Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nobody understands the economy completely. However, I understand the economy better than you.
Promoting mercantilism.
Venerating nationalism.
Denigrating Jews.
Are you a sociopathic liar? I don't denigrate Jews. I just resist glorifying their genocides on our dollar.
Are you a sociopathic liar? I don't denigrate Jews. I just resist glorifying their genocides on our dollar.
I can't figure out if you're a bigot or just a brain-dead idiot. Your deluded rantings on economics have only been topped by your bizarre claims that the Holocaust didn't target Jews. Clearly, moron, the fact that others were tragically slaughtered by the Nazis does not preclude that Jews weren't target.
Final Solution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fucking jackass.
Are you a sociopathic liar? I don't denigrate Jews. I just resist glorifying their genocides on our dollar.
I can't figure out if you're a bigot or just a brain-dead idiot. Your deluded rantings on economics have only been topped by your bizarre claims that the Holocaust didn't target Jews. Clearly, moron, the fact that others were tragically slaughtered by the Nazis does not preclude that Jews weren't target.
Final Solution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fucking jackass.
so you are an idiot in two topics
The holocaust has been foist upon us as a tragedy that targeted Jews and Jews alone. That is a lie, perpetrated by Jews trying to maximize political value from a tragedy.
The holocaust targeted as many poles as it did Jews, and Jews were only 1/3 to 1/2 of the victims of the holocaust.
Iow it didn't target Jews.
And i have already mopped the floor with your face for 15 pages discussing economics and you have yet to raise a solid point in our discussion.
Barking Dog!
I can't figure out if you're a bigot or just a brain-dead idiot. Your deluded rantings on economics have only been topped by your bizarre claims that the Holocaust didn't target Jews. Clearly, moron, the fact that others were tragically slaughtered by the Nazis does not preclude that Jews weren't target.
Final Solution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fucking jackass.
so you are an idiot in two topics
The holocaust has been foist upon us as a tragedy that targeted Jews and Jews alone. That is a lie, perpetrated by Jews trying to maximize political value from a tragedy.
The holocaust targeted as many poles as it did Jews, and Jews were only 1/3 to 1/2 of the victims of the holocaust.
Iow it didn't target Jews.
And i have already mopped the floor with your face for 15 pages discussing economics and you have yet to raise a solid point in our discussion.
Barking Dog!
Peddle your delusions and hate elsewhere.
Antagon, sorry for diverting your thread.
sorry to disappoint you but you have been completely owned.
and you hate while i laugh at you.
If you ever get a grasp of economics lemme know.
Here is an interesting read about some consequences of Western cotton subsides. They have played a role in undercutting economic development in parts of Africa.
U.S., European Subsidies Undercut African Farmers : NPR
"Here in Mozambique we don't have any help from the government," Candido says. "So if they have subsidies, it means American farmers have everything prepared for them. But here we are using our own money, our own labor, and the price always becomes lower and lower because of them the Americans it's not fair."removed
Cotton is grown in several parts of Africa. It's a major crop in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Tanzania, as well as Mozambique. There's also significant cotton production in West Africa, particularly in Mali, Burkina Faso and Benin.
Cotton exporters say this part of northern Mozambique should be able to sell cotton at competitive prices. It has plentiful rainfall. Labor, at about $1 a day, is cheap. The main roads have been rebuilt after a lengthy civil war and are in excellent shape, by African standards. There's a functioning railway linking the area with a port on the Indian Ocean.
But growers complain that they're barely making a living from their crops, and in recent years, several large cotton companies have gone out of business.
Last year, the World Trade Organization upheld a ruling against the United States stating that American cotton subsidies are illegal. The United States has moved to eliminate export subsidies, but under the farm bill which expires in 2007, the vast majority of payments to U.S. growers continue.
In Mozambique, cotton producers say that it's not just agricultural subsidies that are stacked against them. They say the West also dumps second-hand clothes into Africa at prices that stifle local textile production.
Vincent Marush Sando, who coordinates a domestic-cotton promotion campaign in Mozambique's capital Maputo, says Africa should place stiff import duties on used clothes from the West.
That last line is telling. Protectionism as a response to protectionism.
sorry to disappoint you but you have been completely owned.
and you hate while i laugh at you.
If you ever get a grasp of economics lemme know.
Yeah, "owned" by a guy who thinks the Holocaust didn't target the Jews. I couldn't possibly have discredited you any more myself.
What's the purchasing power of that 9 bucks a day? That's where you get into cultural differences of necessities. If you can survive on a buck fifty a day.... 9 bucks a day is great! relative value of currency inside the culture means more than the actual amount.its been a while since i've been in manila, but i'll be damned if the minimum wage is $9/hr. i would bet it is closer to $9 per day.
I talked with Indian engineers here who are on a tech visa. They stay here, work 5-10 years, send all their money home and live like paupers. Why? Because when they retire with $50-500k they live like Rajahs for the rest of their lives in India.
Relative value inside a culture.
