The Trouncing of Louiethegreater

[Virgil0211]

Here's a PM fletchforfreedom wrote concerning the bogus statist Louiethegreater.

[for a more easily read Word version of this and/or the supplements (with active links) feel free to e-mail me at fletch15@comcast.net.]

Have you heard about louietheloser?
Beaten by all the facts time after time.
Have you heard about louietheloser
He's a loser but he still keeps on lying...

-- with apologies to the Little River Band (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5KWI71s3DY)

Friends, subscribers, YouTubers, (and, of course, louie) lend me your ... er, reading eyes....

Or don't. I certainly won't be offended if you delete this message and, unless you express a desire to the contrary, you will never hear from me again. I have never sent out a widespread message before and don't expect ever to do so in the future. With one notable exception (the target of this missive), you were included in the distribution of this message because I believed that as a friend, subscriber or a fellow combatant you might be interested in the discourse between myself and the ever-so-modestly ("Many people has made worse decisions than me, they cannot think as well as me") self-described louiethegreater.

As you may know, one of louie's favorite pastimes for more than a year now has been to troll my channel in order to engage in ad hominem attacks against me where I have made comments or to engage in such attacks on my channel. No problem. I can take it and I do not block commenters on my channel (I don't believe that fools demonstrating their shortcomings damage my case). Of late, however, he has felt it necessary to engage in vicious and puerile attacks upon those who have the audacity to visit my channel and say something nice to or about me -- usually engaging in the truly mature practice of questioning their sexual orientation. And, call me crazy, but I think there should be some consequences for such an act. So I have decided to demonstrate conclusively (and, unlike louie, back it up with actual facts that can be substantiated) that louie is an unequivocal bald-faced liar as well as an obvious bigot.

This is certainly not news, but I thought you might be interested in the specifics for his most frequently maintained claims (feel free to use them against him as you see fit). And I will not go into the endless series of items in which he is merely economically, historically or logically ignorant (and has been shown to be so) except inasmuch as they touch on relevant points here. Such an essay would make a combined version of War and Peace, Human Action, the Aubrey-Maturin series and the annotated US Tax code look like a takeout menu from the local Chinese place. Nor will I go into other content in his posts beyond noting that he managed to cram more than 60 typos in roughly half as many comments on my channel, including a remarkable and constant inability to spell "hey".

Unlike louie's comments, this is not an attack on his intellect and maturity, per se (beyond a brief note of relevance at the end). All of you have come across louie's posts and are aware of his penchant for insults and vulgarity. On these issues, I leave it to you to decide just how impaired he may be in these areas given the factual data I will present.

Instead, I will confine myself to these endlessly repeated assertions that are not only absolutely false but that he cannot claim that their falsity has not been demonstrated to him and/or he did not know them to be false when he made them:

1) data sources (several) presented in refutation of his arguments are manipulated, unreliable and/or inferior to his own data sources (or personal beliefs) often because they are provided by "corporate" interests

2) 40,000 manufacturing facilities [have been] outsourced to the third world" or "to cheap Asian labor markets" [claimed source: Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio]

3) "ten years after NAFTA five million Americans fell below the poverty level"

4) the United States has been "de-industrialized" and official data to the contrary is not reliable because it is "minuplated (sic) data of corporate sponsered (sic) web sites" (a specious argument made, as some of you will know, to several people).

5) unemployment and income stagnation: "If we add the folks who have drawn out their unemployment claims and have went on welfare, it would probably be 50%" and current unemployment is 20% (sometimes stated as 1 in 5 jobless). His source here is supposedly Elizabeth Warren's "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class".

6) louie is a "capitalist"

I'll stop there in the interests of space. I was in double-digits - labor unions are illegal in China (which has the largest union in the world); Bill Gates employs very few Americans (53,735); 46% of the country was unionized in 1940 (it peaked at 35% in 1945); and on and on - but this is long enough. Most of these I will address in order, so if you don't care about any one in particular, feel free to skip around. The exception is the first item on the list as it is an issue that comes up repeatedly throughout the refutations of louie's other points.

PRELUDE: THREE THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE LIST

These few items do not appear but are noteworthy because, respectively, they demonstrate the problems facing those who try to examine louie's claims, just how careless louie is with his data, and just how absurd louie's chief "proof" (that we can just look around as he does) happens to be.

A) THOSE MAKING 0.20/HR

I admit defeat. I can find absolutely no source for this (ridiculous) figure. He carries it before himself like a cross warding off vampires but the only place that comes close is a comment by admitted socialist Bernie Sanders. He frequently mentions this figure in relation to China, but China's lowest minimum wage, set individually in each province, is more than 4 times that (the Yuan equivalent of $140.22 per month of approx. 172 hours labor or 81.5 cents an hour). That's just the legal minimum. Typical wages in China, as in every other country that has become more open to capitalism and free trade, have grown substantially since they have opened their markets (another fact that louie doesn't like and, instead of refuting -- because he can't -- he simply denies). Far from gaining wealth "on the backs" of anyone, it demonstrably benefits both parties (as I'll get to again).

[Virgil0211]

B) 65% OF AMERICA'S FOOD IMPORTED?!?

louie: "Hay (sic) for your information we import 65% of the food we consume in this country ... we import most of the food we eat, because the government signed CAFTA, and gave latin america the same free access the EU has had to our markets for a generation."

I can't say that this is a lie because I can't see where it was pointed out to be so to him, per se. It was quickly pointed out that "we are the number one exporter of food in the world", which is certainly true (and demonstrates louie's stated position to be about as likely as that the moon sleeps in the Pacific Ocean during the day) but doesn't bear on the statement directly. So it is likely just a mistake.

As mistakes go, this is a dumb one, perhaps not as dumb as the (oft repeated) assertion that only the top 50% pay all income taxes (actually 97.3% of them) because the other 50% are too poor [!] ... rather than because of the way the tax code is written, but still pretty dumb, nonetheless. Apparently, louie misread a news release from Public Citizen, the Ralph Nader advocacy group (he's adept at seeking out fringe source material -- while accusing others of doing so -- as we shall see, but I have no reason to dispute this claim), who said: "Today nearly $65 BILLION in food goods are imported into the United States annually -- nearly double the value imported when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and World Trade Organization (WTO) went into effect in the mid-1990s.[emphasis mine]".

Not 65% - $65 billion.

Of course, the "USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates total food expenditures for all food consumed in the United States was $1.18 trillion in 2009" which means that the US imports about 5.5%, just a wee bit lower than louie's contention. Oops.

[Virgil0211]

C) LOUIE'S VIEW OF THE WORLD

We are repeatedly told that anyone who disagrees with our vehement protectionist friend is a liar or a moron or a [fill in epithet of choice here] because we haven't "looked around"; because we don't see things with the "common sense" view that he does and, after all, the vast majority of people agree with him [pause while I wait for everyone to finish laughing]. "All one would have to do is look around at the country and it is obvious" so, demonstrating his thirst for knowledge, he intones, "I don't need eco[n] 101". A classic example is this: "There is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory of free trade does not work. In case there are any slow learners on the forum, just look around at the condition of the U.S. and if we are not proof of that, than slow learner classes are available in other forums. You could also check your brain for brainwashing." [second pause while I wait for everyone to finish laughing].

Ordinarily, it would be inappropriate to explore one's mere speculations in an assessment of someone's honesty (or lack thereof) but louie purveys his own view of the world (and the supposed agreement with it by "everyone") as a primary "proof" of his position whenever someone dares disagree, so it is certainly warranted to examine the validity of that view in relation to actual, inarguable events.

