked to WWF, Greenpeas, Sierra Club and the euroweenie Green party. Scratch a green and they bleed Red. Best way now to control the means of production is to regulate emissions.

So, yeah, Green=Socialist/Communist isn't inaccurate.

As to wind. Crap. Pure crap. Build a 20GW virtual wind farm and it will avg less than .75GW output. Better to build a 1GW fission plant and be done with it.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2010
When USSR dissolved members of the Comintern flocked to WWF, Greenpeas, Sierra Club and the euroweenie Green party.
Why the hell would they do that? Russia has the most to lose with caps on fossil fuels.
Green=Socialist/Communist isn't inaccurate.
No, it's merely idiotic.
Crap. Pure crap. Build a 20GW virtual wind farm and it will avg less than .75GW output.
That statement is crap. Pure crap.
mertzj
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2010
I think Shootist = ArtflDgr

Or they get their facts from the same place...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2010
@Yellowdart
Please go look up statistics concerning bird deaths from the airline industry. While your at it, maybe look up human death rates from coal mining.


Apparently I wasnt scarastic in tone enough, but what do either of your examples have to do with it?

The actual question would be how many die from wind turbines. Which overall is pretty negligible in and of itself. However, some places like the Altamont Pass Wind Farm, are repeatedly shut down, do to the number of birds they do kill.

Bats seem to be more affected in coastal/near shore areas.

freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2010
Name one country that has net job growth from going green? The answer is None. Since making windmills mean making something, and the government currently in power is against manufacturing anything here as manufacturing involves some sort of pollution, all the windmills will be made in China.

So given the present governments hate of oil drilling, we will import oil from the middle east, and given the present governments hate of private companies manufactuing anything in the USA, any windmills will be made in China.

Net result, no jobs, no need for more power.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2010
the government currently in power is against manufacturing anything here as manufacturing involves some sort of pollution
No, that's not the reason. The government is against manufacturing anything here because workers here earn about 40x more than workers in China. What's decimating American manufacturing is not regulation. It is unregulated free trade, which results in environmental (true enough) but far more importantly (cost-wise) -- WAGE arbitrage.

Until it adopts a tariff-based FAIR TRADE regime (where the tariffs would compensate for differences in average wage, and differences in externality assessment), U.S. will continue bleeding out its productive industries into the third world, leaving behind nothing but a devastated and bankrupt husk -- ala Perot's "giant sucking sound".

Oh, and as far as "free trade" policies go, I suggest you start your history review with Nixon's administration.

Ok, political rant over. Carry on "free" thinking...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2010
Name one country that has net job growth from going green? The answer is
Sweden
Since making windmills mean making something, and the government currently in power is against manufacturing anything here as manufacturing involves some sort of pollution, all the windmills will be made in China.
Probably not. More likely manufacture would be Argentina or Brasil. Gotta examine the big time GE ties.
So given the present governments hate of oil drilling, we will import oil from the middle east, and given the present governments hate of private companies manufactuing anything in the USA, any windmills will be made in China.
It was the open free market of global commerce that has shut down the American manufacturing base by moving jobs from the US to other nations. Just one pain point to your philosophy.

Net result, no jobs, no need for more power.
Or we could revitalize nuclear. Wind is a ridiculous power source due to variability. On that we agree.
mertzj
4 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2010
"Or we could revitalize nuclear. Wind is a ridiculous power source due to variability. On that we agree."

Hate to tell you but huge companies arent building thousands of windmills because they are a ridiculous power source. That just wouldn't make any since at all.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2010
Hate to tell you but huge companies arent building thousands of windmills because they are a ridiculous power source. That just wouldn't make any since at all.
Are you saying that large companies, like General Electric and Siemens, make sense? /humor

I was rather vague so let me clarify. Wind alone is a ridiculous power source due to its variability. Wind needs backup generation, or a breakthrough in superconduction in order to be a feasible sole generation mechanism.

The smaller scale wind turbines make a lot of sense in city atmospheres where you'll encounter channeled winds on a regular basis, but still, it cannot be your only source.
mertzj
not rated yet Oct 14, 2010
That probably a good reason this article says 20% not 100% I wasnt talking about GE or Siemens. Although they are making money selling them. It is the Electric companies that are operating them. I bet they dont say man this is RIDICULOUS every time they get another turbine installed.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
I bet they dont say man this is RIDICULOUS every time they get another turbine installed.
Is this before or after they build the backup coal plant next to it?
freethinking
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
Nuclear we do agree on.

