Comments on: He Asked

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:08:00 +0000

Mark Gendala, you’ve just publicly confessed to intellectual bankruptcy. You have no actual argument to offer in support of your position — so you resort to the threat of physical violence from those who demand that I be forced to purchase the product they make instead of the one I prefer.

This is very typical of statists of all sorts. Lacking any actual, valid arguments in support of their position, they can only resort to smears — “You are racist! — or character assassination — “You are stupid!” — or threats of physical violence — or completely unsupported claims — “Deregulation caused the recession!”.

By: MWG

MWG — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:26:00 +0000

“May I suggest the next time you come across an American tyre-industry worker, express you dismay at President Obama’s recent decision to protect his or hers $20 per hour job from $2 per hour Asian competition.”

I thought Obama was using the tariff to “protect” American consumers from dangerous Chinese tires…

By: BoscoH

BoscoH — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:04:00 +0000

Mark: Obama’s tyre tariff might “save” 3500 jobs, so the chance of running into an affected tyre worker are pretty slim. And you’re saying that these tyre workers are violent and have to be treated with economic kid gloves? By not protecting him from competition, I can expect an ass kicking, Yet, by making me pay more for tyres, he doesn’t expect the same in return? Seems like a strange balance of violence to me, considering my preference affects 3500 people, while his affects 300 million. Crocodile Dundee and Steve Erwin both hate those odds.

By: Mark Gendala

Mark Gendala — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:48:00 +0000

Hi – more power the Aussie expats… Greg, I’m delighted that you and rest of you happy campers have got your economics all figured-out. Obviously, your undoubted expertise on matters economical should now be put into practical use -

May I suggest the next time you come across an American tyre-industry worker, express you dismay at President Obama’s recent decision to protect his or hers $20 per hour job from $2 per hour Asian competition.

Warning!!! Chances are that a kick up your backside may be so hard that you could end-up in Australia far earlier then you’ve ever planned.

G’day
Mark

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:45:00 +0000

Let’s say that someone invents a device such that it transfers a body of knowledge equivalent to that obtained from a normal college education in 30 seconds after it is placed over a student’s head. While this would indeed be a misfortune for those of us who are professors and teachers, it would nevertheless be a great benefit to society, as innumerable educational resources would be used to do other things. What would the Mr. Mark _____ in Australia then do should such an invention be made? Would he stop the wheels of progress by prohibiting anyone from using such a device?

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:17:00 +0000

Basically you, vidyohs & others, can’t imagine how people lived up until the last two centuries or so.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:33:00 +0000

Hi Mark,

Please stop making us look bad.

Regards,
Greg,
Ex-pat Aussie

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:05:00 +0000

Given that you routinely present the members of this blog with 2+2=5, I’m convinced that you routinely take the opposing (and incorrect) position to allow everyone the opportunity to highlight your ignorance, arrogance, flawed analysis, and revisionist history.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:00 +0000

Mark, I could also learn economics from encyclopedae and textbooks found at my local public library. Or nowadays I could surf the internet and have access to thousands upon thousands of free resources to learn economics. Both of those are available to me at a lower cost than your 10%-of-US-price Asian lecturers.

Yet I still chose to pay American private education prices to have American academics to teach me at an American research university. So do millions of others. Why do you think that is?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:24:00 +0000

This is a variation of the utterly lame “chicken hawk” argument that the anti-war crowd trotted out during all the debate about the Iraq war. The argument was that unless you are actually willing to pick up a gun and march off into combat, none of your arguments in favor of the war are valid.In this variation, Gendala is implying that unless Don is doing actively trying to help students find a cheaper alternative than paying the tuition that makes Don’s salary possible, then his pro-free trade arguments are not valid.This sort of thing doesn’t deserve even the status of “fallacious argument” — it isn’t any sort of argument at all. It is, rather, a confession that one has no argument to offer.

By: matt

matt — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:06:00 +0000

Gil, I’m afraid you have fluid on the brain. I can’t believe how utterly—- oh, nevermind.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:02:00 +0000

What if we lost the entire population of Australia because they all punctured their brains while picking boogers, I could guess that Gil would have been the first to go.

What if, shit? Children engage in what if games.

You dealt in fantasy crap above, I slapped you with reality. Go pick your nose.

By: BoscoH

BoscoH — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:27:00 +0000

So Mark, to be clear, are you charging hypocrisy here? Because it sounds like you’ve just got an issue with Asians. Free trade is not about LOWEST GLOBAL COST. Lower global cost may be a long term benefit. Free trade is simply about freedom of people to choose from whom they wish to buy and to whom they wish to sell on their own whims. If, as a student, I prefer to have someone who shows up in the same classroom as I do over someone on YouTube, I should be free to express that desire and someone should be free to fulfill it if they see enough demand. Vice versa applies too. In short, free traders trust the collective and often contradictory wants of the people rather than the pontifications of self-anointed critics who have a problem with Asians.

By: MWG

MWG — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:09:00 +0000

Dumb.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:27:00 +0000

“That only countries each have their own set of magical resourcse that only they can refine and produce? ”
what a moronic conclusion do you even read what i wrote?
.hongkong and singapore have no resources except human resources.they and the world are richer for their being part of free trade.

By: BoscoH

BoscoH — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:21:00 +0000

The easier response is “bring it on”. This flavor of protectionist isn’t the least bit compassionate. He’s just weak. He assumes that you’re also weak and too stupid to realize your self interest.

One thing I have learned in my 38 years here is to welcome competition. It makes you better. And despite all sorts of bluster, it only rarely shows up.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:13:00 +0000

explain to me why it is in don’s interest to voluntarily diminish his chances of earning higher than asian professors?.

don is only saying that if services trade reach a point where american students can access cheaper education online,he is not going to run to the govt like a stupid protectionist asking for favors .

a bad businessman is one who points the low hanging fruits to the competition. an immoral one is where he insists everyone should only buy his costly fruits

By: Gil

Gil — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:58:00 +0000

And you figure yourself as some sort of Grizzly Adams depending on the day? Weren’t you talking about making your bow from wood you chose and bothered to make it yourself? Gee, why didn’t you go down the local sporting store and buy a bow instead engaging in protectionist claptrap?

Still, your argument is little different from the population argument – what if the population fell from 6.7 billion to 3.2 billion in a year from some super-virus? Well if it culled only people from the poorest nations then not much at all as the remaining 3.2 billion are the most productive people in the world. But I’m sure you too would say something along the lines of “now that we have 6.7 billion I couldn’t imagine the world population going down to 5 billion without causing great poverty.

By: matt

matt — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:49:00 +0000

Why does he have to take any steps–practical or otherwise–so that students can access lectures at the LOWEST GLOBAL COST? And what’s up with THE CAPS?

By: Mark Gendala

Mark Gendala — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:40:00 +0000

———————5 months ago, I replied————————

“Hey, why don’t you get economics lectures piped into American universities via interactive videoconferencing links from Asia for only
10% of the American salaries?
Admittedly, American academics would have to retrain as Mickey Mouse inpersonators – but that’s only a small price to pay for providing American students with lectures at the LOWEST GLOBAL COST”

Don, what practical steps have you subsequently taken to ensure that American students can indeed access economics lectures at the LOWEST GLOBAL COST? Please, surprise me…

Sincerely,
Mark Gendala,
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.ssotu.com
Author of “Re-industrialization of America” (R-O-A)