Not long ago, he said this:

"I predict the State of Ohio will go total [D]emocratic this electon (sic) cycle... [ s ] imply because the Democrats are using trade deals, outsourcing, and MFN for China as a campeign (sic) issue. I have never saw (sic) so many political adds (sic) using trade, outsourcing, jobs, and China as the issue. Of course[,] most people don't know that [D]emocrats are as eager to outsource as [R]epublicans, but I am just happy to see the real trade issues that is (sic) really causing job losses to be addressed." He also said, "Ohio is broke because her industrial tax base has been outsourced to China. All Ohions (sic) know that, that is why we have unloaded politicans (sic) like Mike DeWine."

This assessment is particularly useful because it not only bears on the ability of the man to perceive reality, but it deals specifically with his ability to assess both the nature of and general perception by others of the very issues (trade deals, outsourcing, etc.) under discussion.

Suffice it to say, louie did NOT have a good day on November 3rd. Despite the efforts of the DNC and Obama himself, Republican John Kasich beat incumbent Ted Strickland for governor; Republican Rob Porter easily retained his seat in the US Senate; five Ohio Democratic incumbents in the House lost to their Republican challengers (leaving only 5 Dems out of 18 seats and making Ohio's John Boehner a likely candidate for Speaker of the House); the Democrat Attorney General was ousted by the supposedly "unloaded" Republican Mike DeWine; Republicans also won Secretary of State and Treasurer, who, along with the governor and representatives of the two major parties, will determine redistricting; in the State House, every Republican retained his seat while two Dems lost theirs (the balance now is 23 Republicans to 10 Democrats).

Ordinarily, anyone whose assessment of reality proved to be that radically at odds with the facts might be embarrassed to cast insults at the intellectual and reasoning skills of others, but then we wouldn't be here, would we?

[Virgil0211]

On to the lies:

1) MANIPULATED DATA SOURCES

Both data integrity and bias are legitimate points of contention in any debate. There have been many times when I have questioned both the validity and neutrality of data sources that present data that I disagree with (and will do so in this analysis as well). But there is a valid way, an invalid way and flatly dishonest way of doing so.

The valid way involves examining the past history of the source and the methodology used to supply the data. If the source has a history of being caught purveying false information or if it can be demonstrated -- not merely assumed -- that the data has been manipulated, it is perfectly acceptable to discard its findings. At that point, on can speculate as to why the source is unreliable (funding sources, agenda, etc.). The invalid way begins and ends with an assumption of bias. It is not enough to assume that some data set is biased because the source is funded by a corporation or unions or Democrats or Republicans. It is fair to ask the question and investigate the credibility of the data on that basis, but it doesn't demonstrate bias in the absence of additional evidence. The deliberately dishonest way is to look at the data, decide whether or not it says what you want it to say and then, without evidence, either accept or denounce it on that basis. This, as will be abundantly clear, is louie's sole criterion.

Let me give you an example of a source whose assertions can be completely ignored. The Economic (sic) Policy Institute is an organization that is funded entirely by organized labor and vigorously pursues those issues near and dear to organized labor's heart (promotion of the minimum wage, opposition to free trade, etc.). It is one of several interlinked organizations that frequently put forth complementary studies to give the impression that their conclusions are supported by multiple, independent and neutral organizations when such is not the case.

So far, however, I have not impugned the reliability of the source; I have merely raised suspicions. In order to discount their findings I must provide more. That, however, is a snap. In their efforts to advance their agenda, the EPI has been caught repeatedly making deliberately distorted statements and manipulating data to make specious points. If you go to their website, you will find nearly endless references to the Card & Krueger studies purporting to show that minimum wage increases can actually increase employment. Even in recent publications, these studies are referenced favorably. The problem is, as any economist can tell you, these studies have been thoroughly refuted for more than a decade.

Furthermore, the EPI began a campaign to make it seem as if most economists now believe that raising the minimum wage does not lead to an increase in unemployment. This is, of course, ridiculous. A detailed study by the University of New Hampshire revealed that 77% of those members of the American Economics Association described as labor economists -- those most likely to be inclined toward the union position - agreed that minimum wage hikes had a detrimental effect on employment. In other words, in opposition to EPI's list 650 is a collection of nearly 14,000 (!) economists in that one group alone. Other studies have placed the level of agreement on this point at 73%, 82.5% (both Fuller/Geide-Stevenson) and as much as 90% (American Economic Review). A look at the list of economists EPI noted as favoring a minimum wage hike included several from ... the Economic Policy Institute, including "leading" economist Lawrence Mishl, and still more from the Keystone Research Center and the Fiscal Policy Institute (two of those linked organizations). Several others work (or worked) directly for the unions themselves.

The reality is quite simple, as stated by economist Finis Welch of Texas A&M University:

"When wages or other prices are artificially increased, less will be bought. This well-trod soil, the economists' law of demand, is as true today as when Adam Smith first described it more than two centuries ago.... In recent years there have been a handful of ad hoc examples or studies reporting cases where the minimum wage has increased and employment apparently did not fall. Foremost among these is the New Jersey/Pennsylvania comparison by Princeton Professors David Card and Alan Krueger. But re-examination of their data has raised so many questions that the study is generally dismissed by professional economists. Their finding, and that of a handful of other examples, should not surprise. Many things affect employment, and the minimum wage is only one. If we can disprove the law of demand by presenting seemingly anomalous examples, we can also prove that smoking does not cause cancer by pointing to a few old people who smoke.... The proof is not in the isolated example. Rather it is in the preponderance of the data, and there the picture is clear.... Increasing the minimum will make some jobs more attractive -- it will also make them harder to get."

[SUPPLEMENT ONE: Demonstrating how completely the Card & Krueger studies have been discredited and giving further detail on the economic disaster that is the minimum wage is beyond the scope of this piece and would hugely increase its size. A further discussion along these lines does not bear on louie's dishonesty except inasmuch as it documents the points I have made here so, while it is not included here, I will happily send the details to anyone who is all interested -- within minutes of my reading the request.]

Perhaps the most famous example of the EPI's unreliability occurred during the 2004 presidential campaign when John Kerry stated that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "insourced" jobs made $9,000 per year less than "outsourced" jobs. That was quite a surprise to the BLS as it had made no such claim; even FactCheck.org slammed that one (http://www.factcheck.org/misinforming_voters_from_the_stump.html). The REAL BLS data are somewhat inconclusive but show that, if anything, the "insourced" jobs paid MORE than those that were "outsourced". It turns out that the figure came from an EPI pamphlet entitled "A Failed Record: Jobs Quality".

As economist Alan Reynolds pointed out at the time:

"The reference to BLS was as counterfeit as a $20 Rolex. The figures come from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), an outfit specializing in confusing confused politicians. BLS has explicitly refuted these tortured statistics. And they are not about 'today's jobs,' because they include losses in the recession, including a million jobs lost after September 11, 2001.

"The EPI industry breakdown confirms the obvious: Jobs in cyclical manufacturing drop sharply in recessions [a point that is of note given louie's claim about outsourced factories discussed below], and the largest absolute numbers of added jobs (as opposed to the largest percentage increases) always occur in industries with huge employment -- such as health, education and finance."

Reynolds went on to say:

"Such figures tell us nothing about whether recent jobs in such industries paid well. To find out, we must look at post-recession data on labor income. For the year ending in June, increases in wages, salaries and benefits, says a real BLS report, 'were 4.6 percent for blue-collar occupations, 3.7 percent for white-collar occupations and 3.4 percent for service occupations.'"