Sweden.... please read the following then tell me if you still think Sweden.
http://www.instit...yths.pdf

Companies are now realizing that shipping jobs to third world countries was a mistake. I've been involved (different companies I've worked for in th past) in several attempts to Save money by going overseas. The fact is it doesn't save money. Sloppy work, more oversight, communication problems, cultural problems, etc. wind up costing mor

Just recently, a client of mine went to a third world country to do some work for a tenth of the cost here. After showing them the numbers, they would have broken even or actually saved money if they stayed in the USA, plus saved themselves a lot of headaches.

My company has a policy of not getting supplies from third world countries. Specifically we do not believe in working with countries that do not care for their people or their environment
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2010
I do still say sweden. The employment in their energy sector has increased by 300%.

I also say India and China but I was character limited.
http://www.thomas...oom.aspx
freethinking
2 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
They are following Spain...
http://www.nottin...ter.html

and more....
http://www.windtu...ductive/

That said, if it make economic sence then do it. However for most applications and area's wind power is more expensive, more expensive power drives companies and employment away. Simple economics.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
That said, if it make economic sence then do it. However for most applications and area's wind power is more expensive, more expensive power drives companies and employment away. Simple economics.
Ok, but in order for it to become economical you have to have either an immediate need for new technology or an abnormal amount of insane investors.

The US has both.
jonnyboy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2010
Yep, it could, but pigs are more likely to fly
luggite
not rated yet Oct 16, 2010
Does this mean that Greenpeace is full of hot air? Just a joke - please don't brainwash my cat to attack me (another joke). I believe the major drawback to wind power is that it just isn't as cheap as other alternatives. If this one practical problem could be solved using engineering in stead of legislation, we would see more wind farms popping up. At some point, the world may run out of traditional fuels, but that is a long while down the road.
Parsec
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2010
While its true that the unsubsidized cost wind power is more than fossil fuel based alternatives at this time, the main reason that is true is because the cost to society for fossil based fuels are paid by society, not the power generators. We can agree to disagree about the costs associated with greenhouse gases and global warming. However even if we just consider the ecological and health costs associated with mining, transport, and burning of fossil fuels, societies subsidies for fossil fuels are quite substantial.

I absolutely agree that nuclear power and solar power needs to be part of any generation mix, but everything should be considered against its competitors using their true costs.
xznofile
not rated yet Oct 16, 2010
Just think of all the poor birds thatll fly into the props :( poor birds.

Many of the birds are chasing insects, Many of the insects are attracted by the uv reflecting coatings on the blades. it's fixable.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
You are wrong by almost 4 orders of magnitude.

"thats great, we only need to build 5,400,000,000 windmills and cover 1,350,000,000 acres of land" - ArtflDgr

Again you are off by almost 4 orders of magnitude.

The correct number (assuming 1 megawatt turbines) is 616,000 turbines globally.
The correct area (assuming .25 acres per turbine) is 154,000 acres.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010

"did they allow for 50% losses for transmission from source to destination?" - ArtflDgr

Last time I looked, transmission losses were 11%.

Your 50% figure is a lie.

"By 2030, wind energy would produce 5,400 TWh really?
0.25 acres per turbine... that means 4 turbines per acre
1000 kw per turbine... 1,000,000 watts... " - ArtflDgr

You aren't about to confuse Watt hours (a magnitude) with watts (a rate) are you?

"and they want to generate 5.4e+15 watts 5400000000000000 watts." - ArtflDgr

Yup, you are.

5.4E15 watt hours per year = 5.4E15(Watt hours/year)/(24*365 (hours/year)) = 5.4E15/8760 Watts

You are wrong by almost 4 orders of magnitude.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
"all we need is an area equal to 13 californias" - ArtflDgr

Actually, it's .15% the surface area of California.

"let say we start tomoorow and we put in 1,000,000 a day it will only take 14,794,521 years till we are done! " - ArtflDgr

Sorry, you didn't divide correctly, even with your numbers.

5,400,000,000 (turbines)/ 1,000,000 (turbines/day) (your numbers) = 5,400 days. Not only did you not divide properly but you then you compound your error with another, that being the misrepresentation of days as years.

In reality, using the correct figures we have 616,000 (turbines/1,000,000) (turbines/day) = 0.616 days

So your calculations are now off by a factor of 24,000,000
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2010
"did i miss a decimal place? " - ArtflDgr

7.38 decimal places in fact.

"dont matter does it?" - ArtflDgr

Ya, it does, but clearly not to the innumerate and incompetent.

