|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you are rich and not an actual sociopath, the kind of person that enjoys fine dining more than rape slaves, an authoritarian hellhole isn't actually that great. The Opera, fancy restaurants, theater, all these things benefit from a peaceful society. Better to be rich in Paris than North Korea, in general. Fly to Paris for opera to keep up appearances (many ultrarich idle people prefer coke fueled orgies with rockstars rather than all that stuffy crap that people think rich people like), fly back to North Korea/Dubai to your household full of slaves in the country you have 100% by the balls. Once you hit a certain level of wealth, only the law stands in your way of getting more.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, if the goods are cheaper to make overseas for any reason (including lower cost of living) that's absolute advantage. Comparative advantage is when you and I can both make shirts for $10, but I can make pants for $20 and you can make pants for $30. And therefore everyone is goods-richer if I spend more time making pants and you spend more time making shirts and we trade for what we need. Theoretically You're being deliberately dense or don't know what comparative advantage is (It could definitely be either). Comparative advantage is comparative advantage. And that's it. Absolute advantage is irrelevant. The problems you constructed, layoffs (obviously framed from the perspective of the first world middle class person) may be relevant, but not to the basic theory. quote:David Ricardo developed the classical theory of comparative advantage in 1817 to explain why countries engage in international trade even when one country's workers are more efficient at producing every single good than workers in other countries. He demonstrated that if two countries capable of producing two commodities engage in the free market, then each country will increase its overall consumption by exporting the good for which it has a comparative advantage while importing the other good, provided that there exist differences in labor productivity between both countries.[5][6] Widely regarded as one of the most powerful[7] yet counter-intuitive[8] insights in economics, Ricardo's theory implies that comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage is responsible for much of international trade. VitalSigns posted:You know what else is a "short-term" benefit to the individual? Stealing! The long term consequences (which exist) which offset the short term loss (which also exists).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You're being deliberately dense or don't know what comparative advantage is (It could definitely be either). Comparative advantage is comparative advantage. And that's it. Absolute advantage is irrelevant. Yeah you're right. asdf32 posted:The problems you constructed, layoffs (obviously framed from the perspective of the first world middle class person) may be relevant, but not to the basic theory. The basic theory applies to countries, not individuals. You claimed everyone (every single person) benefits, this is not generally true. The basic theory also assumes all that money goes to producing more goods instead of being extracted as rent by an owner class, this is also not generally true. If you want to argue that your rocket design is just fine because air resistance is a "constructed" problem that wasn't mentioned in your physics 101 textbook so you don't need a design to deal with those problems, good luck on your test flight. I mean let's take this to its logical conclusion: if we paid all workers zero, think of how many more goods we can afford to produce! They would all pile up unsold but hey the world would have more goods and more goods is better than asdf32 posted:The long term consequences (which exist) which offset the short term loss (which also exists). Which is exactly the pro-tax argument being made itt VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
lets break it down: taxes is stealing. you should always steal from the weak. 2 undeniable facts. you can substitute steal with take if you want to be polite. what system addresses this dilemma?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Seems like a big spike in grain ship charter contacts this month...
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not convinced that liberal free trade is the most effective way to help these countries, maybe address the counterexamples I already mentioned. South Korea, etc. did not industrialize the way you are proposing. By counter examples you mean the ones from 19th century, including Japan in particular which started developing only after a long period of isolation ended by the country being forcibly opened to American markets? US which heavily engaged in international trade? Or modern South Korea which is literally called an example of "export-oriented industrialisation"? If you google that term you get dozens of hits from Korea, or you can read this which is a 28 pages long article about the history of korean industrialisation Specific relevant quote (because it mentions your much-maligned comparative advantage): quote:In a military coup on 16 May 1961, General Park Chung Hee ascended to power. At this time the Albeit that was only the initial phase, there were many others, including with more or less import liberalisation. However they practically all featured export orientation and undercutting of American workers. And by the way the article leans in favour of state intervention etc, it's not some libertarian nonsense. And yes I suppose there is a distinction to make regarding which country's elite the capital accumulates with, namely that during the 70s there were far fewer multinationals around and so there were fewer capital outflows as well, but crucially for the American worker it made no difference, quite a few factories shut because of Korean competition (I mean we literally are talking about the rust belt here). quote:Would that hit the economy hard? Why would it? I assume the answer is "the rich wouldn't bother investing" but I'm not convinced that's true. Interest is taxed as ordinary income, did the 1950s economy blow up because the rich didn't bother to buy any bonds? Of course not. Taxes are only assessed as a percentage of gains. If an investment has a risk-adjusted expected positive return it is always more beneficial to make that investment than to sit on the money regardless of the tax rate (assuming zero or positive inflation obviously). Since making the investment is always beneficial, I'm not convinced that enough rich people will turn down money out of hurt fee-fees to make a difference to the economy. I was thinking more that they would invest abroad instead, at least the ones with means to do so. And of course foreign investment would fall if it was subject to taxes like that. Regardless, I don't even see why the US needs extremely high tax rates to afford single-payer healthcare, given how wealthy it is, and with how much of the economy is devoted to the insurance industry it could even help the country prosper. As an aside wealth taxes in particular are a common socialist mechanism for nationalisation, and it's not even that I'm opposed to high amounts of taxation in principle, if it was necessary to redistribute wealth and income to people. But, without dramatic changes to the economic structure of the country, I don't think as things stand now you could institute say a 90% effective tax rate on the wealthy and expect it to work out well. You might get away with 40% again, perhaps even 50% maybe. I still stand by calling it redistribution though, but I don't see why redistribution is a bad thing. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You know what else is a "short-term" benefit to the individual? Stealing! Exactly tax is theft