"The Kerry-Edwards team also relies on a recently released EPI book, 'The State of Working America,' which mainly consists of comparing last year's employment and incomes with figures from the year 2000. There are two fundamental problems with that. First, this is 2004, not 2003, and today's jobs data make last year's instantly obsolete and irrelevant. Second, 2000 was before the recession and the September 11 terrorist attacks."

Reynolds was only one of many who pointed out the problems with the $9,000 assertion. Not only did the BLS refute EPI's claims but the EPI was forced to ADMIT that it altered ("weighted") the BLS numbers to determine the $9,000 figure, and presented a weak (and economically invalid) explanation as to why such an adjustment was merited.

Again, that the EPI has an agenda is a given, but that, in and of itself, is not sufficient to dismiss its pronouncements. The Center for Economic Policy and Research, for example, has a political outlook that is nearly identical, and I have argued on more than one occasion with their (decidedly minority) views, but I have, to date, never had any cause to disparage their DATA. I may DISAGREE with them -- and, believe me, I do -- but I can't DISMISS them. In the case of the EPI, if we were looking at a single instance of false data from this source (and another example awaits when we get to NAFTA), it might be written off as an isolated incident or error, but there have been several such instances. It might even be excusable if, despite its poor track record, the EPI reached conclusions that were consistent with or even comparable to those of ANY other source. But that is not the case either. It is, alas, one of louie's favorites because it says what he wants to hear. He has frequently cited their NAFTA statistics (and lied about them, too, as we shall see). For all of louie's claims that anyone who disagrees with him is using "manipulated data", the fact is that his primary source is manipulated to begin with and, as I shall demonstrate, he manipulates them still further.

[Virgil0211]

2) 40,000 OUTSOURCED FACTORIES

This, except for the insults he spouts, is likely louie's most frequent claim. It is, in a word, a lie. The reason is that no one -- except louie. Literally no one -- not Barak Obama, not Harold Meyerson of The Washington Post, not Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, not even the United Steelworkers of America. No one.

So what are the facts and where did they come from?

First of all, there are no official or comprehensive figures on the number of factories in the United States. No such enumeration exists. Even an attempt would be problematic given the possibility of different definitions. Sure, the local GM plant gets included, but how about the pottery kiln in someone's back shed? To give you an idea of the difficulty, consider that in researching the facts, I came across an assertion that there were once 40,000 cigar factories in the US (that's at one point in time -- just Google it). Now, does anyone believe that cigar manufacture was ever a huge percentage of America's industrial output? Of course, not! Instead, for the benefit of its members, the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI estimates (with, as they freely concede, a large margin for error) the number of factories in the country.

Manufacturers Alliance is a policy-research group representing large (corporate) manufacturers located in Arlington, Virginia. As such, if louie's contention that corporate sources are inherently unreliable had any validity, he should simply have dropped his assertion on that basis alone. The point is that louie was told repeatedly (by more than just me) that the assertion was invalid and he should re-check his sources; that he chose never to do so and continued to both make the claim and disparage anyone who disagreed with it makes his position a lie.

As the latest economic disruption was beginning, the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI reported that the number of factories in the US had shrunk from its 1997 peak (just before leading economic indicators had begun to turn south prior to the onset of recession) to 336,000, a 10% drop. Had louie made that statement he would have gotten no argument from me, but that is not what he said. Consider what was actually being said: over a period of roughly a decade that included two significant economic disruptions, the total number of factories declined by 37,333 (subject to a sizable margin for error) for literally ANY reason. By magic, I have saved 2,667 factories so I guess we can have more cigars.

Alas, the United Steelworkers of America decided to round the figure up to 40,000 and publish it through the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a labor-management partnership of the union and several leading U.S. manufacturers [notice I am not disparaging the figure because it is being put forth by an organization dominated by organized labor -- one can reach one's own conclusions]. This assertion was then picked up by Barak Obama, Harold Meyerson at the Post and Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Not one of them ever, at any time, attributed that figure to outsourcing or any one cause (as taking such a position would be so obviously absurd particularly given those aforementioned economic disruptions that obviously were a cause rather than a symptom of the closing factories.

Don't take my word for it. Here's Brown's assertion: "The Alliance for American Manufacturing reports more than 40,000 factories across the nation closed in the past ten years." (http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=aae3dd56-f317-4d94-b937-74546609948b) I could write a book on the factual inaccuracies and false assumptions in Brown's press release as well but that is not my intent here. Suffice it to say that there is a reason why any rational individual relies on primary information sources rather than the statements of politicians -- relevant to the data integrity point being made here -- particularly when that politician demonstrates less economic understanding than might be expected from one with degrees in ... Russian studies, policy administration and education. To be fair, Brown, who has had none of that "real world" experience that louie is always insisting that everyone else have, did write a book about the "myths" of free trade ... with no citations, no index, no bibliography and no support for his bald assertions about the horrors of "free" trade. He does, however, go on at length about how diligent a crusader he, personally, has been in the battle to save American jobs (while fighting for the wrong side, but then that's what ignorance gets you).

[SUPPLEMENT TWO: Going into a detailed account of one of louie's biggest misconceptions -- that outsourcing is a major source of job loss in this country is, again, beyond the scope of this account except inasmuch as that his attributing the loss of factories to outsourcing. Having covered sufficient ground to demonstrate that such is not the case (as literally NO ONE endorses that view), I see no need to go further at this juncture. But, again, if you find value in a more detailed account regarding the impact of "outsourcing" and the more than offsetting impact "insourcing", you have but to ask and I will happily forward it. This is the only supplement that will take me some time to deliver -- the dheer volume of information available to make this point makes condensing it to a manageable level time consuming.]

Perhaps we should all take louie's advice when considering Mr. Brown's information: "You should know by now that I do not take politicans (sic) word for anything..."

[Virgil0211]

3) NAFTA JOB LOSS AND POVERTY

Before going down this road, let me make it clear that I am not setting out to defend NAFTA. While, louie's protestations to the contrary, free trade is unequivocally beneficial to the economies and workers of the countries that adopt it, managed trade agreements like NAFTA are not truly free trade and can have any number of consequences depending upon how they are drafted. The issue remains louie's dishonesty (when he is not merely engaging in insults and/or demonstrating bigotry) so

NAFTA went active January 1, 1994 so the period in question is from YE93 (39.3 million; 15.1%, available here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/poverty.html) to YE03 (34.6 million; 12.1%; available here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf). Now, for some strange reason, that looks more like a 5 million person DECLINE in poverty rather than an increase. I certainly do not attribute the drop in poverty to NAFTA (1993 was a post-recession peak), but louie's assertion is completely at odds with the easily substantiated facts.

As these figures are from the US Census Bureau, literally the ONLY source of poverty data in the US, any attempt to portray them as manipulated or unreliable while stating contrary figures that, by definition, cannot be from a legitimate source, is nothing more than another obvious lie. A more revealing way to look at the poverty data to show how specious louie's point is can be found graphically here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf

Note that the number of people in poverty did not even return to 1994 levels until well into the current crisis (which literally no one with two brain cells to rub together attributes to NAFTA or outsourcing or globalism) and the poverty rate is only now comparable to what it was in 1994 (a wash over the period). After all, anyone who is paying attention can grasp how the rate, rather than the raw figure, is what matters as it takes into account changes in the size of the overall population.