"1.4 million might as well be 14 given that socialism will either re-educate us to death or starve us given this level of thought." - ArtflDgr

And now your innumeracy and incompetence is compounded with Conservative Ignorance and paranoia.

You fit the pattern of Conservative Behaviour perfectly.

Is it any wonder why 30 years of Conservative fiscal mismanagement has bankrupted the Failed American State?

Basic arithmetic eludes the tiny Conservative mind.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2010
"However for most applications and area's wind power is more expensive, more expensive power drives companies and employment away. Simple economics." - FreeThinkingMoron

Did you add the 4 trillion U.S. war on Iraq and the subsequent American near depression that resulted in your cost of the oil that America is wasting?

Self professed "Free Thinkers" never seem free enough or bright enough to think of that sort of thing.

Buyck
not rated yet Oct 18, 2010
Very simple... most of the windturbines are now maximum 3MW each. In the future we will have 5 and 10MW each by now and 5 years. In 2020 we will have 20MW turbines!

link:

http://www.renewb...nit.html
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2010
It is unregulated free trade, which results in environmental (true enough) but far more importantly (cost-wise) -- WAGE arbitrage.

Until it adopts a tariff-based FAIR TRADE regime (where the tariffs would compensate for differences in average wage, and differences in externality assessment), U.S. will continue bleeding out its productive industries into the third world,


From a seller's perspective, tariff's increase scarcity and promote industry protection. However, from the consumer perspective, abundance is what is important.

Say America manufactures clothing at $3 per yard. China offers to manufacture clothing at $1 per yard for the USA. Instead of spending $3 per yard, the american consumer can now save $2 per yard PLUS he no longer has to spend time in manufacturing. Thus he can now spend the money elsewhere and spend time manufacturing another product, however he choses...

Cont.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2010
By adding a tariff the makes the cost equal, you have saved americans $0 and they still have to manufacture at least some of the product. The only person who benefits is largely the tariff collector, as he gets a fee for doing nothing.

So the government in the least should either be neutral or promoting abundance. Why? Because, if Americans have clothes on their backs, while saving money and the opportunity to use their time elsewhere, it is a win win. This applies to all aspects of industry and commerce. So what if the 3rd world can produce our clothing, thats great! I now have a shirt on my back and money left to spend and I can work on something else.

It is not Nixon's free trade policies you should read, but go all the way back to Bastiat:
http://www.iedm.o...t_en.pdf
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2010
"Thus he can now spend the money elsewhere and spend time manufacturing another product, however he choses..." - YellowStain

We applaud your Libertarian philosophy and China thanks you for using it to destroy the American manufacturing sector.

Well done.

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
@Yellowdart,
Thus he can now spend the money elsewhere and spend time manufacturing another product, however he choses...
And that's the fatal flaw in your "logic": there is absolutely NOTHING that American workers could possibly make, which can't be made 20+x cheaper in China.

So, in the short term the consumer benefits from having lots of cheap Chinese consumables. However, money is flowing out of the country in exchange for the consumables, while the consumables are consumed. Thus you have net outflow of wealth. Eventually, there's no wealth left to flow out. AND, there's no industry left to generate additional wealth (and "financial innovation" isn't a wealth generator; it's a Ponzi scheme...)

Where will the consumer get that $1 to spend on another cheap Chinese T-shirt, when the consumer has lost all the high-paying manufacturing jobs, and the only options left are in the low-paying "service economy"? Walmart greeters don't make for very good consumers...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010


And that's the fatal flaw in your "logic": there is absolutely NOTHING that American workers could possibly make, which can't be made 20+x cheaper in China


It seems you didnt read the link. I respect your response though, esp compared to VD...so thank you.

How do you get clothing? You can make it yourself, or have someone else make it and exchange product/good/money for that cloth. Is it more important to have it, or to make it? Have it.

So on the ridiculous assumption that the USA can not provide any good/service/money to China in exchange any longer, we will be no better off than we are now anyway. We will once again have to produce our own cloth.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
The fact of the matter is, we have plenty of goods and services that they or any other country needs.

China now making money, can invest that elsewhere, or by other goods they could not before.

Meanwhile, if we have more money on hand, and more time...I fail to see how that is ever a negative.

