Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[georgephillip]

Look guy, this is my field. Again, economics isn't just words, the math behind it all makes complete sense and I was a math major as well. And everything I observe is supported by my education and experience.

Show your math, Major.

 

[kaz]

Look guy, this is my field. Again, economics isn't just words, the math behind it all makes complete sense and I was a math major as well. And everything I observe is supported by my education and experience.

Show your math, Major.

You want me to show you the math behind the field of economics in a post on a message board?

 

[georgephillip]

" Plotting the dynamics of Mexican drug cartels against the price of corn between 1990 and 2010, "From Maize to Haze" posits a new dynamic in the drug trade, in which a plummeting corn price leads farmers to shift to growing poppies or marijuana, which then spurs violence as cartels fight over control over the newly created drug production."

And the same one percent of Americans found profit without any risk of serious penalty for the transition from corn to coke.
(Loretta) Lynch negotiated a controversial settlement with HSBC in 2012, after the bank admitted to facilitating money-laundering by Mexican drug cartels and helping clients evade US sanctions.

"Now there are questions over why she did not also pursue HSBC over evidence that its Swiss arm helped US taxpayers hide their assets."

Republicans seize on HSBC scandal to hold up Loretta Lynch s confirmation News The Guardian
Class war.

 

[georgephillip]

You want me to show you the math behind the field of economics in a post on a message board?

Can you find any appropriate links?

 

[kaz]

You want me to show you the math behind the field of economics in a post on a message board?

Can you find any appropriate links?

You could start with an econ 101 course at your local college. If you show me you are serious then I'll take you seriously. Right now I don't think that, I don't think you're questioning your leftist programming and your query is not serious

 

[georgephillip]

And the California / New York example is just like the China / US example. It has nothing to do with the circular flow of income,

The circular flow of economic activity is a concept taught in elementary economics classes; are you saying it has nothing to do with the money consumers save?

 

[kaz]

And the California / New York example is just like the China / US example. It has nothing to do with the circular flow of income,

The circular flow of economic activity is a concept taught in elementary economics classes; are you saying it has nothing to do with the money consumers save?

No I'm not saying that and I didn't say that. He said trade barriers are good between the US and China and bad between NY and California. He's wrong, they are always bad. In fact, even if China were to close their borders, we are better off ecnomically not closing off ours to them but keeping it open. I said it has to do with the creation of wealth. Ironically Culture Citizen introduced the perfect point and it completely contradicted him and supported me.

Adam Smith: Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer

Clearly lower prices are in the interest of the consumer. Ironically you guys are arguing for the interest of greedy corporations over the interest of the people

 

[georgephillip]

No I'm not saying that and I didn't say that. He said trade barriers are good between the US and China and bad between NY and California. He's wrong, they are always bad. In fact, even if China were to close their borders, we are better off ecnomically not closing off ours to them but keeping it open

Do you directly benefit from China flooding the US with illegally subsidized exports?

GDP = C+I+G + (X-M)

Why would you argue for lower rates of US GDP growth?

 

[kaz]

No I'm not saying that and I didn't say that. He said trade barriers are good between the US and China and bad between NY and California. He's wrong, they are always bad. In fact, even if China were to close their borders, we are better off ecnomically not closing off ours to them but keeping it open

Do you directly benefit from China flooding the US with illegally subsidized exports?

Loaded question

As for foreign government subsidies though, in general, yes, it is good for example if the Chinese government subsidizes steel as long as it's a sustained policy that is not designed for example to harm our steel industry in order to raise prices later. If they are giving us cheaper steel than say the Japanese then it's just good. If they harm our steel industry but maintain the low prices that is good (for us economically). If they destroy our capability then raise prices higher than they were before the subsidies that would be bad

GDP = C+I+G + (X-M)

Why would you argue for lower rates of US GDP growth?

You can't prove anything with this formula for this discussion other than as a discussion point because cheap Chinese steel for example has multiple effects.

The cheap steel means imports go up, which reduces GDP, then the price of sales of the company go down (price cut) which reduces GDP. But then consumers have more money increasing GDP and the company invests more increasing GDP and they export more (on average) inceasing GDP and government gets more taxes since profits go up increasing GDP.

The net effect on GDP is positive, but that formula doesn't prove that since there are many moving variables in both directions

 

[georgephillip]

The cheap steel means imports go up, which reduces GDP, then the price of sales of the company go down (price cut) which reduces GDP. But then consumers have more money increasing GDP and the company invests more increasing GDP and they export more (on average) inceasing GDP and government gets more taxes since profits go up increasing GDP.