Our friend, louie, alas, maintains not only the (demonstrably false) position that NAFTA caused poverty to skyrocket, but insists that "all knew (except maybe you) that 870,000 jobs were about to be outsourced due to NAFTA"; "NAFTA cost 879,000 [A]mericans their jobs"; and "[t]he first 5 years of NAFTA drained one million jobs from the U.S.".

This is one of the things that demonstrate conclusively that louie is a liar. As in the case of the so-called "outsourced" factories, it isn't enough for him to present data that is most consistent with his own position (no matter how unreliable) while disparaging any data (without basis) that demonstrates otherwise. He deliberately alters the data to make it even more outrageous than it actually is. Thus, 40,000 factories didn't just close, they were "outsourced". And when a source attributes the loss of 879,000 jobs to NAFTA over a 10 year period, louie either insists that, magically, "all knew" that such was going to be the outcome. Correct or not, the Office of Management and Budget, a source louie has used for his own purposes in the past, argued that NAFTA would increase jobs. And, even if the 879,000 job loss figure were accurate (not the case as we shall see), louie ramps it up to a million and cuts the time frame in half (from ten to five years).

I know. I know. For pointing something like this out, I can count on being accused of using "government manipulated data, published by those who support the liberalization of our markets, and free trade" and that I need some "contact with the real world" since "[ s ] eventy percent of the country agree[ s ] with [him]." That, as with the case of the 40,000 figure, I am using reliable (usually official) sources that are more often than not THE SAME SOURCES HE'S USING and that polls indicate (as I'll come back to) only a tiny minority of individuals agrees with any of his positions (on my channel, he essentially argues that everyone who voted for Obama agrees with his positions -- yes, it's THAT ridiculous) is apparently beside the point.

But it gets better. What is louie's only source for the 879,000 figure? Our old friends at the Employment Policy Institute! A quick check of that hotbed of conservative ideas ... Wikipedia, shows that even they correctly identify the EPI, not as an impartial observer, but as an outspoken opponent of the agreement. Wikipedia touches briefly on the wide variety of studies that yield varying results (as one should expect from an assessment of real world events in which all variables cannot be completely controlled).

In actuality, the consensus is that, given a reasonable margin for error, the impact on employment from NAFTA is statistically insignificant: "NAFTAs net effect on jobs in the United States has been minuscule.... The best models to date suggest that NAFTA has caused either no net change in employment or a very small net gain of jobs." According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And the Congressional Research Service evaluated four studies on NAFTA and said that "NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment."

The Wikipedia article goes on to say:

"Proponents reject the claims of some that the free trade agreement is destroying the manufacturing industry and causing displacement of workers in that industry. In the period of 1981-1995, the years from '93-'95 saw the highest rate of job loss, even during this period of great expansion. However, the rate of job loss due to plant closings, a typical argument against NAFTA, showed little deviation from previous periods. The percentage of workers in the manufacturing industry with job loss actually decreased from 13.8 % in 1991-1993, pre-NAFTA years, to 11.8% in the years from 1993-1995. Also, US industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993-2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982-1993, only saw a 28% increase. In fact, according to NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for helping to foment. In the manufacturing sector, NAFTA yielded 43% of US manufacturing export growth and only 28% of import growth.

"The most direct measurement of the impact of trade agreements on employment is the number of jobs supported by exports. It is estimated that 8500 manufacturing jobs are supported by every $1 billion in US exports. Because $12 billion of average annual gains in exports were created by expansion of North American trade, more than 100,000 additional US jobs were created. More importantly, it has been noted that in export-oriented industries where some of the lost manufacturing jobs go, wages are 13-16 percent higher than the national average."

But my point is not that even these figures are necessarily definitive, but simply that the EPI figures are decidedly outside the range of the rest of the research.

The article goes on:

"NAFTA's opponents attribute much of the displacement caused in the US labor market to the United States' growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada. According to the EPI, the widening of the deficit has caused the dislocation of domestic production to other countries with cheaper labor and supported the loss of 879,280 US jobs."

Several problems, however, have been noted with the "study" by the Economic Policy Institute, which even that hot-bed of conservatism, the Los Angeles Times, describes as "left-of-center" (see link below). The easiest to explain to the layman is the criticism they heap upon a study by the California World Trade Commission, which reported early on that California had "boosted its exports to Mexico by $2.6 billion--or 40%--since 1993, when NAFTA took effect, and has enjoyed 'significant' new investment and created thousands of jobs." (http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-29/news/mn-53620_1_california-state). [NOTE: I am not necessarily endorsing the CWTC findings -- merely the nature of the critique by the EPI.]

The EPI argued that the CWTC findings (which found 47,600 jobs were created in California from increased trade with Canada alone) had "allocated all employment effects to the state of the exporting company" and that "production—along with any attendant job effects—need not have taken place in the exporter's state." The example they used to denounce the study is as follows: "If a California dealer buys cars from Chrysler and sells them to Mexico, these studies will find job creation in California. However, the cars are not made in California; so the employment effects should instead be attributed to Michigan and other state with high levels of auto industry production. Likewise, if the same firm buys auto parts from Mexico, the loss of employment will occur in auto-industry states, not in California."

The problem with that analysis is pretty obvious. When a dealership sells a car, it takes in all of the money from the buyer (or the buyer's bank). It then uses those proceeds to pay employees, purchase advertising, etc. as well as to purchase additional inventory from the auto manufacturer. The EPI reasoning (and a major flaw in their statistics) is that it only takes into account manufacturing employment (and even that only from the initial supplier) and completely ignores the significant effects related to all of the other economic activity that takes place. No wonder their job loss figures as so very much higher than in every other study.

[Travis Retriever]

Sweet!
Thanks for posting this, Virgil.

[Virgil0211]

Sweet!
Thanks for posting this, Virgil.

I'm not quite done yet. =P There's more.

[Virgil0211]

4) THE "DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION" OF AMERICA

This may well be louie's second favorite canard. It is arguably the easiest to dispel since louie's own sources hamstring his ridiculous argument. Consider point two above. If, according to the very source from which he got his 40,000 factories closed figure, the number of factories in the US peaked in 1997, how is it possible that the US has been "de-industrializing" since the 70s? Obviously, it isn't. A more comprehensive source is US industrial production found here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=INDPRO

The graph is from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank. And like so many other pieces of data that louie likes to disparage, it is the ONLY source for this data. Moreover, when louie denounces it as the misinformation from a source wedded to putting forth the neo-liberal globalist corporate agenda, he is deliberately overlooking the fact that the data has been gathered in precisely the same, entirely transparent manner since decades before the concept of a "neo-liberal globalist corporate agenda" was ever dreamed of, let alone existed (not that it actually does outside of the minds of certain silly conspiracy theorists).

Note also that industrial production has grown essentially without any non-recession interruptions -- that is, except when the economy as a whole is contracting, which, naturally, results in such things as factory closings, the growth in industrial output has been essentially continuous. One should also pay particular attention to the change in the slope of the graph showing increasing output since about 1970, the very period louie suggests has been the greatest disaster for American industry. Literally no one, except apparently our protectionist friend, disputes this data. No one. This has been pointed out to louie repeatedly, hence the inescapable conclusion that it is, in fact, a bald-faced lie.

Now, louie has frequently argued that things were fine until the 1970s (up until which time US markets were, apparently, protected) when, according to his bizarre recollection of history, "a bunch of neo liberal, globalist were sent to Washington", "Austrian Economics began to preach laissez-faire free trade", "our markets were lib[e]ralized and Japan was given free access to our markets" and "the country has been going south every since". He particularly notes US Steel in particular as one of the companies thrown to the wolves by neo-liberal policies. And he references as a source for these contentions Ha- Joon Chang, author of "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism".