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
@Yellowdart,
It seems you didnt read the link.
I skimmed it. It doesn't matter to me whether the argument is your own or borrowed from someone else. It is still patently false.
We will once again have to produce our own cloth.
In fact, that's absolutely impossible. As long as cheap Chinese products are available on the shelves of the neighborhood shop, no local production will take place. At least, not as long as the local workers are paid more than Chinese wages (only slightly adjusted upward to acknowledge added costs of bulk transport for the imports.) No local business will be able to survive in such an environment. It's for similar reasons that there are anti-dumping rules in the WTO.
we have plenty of goods and services that they or any other country needs.
Such as?? Something we haven't completely outsourced yet?
if we have more money on hand
Where from? Because the Chinese buy our bonds? That puts us deeper in the hole, rather than giving us money!
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2010
It doesn't matter to me whether the argument is your own or borrowed from someone else.


Of course, the principle applies regardless of who says it. Bastiat had a great easy way of putting it.

As long as cheap Chinese products are available on the shelves of the neighborhood shop, no local production will take place.


As long as the product is available, local production is not necessary. If the poor cant afford it at $1, they sure can not afford it at $3.
No local business will be able to survive in such an environment.


Who cares. You have clothes either way. Would you avoid curing cancer because we wont need kemo doctors anymore? Would you force people to only use paper because the digital world is costing paper companies tons of business? Do we put sanctions on cars in order to protect the horse and buggy industry? Do we bail the horse and buggy industry out?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Such as?? Something we haven't completely outsourced yet?


Anything. Did america collapse when cell phones became dominant over landlines..no. Business always adapts, it always needs labor, it will always find another product in demand by the consumer. It always has.

If you promote scarcity, which is what every CEO and every politician attempt to do, it does raise prices. The seller always wants more money. Or to get more for his product in return for less expense.

But for the consumer, especially the poor, he needs abundance. The farther his money goes, the better.

A CEO lobbys the government to add a tariff, in order to keep his competitor from providing the same at a lower cost. The price remains high for sure, he keeps his business. However, the consumer no longer has hte option of buying at 3 or at 1 dollar. He gains nothing.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Where from? Because the Chinese buy our bonds?


So we have less money despite selling a scrap of paper for money?

Money is not the end game. It is a mediator in bartering. At the end of the day you are still trading a good, whether labor, time, product, etc.

To make it simple. Say you worked 12 hours a day, and you produce 4 barrels of vegtables over half the work day, and hunt the remaining, producing 2 barrels of meat. Along comes a neighbor who says that for 2 barrels of vegtables, I'll trade you 2 barrels of meat. Since it only takes you 3 hours for 2 barrels...that leaves you 3 hours free left in the day.

9 hours for the same that it used to take you 12.
Toss money in, it makes no difference. The principle is the same. You honestly wanna force 12 hours for nothing?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2010
@Yellowdart,
If the poor cant afford it at $1, they sure can not afford it at $3.
And the way things are going, "the poor" is going to encompass about 99% of us.
Who cares. You have clothes either way.
When there's no business, there's no wealth creation. When there's no wealth creation, there's no barter. There is only massive unemployment, widespread poverty, slums, gangs, and abject decay of society.
Business always adapts, it always needs labor
And so it moves to wherever labor is cheapest.
If you promote scarcity
I promote FAIRNESS.
But for the consumer, especially the poor, he needs abundance.
No, he needs a GOOD-PAYING JOB.
So we have less money despite selling a scrap of paper for money?
A bond is a debt note. Selling bonds doesn't make you wealthier, any more than taking cash advances on your credit cards. It only brings you closer to bankruptcy, faster.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Yellow, you're forgetting your Great Depression history. Abundance wasn't the problem. Great big hills of food were rotting in grain silos, and outside grain silos, because the farmers that owned the grain couldn't sell it at a price high enough to cover their costs, so they didn't sell it. The problem isn't even that there wasn't enough money. In fact, there was a bit too much. The problem was that all the money, that medium of exchange that lubricates the trade of good for good, was in the hands of too few. Abundance is really only a good thing if you get to share in it, and you only really get to share in it if you've got money. If you've got no money and you've got no job, because they've all been shipped to China, there might as well be scarcity for all the good abundance does you.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Thras, my grandfather worked on a farm in the Depression. Part of the reason that there was a big surplus of wheat, was due to the drop off of demand right after WWI. Countries were getting back to making their own agriculture, thus the US lost alot of its market. A big issue with the Depression became the knee jerk responses by nearly every government. They all raised and enacted tariffs to "protect" their high prices and market.

Take Hoover, a republican no less, who signed the Smoot-Hawty tariff. Upon signing it into law, Europeans canceled their orders. Demand dropped, so did the price again. Many countries also raised their tariffs in response, killing exports, killing demand.

