sc94597 said:
This is not the sole reason why physicians make as much as they do. A physician makes more money because: The supply of doctors with respect to their demand is much lower than that of manufacturers. Why? Because of Trade Deals which opened the floodgates in terms of supply of manufacturing workers but not doctors. Mostly because becoming a doctor takes at least 8 years of education, and often doctors end up with 100k -200k in student loan debt. Additionally doctors have to pay malpractice fees, and it just isn't easy to become a doctor overall. We know the supply is low because many doctors work 24-48 hours shifts. The supply of doctors is certainly lower than it should be, this leads to a tigher labor market, and thus more quickly growing wages. Add that to the problem of the cost of higher education rising and that does explain a lot of their wage. In order to become a doctor, you need to be intelligent and dedicated to studying, which most people aren't in that way. You also need to do well on tests and maintain an almost perfect GPA in high school, undergraduate, and medical school. Manufacturering jobs on the otherhand can be done by many different types of people, and the cost of entry is low (low enough that employer's train people rather than making them pay for school.) There are fewer regulations on the manufacturers as well, and just fewer natural limitations overall. You call it a minimal supply restraint but then go on to cite those same restraints: A lot more has to do with the U.S government and private medical licensing authorities requiring much more skill and qualifications from their doctors than those abroad. This is mostly out of fear of law suits, but also because Americans demand it, due to safety. The equivalent scenario in the car industry would be to say that American cars are better than foreign cars, but that is something in dispute.
Let's be clear, Average American Joes do not lobby congress and the president to maintain protections for doctors and lawyers, their representative industry groups do this. The two positives to be had in such a policy is more highly trained doctors and higher wages for those doctors, the negatives are fewer doctors overall, less treatment overall (because those high wages mean high costs for consumers of healthcare), and a growing of the gap between the doctors and lawayers and everyone else.
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the United States and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards.
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards.
and he signed a bill to impose tariffs on countries who manipulate currency, which is practically every country (yes, including the U.S.) Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency.Sanders signed Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act
the country's government has foreign asset reserves exceeding the amount necessary to repay all its debt obligations. Q: So what does Bernie propose we do? A: Instead of passing such trade deals again and again, Bernie argues we must "develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad."
Also I find quotes like this quite non-progressive. Bernie is very progressive when it comes to the United States, but he doesn't want people in China to come out of poverty if it means the American domestic largesse can't grow further. That is probably one of greatest things about free trade. It allows people all over the world to become as wealthy as people in the U.S. The other great thing about free-trade is that it creates international peace because the countries have entangled interests. If I attack you, I lose a lot. Sorry, the quotes above are indeed protectionist. I don't see how you can distort that to he supports "free-trade" more than other people in politics on the right. |
The United States does not engage in Currency Manipulation. Currency Manipulation does not apply to any policy action that happens to affect exchange rates. Also, seeing as CM is considered a beggar-thy-neighbor policy it is completely within the realm of normalcy to use tariffs as a countermeasure against it. See http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090915/quantitative-easing-vs-currency-manipulation.asp for more on CM. "In theory, currency manipulation and a monetary policy like quantitative easing aren't the same thing; in practice, it's a lot more difficult to distinguish one from the other. While this doesn’t necessarily mean we should disregard currency manipulation as a meaningful concept, it does highlight some of the more biased views that are only recognized when someother country is doing the manipulating" Generally speaking it's not CM unless it's deliberately and directly manipulating one's exchange rate. The US has never taken a deliberate stance of CM (but neither has China for that matter) but one could make the argument that certain actions had a known indirect impact and thus qualify as CM. I'd disagree on the grounds that if they were really seeking to use QE in such a way then they would have failed spectacularly (the dollar hit a 40 year high not too long ago and is generally stronger now after QE).
Saying Sanders doesn't want people in China to come out of poverty is also patently absurd, especially after I just pointed out that he plans to use trade policy to promote the income and well-being of people in foreign nations (such as demanding a rise in their MW). He also promoted using trade restrictions to promote democracy in Burma as well as a requirement that all trade agreements be subject to biannual review with respect to their economic, environmental, nation security, health, safety, and other effects and to require Trade Promotion Authority be premised on a requirement that trade bills meet a set of standards for labor, the environment, human rights, intellectual property, and taxation. He is opposed to givign China MFN based on its human rights violations and has spent his career fighting for the idea that trade deals should be primarily premised on the promotion of human rights abroad. So I really don't see how you can expect us to swallow the whole "Sanders doesn't care about other countries" tale.
In terms of Chile and Singapore, its difficult to pull up any direct statements from Sanders on them (they are smaller and less well known so I assume that is why). However if you really believe that lowering trade restrictions it he only way to increased utility then you must oppose the law. As you noted the Singapore law increased Intellectual Property Rights, in fact it made Singapore the country with the strongest Intellectual property protections in the region. This is protectionism and it attracted investment from multinational firms mostly technology, film, and pharmacueticals. But, then again should any bill or any suggestion of protecting any sector mean a bill is really a protectionist bill? I think the Singapore agreement is largely unobjectionable and will not defend Sanders on that one. But it is a good example of how market protections are sometimes a good thing. I don't think talking about tariffs as a reaction to bad acting can credibly be used to support the idea that he is a protectionist at heart.
In terms of being more supportive of free trade than the right, well Sanders himself has never voted for a single "free trade" deal while in office, but has always maintained that he would vote for one with adequate protections and standards and that he supports free trade in concept. But my earlier comment was more about the left or liberal America in general http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/27/free-trade-agreements-seen-as-good-for-u-s-but-concerns-persist/
Edit: Also on the main subject of this thread, which I have yet to comment on, I support the idea wholeheartedly. As I mentioned in another thread I intend to vote for Sanders regardless of the party nominee and encourage everyone to vote for their preferred candidate, not the lesser of two evils. I especially agree with point 5.