I must confess to a significant gap between writing that last paragraph and the next one. It took several attempts at reading it before I could stop laughing. Not one of louie's claims can survive the light of day. Whether or not a bunch of globalists were sent to Washington might arguably be subjective and that the growth of the Austrian School of Economics pre-dates his suggested timing by decades may be considered a minor point, but his assessment of the history of protectionism in this country is utterly and completely wrong by every objective standard. No credible source exists anywhere that supports his contentions. And his choice of a source is particularly humorous.

The history of protectionism in the United States is one of unmitigated disaster. And louie's history is an unmitigated fabrication. Not one of the Founding fathers was a protectionist as he describes them. The closest, Alexander Hamilton, as usual at odds with the majority of those around him, was a mercantilist (adopting the theories completely debunked by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations") and even he believed only that tariffs were of value in the short-run until industry was up and running (even Wikipedia gets this right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures - Wiki is a convenient link for those who don't have the time to read the works of David McCullough, Tom Woods or Joseph J. Ellis). And the much vaunted (by protectionists and other uneducated individuals) Hamilton Tariff was passed in 1789 (not 1776 as louie has claimed) only because it was an easily collected revenue source to fund the entirety of government and because it only amounted to 5% to 10% (rather than an economically devastating 50% or 100%) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_tariff)

The Hamilton Tariff was not only not a driver of economic success in the US (that is attributed to post-war recovery, westward expansion and growth related to government policies that, on balance, were less intrusive than any other country), its distortions were a contributing factor in the divisions between North and South that helped precipitate the Civil War, as essentially any history book covering the period agrees.

While some (a tiny minority), argue that protectionism was a boon to the growth of US prosperity, particularly between the Civil War and the late 19th century, the reality -- generally accepted -- is that what tariffs there were during this period were frequently unenforced, were relatively easy to evade and fell on relatively few goods (the typical argument involves referencing tariff tables for the period and completely ignoring the context of the period - not to mention the key growth driver, which was post-War recovery combined with westward expansion). As the century drew to a close, however, the tariffs on the books steadily grew more and more teeth

The detrimental impact of those increasingly felt tariffs led Woodrow Wilson to promise a drastic lowering of tariffs (accomplished to the economic benefit of the country in 1913). While it is difficult to judge the long-term benefits of the tariff reductions given the impact of World War I and the Roaring Twenties, there isn't an economist or historian who disputes the disastrous impact of the next significant round of protectionism: Smoot-Hawley.

International trade had already shrunk drastically with the onset of the Great Depression and the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act served only to make matters significantly worse. While not the initial cause of the Depression (primarily Fed monetary policy and unit banking laws that made bank failures so likely), it, like passage of the Warren Act that gave unprecedented power to unions and precipitated the Roosevelt Recession, was one of the factors universally agreed to have contributed to making the depression "great" (louie has stated repeatedly that this fact has been "debunked" -- yet another obvious example of lying - and his claim that he has "argued Smoot-Hawley for thirty years" merely shows how long he has been doing so). Every significant trading partner the US had responded with retaliatory tariffs and American exports were devastated. The Great Depression was one of the very few periods in American history during which the country had a sustained trade surplus ... and it was obviously a disaster.

[SUPPLENMENT THREE: It is a not-uncommon misconception among economic laymen that trade deficits are economically harmful and organizations like the EPI cater to such misconceptions because it serves their policy agendas. That louie has several such misconceptions is not the same thing as lying, except inasmuch as he claims a superior -- or even marginal -- comprehension of economic issues (as we shall see) so I will not go farther here. If anyone is interested in the (disarmingly simple) logic behind why trade deficits are economically neutral (and do not cause unemployment), I will, in this case, as well, be happy to oblige any who ask.]

By World War II, much of the damaging tariffs had been removed through bilateral agreements or circumvented by lend-lease agreements with military allies. And after the war, the US promoted the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1947) to minimize tariffs and trade restrictions. Contrary to louie's nonsensical "history", this occurred two decades before his so-called rise of the globalists and right at the outset of the post-war boom.

By the 1970s, however, the auto and steel industries in the United States were beginning to experience difficulties, NOT due to the reduction of trade barriers as absolutely no such action took place, but because the government instituted wage and price freezes and additional environmental regulations that made it far more difficult for them to compete. Not only didn't globalists (or anyone else for that matter) reduce trade restrictions in the 1970s, but, as a sop to the combined demands of Detroit and the unions, quotas and voluntary trade restrictions were put in place to limit the influx of Japanese automobiles - exactly the opposite of what louie claims.

Again, don't just take my word for it, check out essentially any history or economics text that covers the period. Or simply check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history).

This brings us to louie's supposed source for his contentions. Ha-Joon Chang is a heterodox (that is, out of the mainstream), Marxian (no louie doesn't mention that even though he cites Marx as a source in the very same book) "development economist". "Development economists" are almost universally socialist as they seek state solutions (and ONLY state solutions) to bring "developing" nations into the First World as rapidly as possible. Put bluntly, Chang is not taken seriously except by the rabid protectionist fringe. William Easterly gives a typical mainstream critique of Chang's book (http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/NYR_sept09.pdf) although the review in the Journal of Economic Literature makes it look like a ringing endorsement. Easterly notes, "[e]arly development economists dismissed the relevance of such history [free market success in rich countries] for two main reasons. First, they aimed to find rapid solutions to world poverty, and the development of Europe and America had been too gradual. Second, in the 1940s, European-American capitalism had been discredited by the Great Depression and US state planning during World War II". He is, of course, not endorsing that absurd view, but, instead, pointing out the abysmal track record of "development economists."

Chang took exception to Easterly's review (hardly a surprise) particularly his decision to take the data set beyond 2000 to 2008. Since Japan's protectionist policies had turned a post-war growth boom (as their economy rebuilt) into a more than decade long slump that has resulted in long-term unemployment, economic stagnation and a national debt larger than their entire economy, Chang's desire to ignore the later data is hardly a surprise either.

The saddest part of the book is a chapter-long screed against capitalism on the basis that he had (at the time) a six-year old son and those nasty capitalists would put him to work, when, in fact, it was the prosperity that results from the greater embrace of free markets (not unions, not child labor laws and not mandatory schooling) that effectively brought child labor to an end in the richer countries.

[SUPPLEMENT FOUR: The popular myth that either unions or mandatory schooling laws brought child labor to an (effective) end is about as hard to kill as the one that the Industrial Revolution harmed workers in the first place, but it, of course can be done and I will provide backup for that if anyone is interested].

But here's where the real pattern emerges. Despite louie's claims, Chang has NEVER argued in favor of protectionism in a developed mature economy such as exists in the United States. His argument, fallacious as it is, is not that free trade is harmful to such economies, but, instead, that protectionism is a boon to DEVELOPING countries and that rich countries, after getting to a point where free trade is most beneficial to them, are denying poorer countries the opportunity to benefit from such protectionist policies. Once again, louie has sought out the most outrageous or unreliable source he can find that most conforms to his preconceived notions, portrays him as mainstream and then deliberately distorts what even they have to say. It's absolutely pathological.

Even if we could get Alexander Hamilton and Ha-Joon Chang to visit us and expand upon the protectionist policies that they did endorse, each would be appalled that their views were being abused to justify the economic stupidity of imposing tariffs of 50% to 100% in a mature economy. It is impossible to read what they actually had to say and come to any other conclusion.

