BF2S Forums Lessons from history... and the failure to heed them.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Unless I missed something these tariffs are targeted at specific countries that are NOT free market and manipulating currency so we can't trade with them unless we want to take it in the pooper.

I think this could be two different things but honestly I am too lazy to read or give a shit.

So this makes it okay since it is targeted against a nation that subsidies exports by devaluing their currency (who doesn't subsidies industry spit?). If China can sell their products priced in a very weak currency and pay their workers dirt, do you really think this will stop jobs from being outsourced? 

Currency Wars

Nice analogy. The free-market is like a plane without a pilot. Mmmhm.

You're so cute when you act dumb dill. Makes me feel all warm and squishy inside when I read your insightful posts.

Great strawmen all around!

Now, since neither of you is arguing for anarchy or total market control, can you stop acting like the other one is?

The totally free market model is flawed, in that it inaccurately assumes the consumer has perfect control over the market and is a perfectly logical buyer.  Wrong.  There's goods you need, right now - and it would take more time/money/energy to buy them from the optimal supplier, than it would to just take it in the ass and buy a 'good enough' product at a stupid expensive price from a jackass supplier.  It also neglects the irrationality of impulse buyers, the lazyness of corporate purchasing agents, and the effect of unchecked graft and corruption.

The totally regulated market is wrong, in that it inaccurately assumes that the government regulators actually know a damn thing about what they're regulating, and that they have the very slightest clue as to the effect of their tampering with the systems in place.

rdx-fx wrote:

The totally free market model is flawed, in that it inaccurately assumes the consumer has perfect control over the market and is a perfectly logical buyer.  Wrong.  There's goods you need, right now - and it would take more time/money/energy to buy them from the optimal supplier, than it would to just take it in the ass and buy a 'good enough' product at a stupid expensive price from a jackass supplier.  It also neglects the irrationality of impulse buyers, the lazyness of corporate purchasing agents, and the effect of unchecked graft and corruption.

The totally regulated market is wrong, in that it inaccurately assumes that the government regulators actually know a damn thing about what they're regulating, and that they have the very slightest clue as to the effect of their tampering with the systems in place.

If JG admits my straw man was better than his then we're done.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Unless I missed something these tariffs are targeted at specific countries that are NOT free market and manipulating currency so we can't trade with them unless we want to take it in the pooper.

I think this could be two different things but honestly I am too lazy to read or give a shit.

So this makes it okay since it is targeted against a nation that subsidies exports by devaluing their currency (who doesn't subsidies industry spit?). If China can sell their products priced in a very weak currency and pay their workers dirt, do you really think this will stop jobs from being outsourced? 

Currency Wars

So what is YOUR point?  China can do what they want but the US can't put a tariff on them for some reason because THAT's unfair?

The fact is that the US government is paying for US jobs to go overseas.  NAFTA allows US companies to build goods in other countries and still get all the same benefits as if they were here in the US.  The US has also done provisions for certain industries that have lobbied the government so that these companies could still get US protection/benefits even though 90% of its product is manufactured in another country.

For fuck sakes, look at the GM bailout.  Most of the damn vehicles parts are made/manufactured overseas, car plants in Mexico, but it was the US taxpayer that are paying for the fucktard bailout to keep the plants open in Mexico and Canada.  It is all convoluted anymore.  This is not 1920 or a free market system in the US. The Socialists won, just like what happened in Spain. The world needs a good war and the England to fall so the Central banks get pwn'd.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

So this makes it okay since it is targeted against a nation that subsidies exports by devaluing their currency (who doesn't subsidies industry spit?). If China can sell their products priced in a very weak currency and pay their workers dirt, do you really think this will stop jobs from being outsourced? 

Currency Wars

So what is YOUR point?  China can do what they want but the US can't put a tariff on them for some reason because THAT's unfair?

The fact is that the US government is paying for US jobs to go overseas.  NAFTA allows US companies to build goods in other countries and still get all the same benefits as if they were here in the US.  The US has also done provisions for certain industries that have lobbied the government so that these companies could still get US protection/benefits even though 90% of its product is manufactured in another country.

For fuck sakes, look at the GM bailout.  Most of the damn vehicles parts are made/manufactured overseas, car plants in Mexico, but it was the US taxpayer that are paying for the fucktard bailout to keep the plants open in Mexico and Canada.  It is all convoluted anymore.  This is not 1920 or a free market system in the US. The Socialists won, just like what happened in Spain. The world needs a good war and the England to fall so the Central banks get pwn'd.

No, he's saying that China will fail under the weight of their own protectionism eventually anyway and that adopting the same policies won't do us any good. The manufacturing jobs aren't ever coming back so fucking up our economy in order to placate the unions does far more harm than good. People (read: economically illiterate media types) make a big deal about our trade deficits but they are really meaningless.