What's the purchasing power of that 9 bucks a day? That's where you get into cultural differences of necessities. If you can survive on a buck fifty a day.... 9 bucks a day is great! relative value of currency inside the culture means more than the actual amount.its been a while since i've been in manila, but i'll be damned if the minimum wage is $9/hr. i would bet it is closer to $9 per day.
I talked with Indian engineers here who are on a tech visa. They stay here, work 5-10 years, send all their money home and live like paupers. Why? Because when they retire with $50-500k they live like Rajahs for the rest of their lives in India.
Relative value inside a culture.
True. $9 a day isn't anything to us, but overseas it can be the ticket to upward mobility. Even though there's this stigma of multinational firms dumping little kids into sweatshops for pennies, these firms by and large pay better than the domestic firms in these third-world countries.
Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards: Are the Jobs Worth the Sweat?: Publications: The Independent Institute(2004)
The economic way of thinking views sweatshops from an exchange perspective in which both workers and employers gain when they voluntarily enter into a labor contract – no matter how low the wages may seem to external observers. From Walter Williams (2004) on the right to Paul Krugman (1997) on the left, economists across the political spectrum have defended sweatshops in the popular press.1 One economist critical of sweatshops even observed that most economists’ opinion is “as simple as this: ‘Either you believe labor demand curves are downward sloping, or you don’t,’ as a neoclassical colleague said to me. Of course, not to believe that demand curves are negatively sloped would be tantamount to declaring yourself an economic illiterate” (Miller 2003).
Conclusion
Few dispute that multinational firms tend to pay their workers more than domestic firms in the Third World. Critics of sweatshops maintain that because subcontractors make many products for multinational firms, measuring only multinational firm wages does not address critics' complaints against sweatshops. We have addressed the deficiency in the literature by comparing apparel industry wages in countries that supposedly have sweatshops and the wages of individual firms accused of being sweatshops to measures of average standards of living in these countries. The data clearly show that overall, apparel industry workers are far better off than most people in their economies. However, while the best available, the data used was far from perfect. Biases are likely causing us to understate earnings as a percent of living standards. Despite data limitations, individual firms accused of paying sweatshop wages often still compare favorably with other standard of living measures.
There's some interesting graphs in the link.
you've over-invested your understanding of zero-sum in the idea of time. a transaction within a slice of time, as you would see it, imperils your strict competition paradigm. in trade, nothing exchanges hands in a zero sum environment. instead when one party pays for the offering of another, that party gives up what it perceives as being less value in exchange for more, and to a degree beyond the cost of the transaction. one party values cash, for example, the other a sack of.
this notion that human behavior or the collection of this behavior in an economy is not precisely predictable is granted. the notion that it isn't rational to predict economic reactions broadly is silly to me. you might be in the wrong debate on that basis. this is what policy is all about, cannon.
In every single example in which I have ever seen anybody use the zero sum argument to describe the economy they did it for one reason and one reason only:
To minimize the actual real world conditions present in the moment based on a hypothetical promise of increased future wealth.
That is a fallacious argument, ever and always.
Like i said earlier, and you apparently didn't grok it, I am not trying to dissuade anybody from linear thinking.
Just from using linear thinking to assume projections that have not yet been realized, and may never be.
IOW taking them seriously.
What's the purchasing power of that 9 bucks a day? That's where you get into cultural differences of necessities. If you can survive on a buck fifty a day.... 9 bucks a day is great! relative value of currency inside the culture means more than the actual amount.its been a while since i've been in manila, but i'll be damned if the minimum wage is $9/hr. i would bet it is closer to $9 per day.
I talked with Indian engineers here who are on a tech visa. They stay here, work 5-10 years, send all their money home and live like paupers. Why? Because when they retire with $50-500k they live like Rajahs for the rest of their lives in India.
Relative value inside a culture.
True. $9 a day isn't anything to us, but overseas it can be the ticket to upward mobility. Even though there's this stigma of multinational firms dumping little kids into sweatshops for pennies, these firms by and large pay better than the domestic firms in these third-world countries.
Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards: Are the Jobs Worth the Sweat?: Publications: The Independent Institute(2004)
The economic way of thinking views sweatshops from an exchange perspective in which both workers and employers gain when they voluntarily enter into a labor contract no matter how low the wages may seem to external observers. From Walter Williams (2004) on the right to Paul Krugman (1997) on the left, economists across the political spectrum have defended sweatshops in the popular press.1 One economist critical of sweatshops even observed that most economists opinion is as simple as this: Either you believe labor demand curves are downward sloping, or you dont, as a neoclassical colleague said to me. Of course, not to believe that demand curves are negatively sloped would be tantamount to declaring yourself an economic illiterate (Miller 2003).
Conclusion
Few dispute that multinational firms tend to pay their workers more than domestic firms in the Third World. Critics of sweatshops maintain that because subcontractors make many products for multinational firms, measuring only multinational firm wages does not address critics' complaints against sweatshops. We have addressed the deficiency in the literature by comparing apparel industry wages in countries that supposedly have sweatshops and the wages of individual firms accused of being sweatshops to measures of average standards of living in these countries. The data clearly show that overall, apparel industry workers are far better off than most people in their economies. However, while the best available, the data used was far from perfect. Biases are likely causing us to understate earnings as a percent of living standards. Despite data limitations, individual firms accused of paying sweatshop wages often still compare favorably with other standard of living measures.