But louie will reach for literally any source to misconstrue in order to make his (specious) case. He cites, for example a BusinessWeek article that argues that, due to the nature of the calculation, the benefits of offshoring (which they do not dispute exist) MAY be overstated, but, in their own words: "It's important to emphasize the tenuousness of this calculation. In particular, it required BusinessWeek to make assumptions about the size of the cost savings from off-shoring, information the government doesn't even collect ... there aren't enough data in [several] areas to take a stab at a calculation." Even if their speculations are entirely correct, however, the result would still be a substantial and continued increase in manufacturing output.

And, recently, on my channel, he even attempted to portray an offhand comment by Henry Kissinger (a figure universally recognized as an advocate of US hegemonic influence and hardly a free trader -- though you wouldn't believe it from louie's description) indicated that he was correct and that the US had, in fact, de-industrialized: "Well genius, wonder what would give Henry the idea that the country has been de-industrialized."

That, of course, is not what he said. Kissinger's actual quote read, "And I personally believe we have to reindustrialize our country so that we have more manufacturing capability and don't become more and more a service economy". That was the sum total of his commentary on the issue -- hardly an in depth analysis. And it is clear to literally anyone, that he was discussing the change in relative strengths of the manufacturing sector vs. the service sector rather than any nominal "de-industrialization". Elsewhere, our protectionist friend claimed that "re-industrialization" was Kissinger's solution for "alarming unemployment rates", when, in fact, Kissinger was discussing ways to continue to facilitate foreign investment in the US -- beginning with reduction of the federal (not trade) deficit ... as anyone can see (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/kissinger-hillary-right-us-national-debt-could-be-039big-handicap039).

I'm surprised he didn't use Denny Hoyer as a source! (http://www.weblogbahamas.com/blog_bahamas/2010/09/is-us-manufacturing-in-decline.html)

The reality is, of course, that literally every advanced economy on the globe has shifted a greater percentage of their economy from manufacturing to services (including China despite louie's belief that they are doing all of our manufacturing). The same thing happened a century ago as economies transformed and shifted significant percentages of their economies from agriculture to manufacturing. If you wish an example for a country whose economy is more heavily focused on manufacturing than any other, I can certainly give you one, but, personally, I'd prefer not to model our economy on that of Belize.

[Virgil0211]

5) UNEMPLOYMENT AND ELIZABETH WARREN

In the interests of space, I will conclude this proof with this item. It is interesting in that it demonstrates several points of dishonesty relevant to the discussion. One reason for this is the fact that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to question unemployment statistics as they are presented, each of which demands at least a basic understanding of the methodology used to calculate them, each of which involve some of the most basic skills in comprehending economic data, and each of which is thoroughly and completely missed by little louie.

It is never inappropriate to question the methodology of any statistic -- it is on that basis, and that basis alone, that the WHO health rankings can be rejected, but, as in the case with data sources, it is never sufficient to merely denounce a given statistic as manipulated or biased. And it is especially inappropriate to make such a denunciation when you haven't a clue how a statistic is calculated. When louie suggests that the statistics would be different "[ i ]f we add[ed] the folks who have drawn out their unemployment claims", and that he doesn't "see how you could possibly believe the DOL['s] ...obsurd (sic) numbers [because they] do not consider those whose unemployment has run out", he is demonstrating an ignorance of the topic he has chosen to discuss that is truly profound. To be fair, this is an all-too-common misconception among the general populace, but, again, when claiming superior -- or even ANY -- competence in the subject matter, one must at least get the basics right.

First of all, the calculation of the unemployment rate has absolutely NOTHING to do with unemployment claims. Rather, the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts monthly surveys of 60,000 households and uses those responses, along with Census data to determine the official unemployment figures that they report. (http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm). Worse, however, is the imbecilic notion that the BLS engages in some form of chicanery in order to deceive the public and put forth some kind of agenda. In fact, the BLS has been collecting data in a consistent and fully transparent manner for several decades. That does not mean that the methodology is static. Attempts have been made over the years to improve the surveys and to better reflect labor force size using the Census data and it's even appropriate to question the accuracy of those adjustments, but they do not generally alter the figures by a significant amount and they have never altered the long-term trend figures in any way.

Thus, when louie is told (if Todd will forgive me):

"If you knew ANYTHING about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression, you would know that unemployment PEAKED at 9.0% in December of 1929 and was headed down - and quite rapidly UNTIL Smoot - Hawley passed in June of 1930. In FACT here are the unemployment statistics between the Stock market crash and the passage of that tariff.

Nov. 1929 - 5.0%
Dec. 1929 - 9.0%
Feb. & Mar. 1930 - 7.6%
June 1930 - 6.3%
...

But then government enacted your precious tariffs and our economy went into the tank. Let's look at unemployment AFTER Smoot:

By Dec, it had jumped to 14.4%, and a year later it was 19.8% !!"

...and he responds "none of the data you post is relivent (sic) because it has been manipulated to suit your purpose", he is simply lying through his teeth (no longer even remotely a surprise at this point). It isn't merely a mistake: he has no better figures; he has no basis for discounting those presented; he simply didn't like them and, so, dismissed them out of hand -- that's a lie.

The figures being discussed are the official unemployment rate, but that is, of course, not the only measure of unemployment. The BLS actually calculates six (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm), and much of the discussion about what constitutes the "real" unemployment rate involves some of these other measures. The standard measure (U-3: most recently 9.6%) includes all those actively seeking work and is uncontroversial as such. The addition of discouraged workers (in U-4) -- those who have given up looking because the prospects look grim -- adds another 0.7% (to 10.3%). Adding all those workers that are "marginally attached to the labor force" -- those who have recently been employed but are not currently seeking work for reasons other than discouragement (U-5) -- increases the rate by another 0.7% (to 11.0%). With this addition, the validity of the statistic becomes less certain. While most people would agree that the person who despairs of finding work should be considered unemployed, the inclusion of someone who is not working and chooses for personal reasons not to seek employment is not so readily agreed upon. The debate about what should and should not be included is not new, as Time pointed out nearly twenty years ago (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973773,00.html).

The largest figure typically cited for unemployment is U-6, which includes, along with all the other people mentioned above, those people who are "employed part time for economic reasons". The people of this group, comprising 6.1% of the labor force, actually have jobs. They each may even have more than one job. It is important to recognize that these individuals are experiencing hardship due to economic conditions, but, as most people understand the terms, these people are not "unemployed", but rather "UNDERemployed". This brings the total to 17.1%.

Figures for the unemployed exceeding 20% include all of those captured in the U-6 figure plus an estimate of "long-term discouraged workers" calculated by John Williams and published on his (paid subscription) website Shadow Government Statistics. Now, John is a nice guy and many of his criticisms of government statistics are valid. But he tends to do something that is statistically and logically invalid -- that is, he presumes that his criticisms are entirely valid (that's okay, we all do) and then attempts to calculate adjusted figures based on old methodology either in the absence of data or based on assumptions that are at least questionable as those used in government calculations. It isn't that his calculations are "manipulated" so much as that they are speculative and subject to further discussion.

Personally, I have no objection to discussing unemployment in any of those contexts so long as it is understood which one you are using and what the definitions are, but frequently people like louie compare apples to oranges using the SGS adjusted measure and comparing it to, say, a U-3 measure from some earlier point in time to show a trend that is factually wrong. On top of this, louie wants you to believe that one of the reasons that unemployment is so high is because "2.3 million jobs have been lost to China alone" when literally no credible source anywhere agrees with that figure. His source? Our old friends at the Economic (sic) Policy Institute. This is just another example of selecting a thoroughly unreliable source and presenting it as gospel.