Trade deficits are only meaningless if you properly adapt your workforce to do more skilled jobs.

The problem is that we haven't adapted yet.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

So what is YOUR point?  China can do what they want but the US can't put a tariff on them for some reason because THAT's unfair?

The fact is that the US government is paying for US jobs to go overseas.  NAFTA allows US companies to build goods in other countries and still get all the same benefits as if they were here in the US.  The US has also done provisions for certain industries that have lobbied the government so that these companies could still get US protection/benefits even though 90% of its product is manufactured in another country.

For fuck sakes, look at the GM bailout.  Most of the damn vehicles parts are made/manufactured overseas, car plants in Mexico, but it was the US taxpayer that are paying for the fucktard bailout to keep the plants open in Mexico and Canada.  It is all convoluted anymore.  This is not 1920 or a free market system in the US. The Socialists won, just like what happened in Spain. The world needs a good war and the England to fall so the Central banks get pwn'd.

No, he's saying that China will fail under the weight of their own protectionism eventually anyway and that adopting the same policies won't do us any good. The manufacturing jobs aren't ever coming back so fucking up our economy in order to placate the unions does far more harm than good. People (read: economically illiterate media types) make a big deal about our trade deficits but they are really meaningless.

I disagree, Wal-Mart won't collapse but continue to grow economically.  They aren't stupid and if the world doesn't do anything to level the field then the World will be screw'd in the end.  They are Communists, they can control ALL goods in their country.  This is not an Apple to Apple comparison.  Simple economics, only importing goods and not exporting is bad.  Must make money in world market.

ummm, I mean china.

Do you think wealth is zero sum? Take it from one place and it piles up in another? It's not. That was disproven 234 years ago.

China is piling up money? So what. They aren't raising their cost and standard of living at our expense, merely closing the gap. Free trade economics doesn't weaken the countries that practice it, it simply, on a long enough timeline, levels the playing field and creates wealth for all. The US isn't better than the rest of the world, we simply had a lot of advantages to get a head start after WWII ended and everyone else had had their industrial base crippled. We're not poor, nor are we becoming poor. Even our poverty stricken hood rats have giant flat screen tv's, cable television and an Escalade parked out front.

I'm sorry if it hurts your self esteem to know that eventually you won't be special and that you'll actually have to work hard to be able to look down on brown people.

Shahter wrote:

hmmm... do they teach the law of conservation of energy in united states' schools these days?

Sure, and it has absolutely nothing to do with wealth generation. Wealth, unlike mass, is not zero sum.

Shahter wrote:

hmmm... do they teach the law of conservation of energy in united states' schools these days?

There are certain aspects of globalization that resemble that particular law.  John is correct that it's not a zero-sum equation, but at the same time, there are limited resources in the world.

I think the general reasoning behind the assumption that our standard of living will gradually fall is the fact that not all changes in the market occur at the same speed.

The developing world is rising faster than technology is progressing.  As technology improves, our consumption of resources becomes more efficient, but this efficiency rate isn't improving fast enough to keep pace with the speed at which the developing world is consuming more resources.

The end result is a gradual leveling of quality of life.  Meeting in the middle between the developed and developing world is likely to involve a smaller fall for us than it will be a rise for them, but it will still be a noticeable fall in terms of everyday living.

Metro systems, for example, will likely become a lot more popular over time and will be implemented to a much greater degree in more American cities as oil prices rise.

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

hmmm... do they teach the law of conservation of energy in united states' schools these days?

There are certain aspects of globalization that resemble that particular law.  John is correct that it's not a zero-sum equation, but at the same time, there are limited resources in the world.

I think the general reasoning behind the assumption that our standard of living will gradually fall is the fact that not all changes in the market occur at the same speed.

The developing world is rising faster than technology is progressing.  As technology improves, our consumption of resources becomes more efficient, but this efficiency rate isn't improving fast enough to keep pace with the speed at which the developing world is consuming more resources.

The end result is a gradual leveling of quality of life.  Meeting in the middle between the developed and developing world is likely to involve a smaller fall for us than it will be a rise for them, but it will still be a noticeable fall in terms of everyday living.

Metro systems, for example, will likely become a lot more popular over time and will be implemented to a much greater degree in more American cities as oil prices rise.

no metros would be more popular if theyre built better. i was in nyc and it was shite.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sure, and it has absolutely nothing to do with wealth generation. Wealth, unlike mass, is not zero sum.

/facepalm
just in case you didn't know, mass is not zero sum, unlike the resouces and production capabilities of human civilization.

Law of Conservation of Mass says otherwise.

i found it funny that shahster tried to school you but then he fucked himself over in his own stupidity.