There's some interesting graphs in the link.
While I do not believe in Protectionism I do think we should rethink our policies toward some of our Trading Partners. China for example has Tariffs on most of our goods while we do not have them on their. Yet we claim that is Free trade.
I would not be opposed to considering Matching Tariffs in a situation like that to try and even up the Trade Deficit some.
Before you freak out about a trade war remember. That as much as we need china, They need us as well. We are a Huge Chunk of their Market.
Peddle your delusions and hate elsewhere.
Antagon, sorry for diverting your thread.
What's the purchasing power of that 9 bucks a day? That's where you get into cultural differences of necessities. If you can survive on a buck fifty a day.... 9 bucks a day is great! relative value of currency inside the culture means more than the actual amount.
I talked with Indian engineers here who are on a tech visa. They stay here, work 5-10 years, send all their money home and live like paupers. Why? Because when they retire with $50-500k they live like Rajahs for the rest of their lives in India.
Relative value inside a culture.
True. $9 a day isn't anything to us, but overseas it can be the ticket to upward mobility. Even though there's this stigma of multinational firms dumping little kids into sweatshops for pennies, these firms by and large pay better than the domestic firms in these third-world countries.
Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards: Are the Jobs Worth the Sweat?: Publications: The Independent Institute(2004)
The economic way of thinking views sweatshops from an exchange perspective in which both workers and employers gain when they voluntarily enter into a labor contract – no matter how low the wages may seem to external observers. From Walter Williams (2004) on the right to Paul Krugman (1997) on the left, economists across the political spectrum have defended sweatshops in the popular press.1 One economist critical of sweatshops even observed that most economists’ opinion is “as simple as this: ‘Either you believe labor demand curves are downward sloping, or you don’t,’ as a neoclassical colleague said to me. Of course, not to believe that demand curves are negatively sloped would be tantamount to declaring yourself an economic illiterate” (Miller 2003).
Conclusion
Few dispute that multinational firms tend to pay their workers more than domestic firms in the Third World. Critics of sweatshops maintain that because subcontractors make many products for multinational firms, measuring only multinational firm wages does not address critics' complaints against sweatshops. We have addressed the deficiency in the literature by comparing apparel industry wages in countries that supposedly have sweatshops and the wages of individual firms accused of being sweatshops to measures of average standards of living in these countries. The data clearly show that overall, apparel industry workers are far better off than most people in their economies. However, while the best available, the data used was far from perfect. Biases are likely causing us to understate earnings as a percent of living standards. Despite data limitations, individual firms accused of paying sweatshop wages often still compare favorably with other standard of living measures.
There's some interesting graphs in the link.
Thanks, i made that point earlier and you dissed me for it.
You do realize that you just kicked Toro in the nutz?
Peddle your delusions and hate elsewhere.
Antagon, sorry for diverting your thread.
meh, it had to unravel a bit at some point. i thought it was turning into an exploration of the crossroads between game theory and 4-dimensional physics, but after dinner and a show, it's leaped to holocaust conspiracy, instead.
i'm always fascinated by the potential of free-form dialectics .
While I do not believe in Protectionism I do think we should rethink our policies toward some of our Trading Partners. China for example has Tariffs on most of our goods while we do not have them on their. Yet we claim that is Free trade.
I would not be opposed to considering Matching Tariffs in a situation like that to try and even up the Trade Deficit some.
Before you freak out about a trade war remember. That as much as we need china, They need us as well. We are a Huge Chunk of their Market.
while restricting consumption is part of the chinese model, practices which restrict consumption would be a shot in the foot stateside.
the antagon solution is to ween their false economy off of the dollar with rhetoric and by aggressive monetization on our end. its like flexing a muscle when a mosquito is biting you. we will inflate off some debt, improve our export advantage, recover delationary sectors in our economy, invite international investment, shrink our trade deficit....
there are some serious negative side-effects, but let's bask in the upside for a bit.
While I do not believe in Protectionism I do think we should rethink our policies toward some of our Trading Partners. China for example has Tariffs on most of our goods while we do not have them on their. Yet we claim that is Free trade.
I would not be opposed to considering Matching Tariffs in a situation like that to try and even up the Trade Deficit some.
Before you freak out about a trade war remember. That as much as we need china, They need us as well. We are a Huge Chunk of their Market.
while restricting consumption is part of the chinese model, practices which restrict consumption would be a shot in the foot stateside.
the antagon solution is to ween their false economy off of the dollar with rhetoric and by aggressive monetization on our end. its like flexing a muscle when a mosquito is biting you. we will inflate off some debt, improve our export advantage, recover delationary sectors in our economy, invite international investment, shrink our trade deficit....
there are some serious negative side-effects, but let's bask in the upside for a bit.
Your solution isn't a cure, its a new more serious disease, a weak dollar. I prefer that we undo the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas and modernize the US industrial base instead. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is to manufacture more US goods, that increases employment and the tax base.