It is even more absurd that louie, having no grasp of the figures he is using, rather than discussing 20% unemployment (in the sense that some of the work force is not fully employed), argues that there are "1 in 5 jobless", a term that would preclude the inclusion of the underemployed and render the assertion false. Finally, he attributes the figure to an Elizabeth Warren video which, surprise, surprise, says no such thing.

The Elizabeth Warren video (found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A) is interesting in its own right, but not nearly so much as it is when you consider how completely wrong louie gets it. Now, part of it isn't louie's fault. While the video is entitled "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class", Warren makes no such claim, nor does the material she presents support such a position. In actuality, as you can see on the screen behind the podium, that phrase is posed as a question and, at the end of her talk, she expresses a personal fear that the middle class might disappear; she makes no such prediction. What she actually discusses can be found in the subtitle "Higher Risks, Lower Rewards and a Shrinking Safety Net".

Elizabeth Warren, as can be seen in many of the other videos in which she can be found, is an accomplished authority on the law -- particularly bankruptcy law and -- and solid researcher (I don't even hold her alignment with the Huffington Post against her), but her understanding of economics and banking (while countless light-years beyond louie's) is not nearly as robust. Consider the lecture she is giving here. She makes a number of good points about income volatility, about the increase in consumer debt and the reduction of savings (though the nature of savings and whether or not investment in real estate -- a primary home -- should be included along with other savings which is an ongoing debate), but the bulk of her argument amounts to the fallacy of double counting (particularly as louie interprets it).

In fact, louie misstates her position by arguing that the costs of "Housing increased 76% ... Healthcare increased 74% ... A second car to [facilitate] working moms increased 53% [and] Childcare [increased] 100%". But louie, like, sadly, far too many who have commented on the video, confuses an increase in outlays with an increase in price (inflation). This is much of the problem, particularly since Warren is giving this impression throughout the video, arguing that now families "have to" do certain things that they didn't have to do in the past. The reality is quite different.

Early in the video (about 9 minutes in), she shows a graph indicating that in real (inflation adjusted) dollars, the median household is materially wealthier than they were 35 years before (this, by itself, demonstrates yet another one of louie's claims, that "since the 70s we have added the second worker to the workforce in order to MAINTAIN the household income [emphasis mine]" is just another lie). She then spends the bulk of the remainder of the video discussing what those households spend that additional wealth on -- primarily more house. It must be remembered that the increase in the price of housing has already been accounted for when incomes are adjusted for inflation, so all she is saying is that the median household has CHOSEN to expend their resources in order to obtain more (or better) housing. Her assertion that homes are being built only for the top 20% of households is not only unsupported by her data but contrary to reality. In fact, as can easily be discerned form home ownership percentages, the real driver behind this increased outlay in houses is the shift from renting to home ownership for a greater number of Americans with lower incomes that dates to long before the expansion of the housing bubble.

She also spends much of her discussion on outlays related to health care, but here again we encounter the same problem. The increase in health care COSTS has already been accounted for in the real income calculation. Moreover, and this is a point that frequently needs to be made when, as louie often attempts, the "stagnating wage" myth is put forth, much of health care costs -- at least those that are not already paid for by government (which accounts for more than 50% of the total -- so much for the vanishing safety net) are paid for through company benefits. And, when, as is appropriate, benefits are included in the equation, total compensation in real dollars has continually gone up over the last thirty years, rendering claims that workers are worse off utterly false. Someone, it might have been louie but I can't recall, responded to this by saying that people cannot pay their bills with benefits so they shouldn't be counted, but position is absurd. If you discount benefits, then you must factor out the impact of covered items (primarily health care) out of the inflation adjustment, in which case wages alone would have climbed steadily as well.

Here is a discussion and graph that delves into the subject (http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2005/12/are_workers_los.html) and here is a graph of the growth of total compensation (employment costs) over the last ten years (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=EC_ectbrief). Note that it shows only the growth rate (which never drops to or below zero.

I apologize for what seems to be a tangent, but louie frequently grabs the $800 figure from the video in order to show stagnation and -- as usual - distorts it beyond all recognition. The graph does not show that "white males have lost $800.00 a year from the previous generation" (which is factually wrong) but that single-earner male households (among the "fully employed") without reference to race (another example of bigotry on louie's part?) earn less than those in the same group a generation before. Actually, the problems with that assessment go beyond louie's claims as it not only failed to factor in changes in benefits, but neglected to account for the composition of such households which, as it happens, changed materially including, according to the Census Bureau, more younger males (not as far along on their career track) and FAR more older, retired males (still employed at much lower supplemental incomes) in relation to the total. The increase in the post-retirement age demographic over the past 35 years is a widely recognized phenomenon but it is simply not taken into account in Warren's data.

Note the difference. Our protectionist friend chooses the most unreliable of sources, misstates (often deliberately) what they say and then, without basis or even an effort to check, denounces any source that disagrees with him as biased and manipulated. Here I have chosen generally accepted and reliable sources, not only stated them correctly but frequently provided links or references to them and, where I have a problem with the data of others, I not only check them out, but concede when they are correct even when it can be demonstrated that the data is misleading -- which I do.

[Virgil0211]

6) LOUIE THE CAPITALIST?!?!

The examples of contradictory statements along these lines are legion. A typical example goes like this: "Please don't call me a socialist. I am a capitalist, you are a goblist (sic). I am a capitalist in the traditional sense. That is America first, citizens of the country, instead of citizens of the world." That nothing in the definition of capitalism has anything whatsoever to do with nationality or being a "citizen of [a] country" seems to have eluded him.

He has also said "there is no free market, and there never has been. Why? Because it does not work, as long as there are nationstates (sic) it never will work". The imbecilic notion that the free market doesn't work is a separate issue. The problem here is that capitalism IS the "free market" BY DEFINITION, and, by extension, a capitalist is one who embraces the free market.

Literally, capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, as opposed to by the state or society as a whole, and where economic interaction is characterized by voluntary exchange in the marketplace among free actors who make decisions about production, consumption, investment and pricing in the absence of government intervention. Advocates of state intervention in the form of tariffs, minimum wage laws, limits to corporate profits, nationalized industries (including single payer health care) are advocating SOCIALISM. That is defined as a socio-economic system in which the powers of ownership of the means of production is exercised societally or collectively, most frequently by outright government ownership or regulatory intervention.

[SUPPLEMENT FIVE: Anticipating the inevitable -- that louie, as so many others before him have done, will attempt to dispute these definitions and, instead put forth his "real" meaning -- those who are interested may request a fully articulated examination of what capitalism is and what it is not. It is a chapter of a larger work in progress so forgive references that go beyond the chapter itself.]

Not only has louie expressly endorsed tariffs (at 100%!!!) a "living wage", and "single payer health care", he has frequently repeated the Marxist oxymoron "wage slavery". He favors "wealth redistribution" to labor. He has even attacked capitalism itself, saying "How could you ever believe that capitalism created the middleclass. Capitalism has [no] tenent (sic) in it that allows for the fair payment of labor. Actually it is just the opposite, always seeking to maximize profits..." The fact that capitalist businesses pay the vast majority of workers (more than 95%) more than any legal minimum, and, as it happens, the majority of those earners are not poor, but are young people and supplemental wage earners has, apparently escaped him completely. Again, that louie believes the fairy tales that unions magically created the middle class (which pre-dates them) and that the wealth of the middle class is being redistributed away are delusions for another day.