Remember, in the 30s it was Republicans who argued for tariffs, who sought to "protect", the same way you are arguing now. You are right that abundance was not the problem.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
The problem at least then was the short sightnedness of a demand that would dramatically drop once the war was over, plus the knee jerk response of trying to support a demand that no longer existed.

The housing bubble is an even better example, because unlike the post war demand collapse, the housing bubble was largely forced demand in the first place.

Who in reality is getting protected afterwards? The dumb CEOs and politicians. The consumer is the one always screwd.

Remove government involvement in the market. Open free trade. Lobbyists ar eno longer employed, the government no longer attempts to guess at demand. Business are forced to react wisely and competatively according to their own merits. If you produce a product people want, they will buy it.

It is not to favor China or Nike. It is to favor the consumer's option to chose. $3 may still be well worht it to him. Apple makes a killing for just finding a niche in the market.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Say China manufactures these windmills. They can sell them cheaper than your windmill business. Most business men, dont whine and cry and go home. They'll go, oh...china makes crap rpoducts...I'll invest my business into O&M..which is where the money will be anyway when these crap windmills break down and have to be fixed.

There is ALWAYS something else. There is always another job. There is always another way to spend time and money. The overall net growth is sustained when the consumer is free to dictate demand.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 22, 2010
@Yellowdart,

Why don't you take a look at what's happened to employment rates, inflation-adjusted wages, wealth distribution, and household debt over the last 15 years or so. Then tell us all again how "there is always another job [at McDonalds]; there is always another way to spend time [shopping] and [borrow] money."
china makes crap rpoducts
BS. China makes virtually EVERYTHING these days. They make crap products, and they also make very high-quality products. And why shouldn't they, when they're making them on the same high-tech robot-assisted production lines that formerly Western companies have packed up and shipped over there.

Oh and BTW, Great Depression is a false analogy. European vs. American wages were not out of whack by a factor of 40x. Neither were pollution and workplace regulations.

The mercantilist and monetarist WAR being waged on America today, with AID and ABETMENT of America's own government and business elite, is unprecedented in American history.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010

Why don't you take a look at what's happened to employment rates, inflation-adjusted wages, wealth distribution, and household debt over the last 15 years or so.


Didnt i just mention the housing bubble? Forcing increased demand/higher prices...it was no different than adding a tariff back in the 30s. It unsustainable when there is no demand.

Elitist want scarcity, they want high demand, they want high cost. They love tariffs. They love using a lobbyist to get regs passed that disallow imports, or force someone else out of business.

So what if China wants to pollute themselves to death, sell you the same product for less...go into distribution, go into O&M, go into entertainment, etc etc etc.

If it costs less, people dont need to be paid as much. Had you invested in textiles during the GD, you would have come out very favorable comapred to the rest of the market at the time. It lost little, because it lowered cost and lowered wages and met the actual demand
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 22, 2010
You don't seem to get it. If ALL of us go into "distribution, O&M, entertainment, etc.", then NONE of us actually PRODUCE anything. All we're doing at this point, is jacking each other off while siphoning a bit of money from each other. However, no such transaction is frictionless or lossless; thermodynamics applies to economics too. Even if we didn't continue bleeding wealth out of the country in exchange for imports, we'd still be losing wealth because ALL assets decay over time. The only way to grow wealth, is to grow actual, tangible assets.

As for the housing bubble, deregulation and "free markets" is what led to it. I know the right-wing line that GSEs caused it all. However, nobody FORCED megabanks to merge with trading firms; nobody FORCED these monsters to "financially innovate"; nobody FORCED them into scams and fraud -- as soon as regulations and enforcement were lifted, these "champions of capitalism" raced each other on the path to unbridled robbery and pillage.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
If ALL of us go into "distribution, O&M, entertainment, etc.", then NONE of us actually PRODUCE anything.


SO? There is NO NEED TO produce what someone else can do for less, when offered to you for less. None. Overall PRODUCE IS NOT LOST. And in the end you can still do it yourself if you want...but you save NOTHING.

Do not confuse job loss from privation with job loss from SATISFACTION.

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Apropos the second paragraph of my post above:

http://www.huffin...434.html

Go ahead and tell me again how it's all about excessive regulation and over-taxation...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2010
As for the housing bubble, deregulation and "free markets" is what led to it.


Hardly. Your average loan officer was passing off ARMs to barely qualified. WHy? Because it would be immediately sold, absolving him of the risk. Why? Because Frannie and Freddie gave them a way to. They began buying all these crap loans.