The net effect on GDP is positive, but that formula doesn't prove that since there are many moving variables in both directions

What formula would you suggest for disproving the claim whenever imports are greater than exports growth in domestic GDP is diminished?

 

[hipeter924]

Depends on the corporation. Some have higher ethical and social standards than most governments, whereas some like Monsanto coerce, exploit and have no qualms about causing human suffering.

 

[kaz]

The cheap steel means imports go up, which reduces GDP, then the price of sales of the company go down (price cut) which reduces GDP. But then consumers have more money increasing GDP and the company invests more increasing GDP and they export more (on average) inceasing GDP and government gets more taxes since profits go up increasing GDP.

The net effect on GDP is positive, but that formula doesn't prove that since there are many moving variables in both directions

What formula would you suggest for disproving the claim whenever imports are greater than exports growth in domestic GDP is diminished?

Well, that formula shows that if you make the assumption all else is held equal. The problem as I am pointing out is that all else is not held equal

 

[Publius1787]

I am arriving to the conclusion that global corporations do not beneffit the economy at all.
They actually harm it because they tend create cross country monopolies, evade taxes and practice dumping.
But I would like to hear if someone thinks global corporations have some beneffit.

I must underscore the word global . Please notice corporations are an absolute must for every healthy economy, specially medium and small corporations.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

too stupid and 100% liberal as always!!! When the car replaced the horse millions lost their jobs but even a child will tell you it represented economic progress and a higher standard of living for all. Why are you less intelligent that a child? See what liberalism does to you?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

too stupid and 100% liberal as always!!! When the car replaced the horse millions lost their jobs but even a child will tell you it represented economic progress and a higher standard of living for all. Why are you less intelligent that a child? See what liberalism does to you?

Ed ,
Turn off your spambot please.
Thanks

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

too stupid and 100% liberal as always!!! When the car replaced the horse millions lost their jobs but even a child will tell you it represented economic progress and a higher standard of living for all. Why are you less intelligent that a child? See what liberalism does to you?

Ed ,
Turn off your spambot please.
Thanks

translation: As a typical liberal I lack the IQ to confute the argument!

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

too stupid and 100% liberal as always!!! When the car replaced the horse millions lost their jobs but even a child will tell you it represented economic progress and a higher standard of living for all. Why are you less intelligent that a child? See what liberalism does to you?

Ed ,
Turn off your spambot please.
Thanks

translation: As a typical liberal I lack the IQ to confute the argument!

I wouldn't think of you as a liberal... well , not that you lack the IQ to answer the question I made , really. It's just that you let your spambot loose in the forum and it starts posting your textbook answers.
Ok now that you turned your spambot off :
Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

 

[ralfy]

I remember reading that corn prices went up because of a combination of high oil prices and natural disasters which damaged crops and production. Likely, we are looking at the effects of peak oil and global warming.

 

[georgephillip]

Well, that formula shows that if you make the assumption all else is held equal. The problem as I am pointing out is that all else is not held equal

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

You're right as far as you go. The role net exports play in this formula represent a direct drag on US GDP growth; an example of an indirect drag on US GDP can be observed by the effects outsourcing has had on Investment's role in growing US GDP. When major US corporations build factories outside the US, they are also reducing the "I" in the formula.

For twenty years the US and EU ran trade deficits with China of well over $200B per year. By 2012 both developed economies were too weak to sustain China's export dependent growth.

From my perspective, we are currently dealing with a long term structural issue of chronic, global trade imbalances that can not be addressed by continuing to enrich the investor class at the expense of the majority.

 

[kaz]

Well, that formula shows that if you make the assumption all else is held equal. The problem as I am pointing out is that all else is not held equal

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

You're right as far as you go. The role net exports play in this formula represent a direct drag on US GDP growth; an example of an indirect drag on US GDP can be observed by the effects outsourcing has had on Investment's role in growing US GDP. When major US corporations build factories outside the US, they are also reducing the "I" in the formula.

For twenty years the US and EU ran trade deficits with China of well over $200B per year. By 2012 both developed economies were too weak to sustain China's export dependent growth.

From my perspective, we are currently dealing with a long term structural issue of chronic, global trade imbalances that can not be addressed by continuing to enrich the investor class at the expense of the majority.

Because of course the "majority" are not consumers, right? Lower prices don't help the majority? American companies selling more doesn't create jobs? That is where your argument falls apart. Again the irony of your argument is you are actually protecting producers at the expense of consumers, then you conclude the issue are the people who own the producers you are protecting. Think about it...