He believes that corporate profits should be capped at what he determines to be a "reasonable" level and that "[e]verything is commercialized [and] that is what destroys human rights. He has defended North Korea and Cuba (not to mention the Soviets and east Germany), arguing that their economic failures were not the result of their economic system but "because they resisted globalization". And he has argued "Hugo Chavez, has it right nationalize [Venezuela's] resources", "Chavez did the nessary (sic) thing to protect Venezuelas (sic) economy" and that "Norway should conficate (sic) 90% of the [ o ] il [ c ] ompanys (sic) profits [ because the ] countries (sic) oil belong [ s ] to the Noreign (sic) [ p ]eople, not the [ o ] il [ c ] ompanys (sic)." This is an explicit and unvarnished advocacy of socialism by literally every standard that exists. So sayeth louie: "I just don't agree with profits off the backs of labor."

Clearly, this guy hasn't a capitalist bone in his body.

CONCLUSION

Far be it from me to suggest that someone should not be permitted to believe what they wish. We do, after all, have freedom of religion in this country. If louie wants to believe that unions created the middle class, that protectionism benefits a country, that free trade has harmed the middle class of this country, that the earth is flat, that the Holocaust, moon landings and 9/11 were all hoaxes filmed in Burbank and/or that the universe was created by an all-powerful being named Fred on February 13, 1956 who now lives in Newark, New Jersey, that's his prerogative. They all are about as credible. But that's the problem. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously pointed out, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

More specifically, the problem is that I, and others like me, have been discussing economics, history, finance and political science while louie has been discussing theology and, like the most devout religious fanatic, louie hasn't the slightest compunction against telling outright lies (as has been demonstrated conclusively) in order to defend his faith. Moreover, he is so devout in his delusions, that all other views must be denounced as heresies. This is why he repeatedly makes the (obviously) ridiculous assertion that "economics is just a theory".

Of course, as everyone -- except, apparently, louie -- knows, economics is a science and, like every other science, it contains not only theories but laws buttressed by experience and/or experimentation (such as those of supply and demand and the impact of price floors -- such as minimum wage laws that serve only to reduce employment) as well as basic observations consistent with the available data. Bad theories that do not conform with facts and research (such as that the Great Depression was caused by a lack of regulation of banks and the stock market and was ended by the New Deal or entry into World War II) are discarded and theories that are consistent with the facts (economic downturns are never caused by too much free trade are instead almost exclusively caused by governmental intervention that causes such things as currency debasement, asset bubbles and/or hyperinflation) gain in acceptance. [For econ geeks like me, the recently published "This Time It's Different" examines 800 years of such downturns around the world and reaches that same conclusion.] That free trade benefits both parties that engage in it is not theory either, but the only observation consistent with the facts; the only theoretical question along those lines is why it is so.

Our protectionist friend has convinced himself that his views are shared by others but, as I have pointed out to him, a poll conducted about a year ago revealed that only 4% of adults believed that "raising taxes on imports/buy American" was a solution to the current economic crisis and even "keeping manufacturing jobs in the US" hit only 18% behind lowering taxes/regulation (which he is convinced no one believes) at 21%. His power to convince himself of anything permits him to say such absurd things as "Protectionist policies were always prcticed (sic) in the U.S. until (sic) the late 60s or early 70s" and follow it up immediately with "Please don't attempt to tell me any different, because I was there." It's sad really.

Given what we have learned, let's examine louie's key assertion. According to him, the US economy was marvelous until 1970 because it was protected until then (nonsensical but already dealt with) after which the US economy went into the toilet: "Our problems started when Washington was infiltrated with neo-liberals and globalist [ s ] , right around 1970. Our economy has went south every since" because "Free Trade has destroyed the U.S." But, according to louie's own one-step-removed source, the number of factories in the United States peaked in 1997 and, according to the only reliable source (FRED referenced above} US industrial production grew 2.7 fold (index in 1970: 37; in 2007: 100) as the drop in manufacturing employment, and corresponding rise in productivity, resulted, not from outsourcing, but due primarily to automation -- as union-inflated wages made it more cost effective to do so.

The total number of employed persons increased from 78.7 million in 1970 to 146.0 million in 2007, an increase of 67.3 million or 85.5% (source: BLS). The average unemployment rate in 1970 was actually higher than that for the nearly eight year period between the passage of NAFTA (which was supposed to be a jobs disaster) and 9/11 (source: BLS). And, as pointed out earlier, total real compensation increased across the board while (source: BLS), while, according to Elizabeth Warren (louie's source), the income of the "typical" median household with similar characteristics rose substantially. Meanwhile, as can be seen from the graphs mentioned earlier, fell from 13% in 1970 to 11.3% in 2000, "not statistically different from the record low of 11.1% set in 1973" (source: US Census Bureau).

Now, as anyone can see, I have referenced multiple years since 1970 and I am cognizant of the accusation [now springing to louie's lips] that I have cherry-picked data in order to overstate my case. The charge, however, is completely invalid. It might have some merit if I were arguing that free trade had begun in 1970 (but that's silly) and had created some sort of economic utopia or that things were in all cases better today than in 1970 (which would yield mixed results given, again, two rather substantial economic disruptions in this decade alone). But the only point I am making is that louie's claim that the US economy has deteriorated "ever since" around 1970 -- or even for that matter any condition that even comes close to such a trend -- is absurd (that's how it's spelled louie -- not "obserd" or "obsurd") on its face and anyone holding such a view need not be taken at all seriously.

Now, I could have saved us all a lot of time by simply calling louie a buffoon, but that is a subjective assessment (and, at heart, I'm an author). Instead, I set out to prove with facts and evidence, what can now be stated conclusively: louie is an economically ignorant, ill-informed, inarticulate lying bigot, who deliberately selects source material solely on the basis of whether or not it conforms to his (factually inaccurate) pre-conceived notions, rather than reliability and then, not satisfied with even their conclusions, deliberately distorts them to make his (entirely specious) points. He is an embarrassment to himself and to anyone who would voluntarily associate with him and would likely have been eager to be a signatory to Bastiat's Candlemakers' Petition (http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html).

Yes, that last sentence is arguably subjective ... but the facts speak for themselves.

Sent to: samm1809, selfrealizedexile, shanedk, sicsempertyrannis87, studentofsmith, superguitarman69, tb19398, th3gr8juan, toddaldrich, totustuus11, trekkerperson, truevoice08, umadumlib, unoxonien, virgil0211, visfen, xxashyy, zaxxon2008

[VectorM]

TL;DR NIGHTMARE!

[Virgil0211]

There. Now I'm done. Damn, it was a bitch to format that thing. =P

TL;DR NIGHTMARE!

There's a great deal of bullshit to wade through. But trust me, it's a valuable read.

[Travis Retriever]

There. Now I'm done. Damn, it was a bitch to format that thing. =P

There's a great deal of bullshit to wade through. But trust me, it's a valuable read.

OK, on all accounts.
I'm also reading FletchforFreedom's page.  I gotta tell ya.  It sounds like this louie guy has a history on youtube.

[Virgil0211]

OK, on all accounts.
I'm also reading FletchforFreedom's page.  I gotta tell ya.  It sounds like this louie guy has a history on youtube.

Yup. He's like the embodiment of the league of unreason. =P On the other hand, I now seem to have the highest cluon-post ratio on the forum. =P