Couple that with housing incentives, and the demand was increased...but falsely, scaricty and high prices thus ensued. Everyone invested in the quick scheme...until the demand of the consumer jerked control back and the market crashed.
Nobody forced anyone you are right, but it was not a free market issue either, since the government, had enteredthe market themselves.

America hasnt had a free market at least since before teh 20s. It's an unofficial state captalism...which is what China is pretty much officially. The government favors the lobbyists, big private businesses, take over, etc. to control their own pockets. They never bail out the public
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 22, 2010
SO? There is NO NEED TO produce what someone else can do for less, when offered to you for less.
Except you have nothing to barter in exchange for that product, because you aren't making anything yourself. I can walk your dog while you sweep my floors, but we still have nothing to eat.
Do not confuse job loss from privation with job loss from SATISFACTION.
Do not confuse debt with wealth, or bankruptcy with growth.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
2 things pink. Reading your huff post article.

1. Who is protecting BoA? The government.

2. Do not confuse free market with criminal activity. Purposely generating false foreclosures is illegal. Free market is not the removal of common sense law, such as paperwork integrity. It is not the removal of fraud.

It is providing full freedom to the consumer to buy and control the demand.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
Except you have nothing to barter in exchange for that product, because you aren't making anything yourself. I can walk your dog while you sweep my floors, but we still have nothing to eat.


Then go back to growing your own food. Like I said, if you no longer have anything that china wants, you can always go back. Your ability to produce food hasnt ever lessened.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2010
"It is not removal of fraud."

Sorry meant to edit that. It is not the removal of laws against fraud.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 22, 2010
Who is protecting BoA? The government.
First of all, it's not just BoA. It is EVERY major financial institution in this country. It is basically ALL of Wall Street.

Secondly, without law enforcement there might as well be no laws at all. CLEARLY, industry WILL NOT self-regulate. This has now been proven beyond any shadow of doubt.

Yes, we can blame the government for:

(a) Allowing banks to commingle with trading firms, by repealing Glass-Steagall
(b) Allowing these monstrosities to run leverage ratios well in excess of the historically prudent 8:1
(c) Allowing these fraud factories to merge and create mega-crime syndicates, implosion of which threatened to take out the entire economy
(d) Altering FASB rules to enable balance sheet lies and "mark to fantasy" accounting

All of this was hailed as "government getting out of the way."
Then go back to growing your own food.
That means reversion from industrialized economy back to agrarian, pre-industrial one. Progress!
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
All of this was hailed as "government getting out of the way."


I agree it isnt all BoA, it's just an example. I dont agree it was all of them. Not all leveraged over 8:1 for instance, but most of the larger corps did.

However, I dont call it "the government getting out of the way" when they purposely take away the risk of failure. Such examples of Fred and Fran isnt getting out of the way, it was part of the driving force. All of the examples you listed, were ENCOURAGED by the government and all bailed out by the government. They didnt just deregulate or ignore substantial risk...THEY PARTICIPATED.

So please note, any government involvement to manipulate the market is not free market captalism. It never has been. The only role of government is to protect the consumer's freedom. That means regulation is fine in regards to criminal activities. Regulation to specificaly drive the housing market; however, is not.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 01, 2010
That means regulation is fine in regards to criminal activities. Regulation to specificaly drive the housing market; however, is not.
On that, we are in complete agreement.

However, I wouldn't call Fraudie and Phoney examples of "regulation" in the first place. Market regulation is exemplified in the SEC, CFTC, FDIC, IRS, and such other agencies. Enforcement is exemplified in the likes of the FBI. All of these utterly failed to do their jobs. Not because they were designed to fail, but because they were DIRECTED to fail, both by CONgress and by the President. That's what we call "regulatory capture": when industry insiders wind up running all the regulatory agencies, and rewriting all the regulations in addition.

That is why I will not vote for either major party, and I will not vote for any candidate period, until and unless they explicitly make financial crime prosecution and law enforcement a central plank of their platform.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
That means reversion from industrialized economy back to agrarian, pre-industrial one. Progress!


Why would you revert to something less than before? THe level of knowledge of industrialization is still intact. Regression would not occur.

Another fun example. Gasoline. Say an oil company decides they can afford to sell gas at $1 a gallon at the pump again. What would occur? The consumer can now either travel over twice as far for the same cost he was paying. He can go the same distance and spend the left over money elsewhere, on food, clothing, entertainment, etc.

