BF2S Forums United States War in Iraq -- Can We Afford to Lose?

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

There's only so much water in the sea Ken.
A rising tide in one place means a falling tide somewhere else.

Think of the sea as money, the moon as Chinese imperialist ambition, the ships are Chinese communist party apparatchiks.

(I think this is my best analogy ever)

plenty of water in the (soon to not be) ice caps.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

depends on where that average person is and how you define "raise them up".

During the great divergence, capital flowed from colonies to their imperialists, but information stayed within the imperialists.  The second phase was the start of globalization, where capital AND information began to flow back to areas geographically close to those former imperialists (think US -> Mexico, Germany -> Poland, etc). Now the great convergence means capital will continue to flow from the historically imperialist countries, but to the global south at large, with no geographic constraints due to the ease of technology and information transfer.

If you follow a hardcore free-market philosophy, there are no losers because a rising tide raises ALL ships. However, there's no denying that the western world is suffering in some ways due to the efflux of capital and now information, just as there's no denying that the global south (especially areas like SE Asia and Eastern Europe) are benefiting from this new convergence.

Yes, our comparative advantage is evaporating to an extent, and this is making us relatively poorer (but not poor by any means), but many millions of people across the globe have been lifted out of poverty because of trade. It's a bad thing to xenophobic nationalists, but it's a good thing for humanity in general.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

depends on where that average person is and how you define "raise them up".

During the great divergence, capital flowed from colonies to their imperialists, but information stayed within the imperialists.  The second phase was the start of globalization, where capital AND information began to flow back to areas geographically close to those former imperialists (think US -> Mexico, Germany -> Poland, etc). Now the great convergence means capital will continue to flow from the historically imperialist countries, but to the global south at large, with no geographic constraints due to the ease of technology and information transfer.

If you follow a hardcore free-market philosophy, there are no losers because a rising tide raises ALL ships. However, there's no denying that the western world is suffering in some ways due to the efflux of capital and now information, just as there's no denying that the global south (especially areas like SE Asia and Eastern Europe) are benefiting from this new convergence.

Yes, our comparative advantage is evaporating to an extent, and this is making us relatively poorer (but not poor by any means), but many millions of people across the globe have been lifted out of poverty because of trade. It's a bad thing to xenophobic nationalists, but it's a good thing for humanity in general.

Your comparative advantage is that you print money. Soon you'll be a big farm again.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

There's only so much water in the sea Ken.
A rising tide in one place means a falling tide somewhere else.

Think of the sea as money, the moon as Chinese imperialist ambition, the ships are Chinese communist party apparatchiks.

(I think this is my best analogy ever)

The world economy is not zero sum. Wealth is not a fixed pie, it is always expanding. You can keep yours while another person gets wealthier.

Someone somewhere needs to create value out of thin air. At present the Chinese are doing it.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

depends on where that average person is and how you define "raise them up".

During the great divergence, capital flowed from colonies to their imperialists, but information stayed within the imperialists.  The second phase was the start of globalization, where capital AND information began to flow back to areas geographically close to those former imperialists (think US -> Mexico, Germany -> Poland, etc). Now the great convergence means capital will continue to flow from the historically imperialist countries, but to the global south at large, with no geographic constraints due to the ease of technology and information transfer.

If you follow a hardcore free-market philosophy, there are no losers because a rising tide raises ALL ships. However, there's no denying that the western world is suffering in some ways due to the efflux of capital and now information, just as there's no denying that the global south (especially areas like SE Asia and Eastern Europe) are benefiting from this new convergence.

Yes, our comparative advantage is evaporating to an extent, and this is making us relatively poorer (but not poor by any means), but many millions of people across the globe have been lifted out of poverty because of trade. It's a bad thing to xenophobic nationalists, but it's a good thing for humanity in general.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

but many millions of people across the globe have been lifted out of poverty because of trade.

Is that really a good thing? Chinese industrialization has made it more aggressive to its neighbors rather than less. They are polluting on a grand scale and increasingly are involved in African politics. Their money is helping fuel property asset bubbles in many major western cities.

Maybe it is genuinely better for the western world if other civilizations are weaker and poorer than us. Islamic and Chinese culture isn't any kinder than we are after all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Value is created whenever work is performed.

These woolly definitions don't help.

If a footballer is paid $10m a year to run around after a ball is any real value created?
If $10m is spent on electricity to turn ore into aluminium has value been created?
How about $10m spent building wind turbines which deliver electricity for 30 years?

Using a faulty definition of value is a bad starting point.

I don't like 'value' being applied to ephemeral worthless things which don't then generate further value.

Larssen wrote:

....this discussion isn't what I intended when I stated globalisation is changing things

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-05-24 15:23:00)