What happend a few years ago when the price got jacked to over 4 bucks? Industry came to a halt, people had to pay for gas even before their mortgages, and it was a precursor the to upcoming housing crash. Same problem in the 70s when they rationed it.

High cost does not equate to more wealth, esp for the poor man. Low cost and abundance is his blessing.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
PE,

I liked your last post.

I call Fred and Fran regulation, because they were government. They were a buyer more so than a criminal investigator like the FBI or SEC. But their policy had influence and in essence regulated how the loan market could be manipulated.

The little guy making the loan got his % and sold it off to Fred and Fran who took all the risk away.

When Frank and Dodd now get to make the finance bill in response...who were responible for Fred and Fran...it just makes me sick. I feel like throwing up. Little of it if anything will do any good for the actual consumer.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 01, 2010
it was a precursor the to upcoming housing crash.
No, the housing bubble was the precursor. Even after the "crash", house prices today are still above historical affordability thresholds.
High cost does not equate to more wealth, esp for the poor man.
True.
Low cost and abundance is his blessing.
False.

Low cost in itself means lower wages and less earnings for the "poor man". And when the "poor man" no longer has a job to begin with, then any cost is irrelevant because any cost (other than "free") is unaffordable.

Just today I was listening on the radio how New Hampshire sawmills are closing down, because apparently it's cheaper to ship whole logs to China (halfway around the world!) just so they can be cut into 2x4's and shipped back to U.S. (halfway around the world!) to be sold in retail outlets.

Why?

New Hampshire average worker compensation (wages + benefits): $22/hr.

Chinese average worker comp: $1.3/hr.

That's why our entire economy is collapsing.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
The consumer isnt worried about how much he makes, he is worried about what he can AFFORD. So long as cost is always low for him, his wages are less important.

If wages go down because the cost of an item goes down from various factors such as abundance, it is still proportional. He can still afford it.

This is why allowing a free market actually protects the poor man. He may not be able to afford the 3 dollar shirt...but he can much more easily afford the 1 dollar shirt. Even if his wages were decreased, he has los tnothing in proportion, he is no worse off because the less expensive option exists.

Forcing out that option leaves no choice for anyone, and it only serves to protect the CEO and politician in the end.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
No, the housing bubble was the precursor. Even after the "crash", house prices today are still above historical affordability thresholds.


Well you could then argue the tech bubble was...they started swapping emphasis to housing after the tech crash...but I simply meant that the high gas cost was the beginning of that bubble bursting
And when the "poor man" no longer has a job to begin with, then any cost is irrelevant because any cost (other than "free") is unaffordable.


Would you prefer unemployment benefits paying for $3 per shirt, or $1? Because we certainly havent reduced the number of poor or the number of unemployed by protecting Company A from Company B...or China for America...scale it however you wish. This has been the practice for decades, and it continues to create less middle class and greater poor/rich divide.

The only way you get out of this depression quickly, under this practice, is by providing another area of high demand...continued.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
Is there a bigger market than the housing market? Not really. Maybe oil, but thats too political.

Hopefully we have run out of larger markets to manipulate.

Allowing consumer demand to take its presedence would lead to less volatilization and less over investment. People over invested in farming during WWI...temporary bubble. People over invested in the housing market, which being such a big market, like farming was at the time..made the crash so much worse...then top it off with knee jerk responses by the government. :) Recipe for continual volatility.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 01, 2010
The consumer isnt worried about how much he makes, he is worried about what he can AFFORD.
That would only be true if all prices acted in unison. Cheap Chinese T-Shirts aren't going to lower your monthly rent payment...

But what consumers are REALLY worried about, is keeping or finding a job in the first place. Without a job, they can afford NOTHING.
This is why allowing a free market actually protects the poor man.
It eliminates demand for jobs formerly available to the poor man. The poor man is left homeless and destitute, as a direct consequence.
Even if his wages were decreased, he has los tnothing in proportion, he is no worse off because the less expensive option exists.
Wrong. The poor man's wages decrease, while the rich man's earnings increase (because his margins go up due to use of cheaper foreign labor, energy, infrastructure, etc.) This worsens wealth inequality, destabilizing the entire economy. Ultimately (in the long term), everyone is damaged.

PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 01, 2010
Would you prefer unemployment benefits paying for $3 per shirt, or $1?
I would prefer unemployment being low.
protecting Company A from Company B...or China for America...scale it however you wish. This has been the practice for decades
That's diametrically opposite of reality. In reality, we have allowed "globalization" to denude our economic strength, our wealth, and our financial integrity. Since the 70's we've become increasingly a nation of debtors at every level (personal, business, government), living beyond our means because our actual production cannot justify our consumption, pretending to get wealthier while our real (inflation-adjusted) wealth inexorably evaporates.
Allowing consumer demand to take its presedence
The consumer is finished. Final demand is vanishing, because the consumer is up to his eyeballs in debt, frequently underwater on mortgage (and hence economically immobilized), while at the same time increasingly jobless and income-less.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
Just today I was listening on the radio how New Hampshire sawmills are closing down, because apparently it's cheaper to ship whole logs to China (halfway around the world!) just so they can be cut into 2x4's and shipped back to U.S. (halfway around the world!) to be sold in retail outlets.


Okay, but how do you fix that? Do you bail out the sawmill? And for what? The market here is substainally decreased. If you increase China's expenses to make the log producer sell to New Hampshire, nothing has gotten better for the saw mill.

He's selling to China, because he gets a better price for it (amazing considering transportation costs). The sawmill cant afford to buy it from him. And you wont be lowering that cost, by raising China's.

Meanwhile instead of being able to go to Home Depot and get a 2x4 for less to fix my fence, I've gotta spend more money to do it now.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
The poor man's wages decrease, while the rich man's earnings increase (because his margins go up due to use of cheaper foreign labor, energy, infrastructure, etc.) This worsens wealth inequality, destabilizing the entire economy. Ultimately (in the long term), everyone is damaged.


What are rich men good at doing? Making money? How so? Because they know how to invest profitably. That means their money DOES NOT SIT IDLE. So whenever he makes more, when his margin increases, he invests elsewhere.

It always goes elsewhere to something else. If it all goes to entertainment, fine, itll boost the number of jobs and wealth in the entertainment industry...

In reality, we have allowed "globalization" to denude our economic strength, our wealth, and our financial integrity. Since the 70's


Wrong, go back to the 20s. We may have a global economy, be we have not had free trade since the tarrif wars and price manipulations began. Credit began growing...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2010
Substanitally in the 70s..which was helpful in leading to a big housing crash 35 years later.

The consumer is finished.


The consumer is never finished, so long as he is alive. Despite the efforts, it is his demand that brings bubbles and sawmills and any other industry to prominence and to a halt.

Which is why, less attempts at controlling the consumer, leads to less volitalization in the market. There is plenty of room for both China and America from food to wood to any other industry. Some people just dont like china, and thats enough to provide a market share to someone else.

PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 01, 2010
Okay, but how do you fix that?
Impose a tariff on all imported goods, constituting the difference in average worker wage times the amount of time spent by workers on a given quantity of product (pick the smaller of the domestic and foreign numbers, for the latter, to avoid discouraging efficiency.)

Furthermore, impose a similarly objective tariff based on costs of compliance with environmental regulations (for instance, indexed by materials in the product, and the estimate of processes involved in making the product -- again, pick the lesser of the domestic and foreign numbers.)
He's selling to China, because he gets a better price for it
Wrong. He's selling to China because China is the only one buying. The sawmill isn't buying, due to being out of business.
whenever he makes more, when his margin increases, he invests elsewhere.
Such as speculating in commodities, which only further drive up prices of life essentials for the poor man.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 01, 2010
Credit began growing... Substanitally in the 70s..
That's because real wages began to stagnate in the 70s just as "globalization" started to accelerate.
The consumer is never finished, so long as he is alive.
The consumer is finished as soon as he is broke.

And the wealthy have little to invest in domestically, while the consumers continue to drown in debt and poverty. So, investments turn into speculation, or leave the shores altogether and serve to built up some other economy.

But there is no organic domestic growth in absence of a BROAD domestic wealth base. And your "free market" policies serve only to continuously constrict and concentrate the wealth base, while literally beggaring every one of your actual neighbors.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2010
Such as speculating in commodities, which only further drive up prices of life essentials for the poor man.


And your the one imposing tariffs to eliminate any lesser price. Tariff wars dont work for the poor man.

The amount of lumber available has not gone down by selling wood to china or anyone else. However, in adding a tariff, China will only add one in return or chose to sell ELSEWHERE. They dont need you. So you kill the sawmill. If you raise the price of wood in general, China will just go buy from Germany, and now not only have you killed the sawmill, but the loggers jobs as well.

Instead, if the sawmill can save time and money on producing the lumber, it could transition into full production of items and goods made from lumber.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.