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Exactly tax is theft Tax is the cost society charges for protecting and enforcing property rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Exactly tax is theft You've confused tax with property there comrade. Property is theft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:You've confused tax with property there comrade. Property is theft. Hmm. Okay, I'm convinced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:By counter examples you mean the ones from 19th century, including Japan in particular which started developing only after a long period of isolation ended by the country being forcibly opened to American markets? US which heavily engaged in international trade? Or modern South Korea which is literally called an example of "export-oriented industrialisation"? If you google that term you get dozens of hits from Korea, or you can read this which is a 28 pages long article about the history of korean industrialisation If you want a Korean perspective on globalization Ha-Joon Chang is a good place to start
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
PS basically all of Korea's Chaebols started either as SoEs or with heavy state subsidization because they couldn't find private investors anywhere to front them the funds to get off the ground
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
rscott posted:If you want a Korean perspective on globalization Ha-Joon Chang is a good place to start Aside from how unorthodox he is, I would argue that he doesn't counter the narrative of export-oriented growth, or even attempt to. He very much agrees with the idea that less-developed countries should do everything they can to boost their exports to wealthier markets, up to and including extensive state intervention. Without disagreeing with him I would say that there are two problems with his ideas being adopted worldwide, 1) it explicitly puts countries into capitalist competition with one another, producing exactly the same race to the bottom as is criticised, and relying on the more powerful nations not using their power to win these trade wars, and 2), he is concerned with how undeveloped countries can catch up to the developed ones provide that the latter will allow this (it was US policy to hold tariffs from Japan and SK low to build them up so they can counter the SU in Asia), which doesn't necessarily extend to countries which are already developed, like the US. Indeed in "Kicking away the ladder" the developed countries switching to free market ideology is presumed to be the best course of action for them at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Aside from how unorthodox he is, I would argue that he doesn't counter the narrative of export-oriented growth, or even attempt to. He very much agrees with the idea that less-developed countries should do everything they can to boost their exports to wealthier markets, up to and including extensive state intervention. The point of Chang's work is that the equilibrium generated by free trade freezes in the method of comparative advantage. Countries that gain advantage through lower wages typically remain advantageous due to lower wages. This trap keeps a populace from advancing in skill and thus gaining productivity and comparative advantage through means other than cheap labor. One way to encourage skill advancement is to protect some sectors from foreign intervention. These protections ensure that improvements in productivity are gained directly by the local populace and not the world populace. i.e. allowing your people to infringe on IP generated in other countries regarding factory automation means that when it comes times to automate a factory your people can compete instead of the productivity from automation going to foreigners while your country loses jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:The point of Chang's work is that the equilibrium generated by free trade freezes in the method of comparative advantage. Countries that gain advantage through lower wages typically remain advantageous due to lower wages. This trap keeps a populace from advancing in skill and thus gaining productivity and comparative advantage through means other than cheap labor. One way to encourage skill advancement is to protect some sectors from foreign intervention. These protections ensure that improvements in productivity are gained directly by the local populace and not the world populace. i.e. allowing your people to infringe on IP generated in other countries regarding factory automation means that when it comes times to automate a factory your people can compete instead of the productivity from automation going to foreigners while your country loses jobs. Could you provide some citations for that? Particularly the part about comparative advantage, and lack of skill advancement due to foreign influence. Not that I don't believe you, I'm both curious and eager to find out more. I've read some of his writing for what it's worth. As to the second part of your post, some of it I definitely agree with (the IP bit in particular is a common feature of industrialisation success stories, for obvious reasons). But it also would seem to put nations into very antagonistic positions against each other, which I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with as a recipe for the whole world. It might be fine for one country as long as others allow themselves to act as consumer markets for their exports, but it wouldn't seem to work if everyone did it. I also don't see how your last point follows from your premises, it seems more like an off-the-cuff comment about the US and Japan. I'm not sure, however you choose to describe those countries, you can argue they lack worker skills, education, IP, capital or technology, and those are the places where automation happens the most (and in fact particularly because they have the technology to make it feasible, and because the wages are high enough to make it economical).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Could you provide some citations for that? Particularly the part about comparative advantage, and lack of skill advancement due to foreign influence. Not that I don't believe you, I'm both curious and eager to find out more. I've read some of his writing for what it's worth. The idea that Comparative Advantage maintains the status quo goes all the way back to Ricardo himself e: if you read Ricardo it's clear that the concept of Comparative Advantage is descriptive rather than prescriptive rscott fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Comparative advantage is -- at best -- a cute little thought puzzle to introduce you to how economists think. It's the econ101 equivalent of those philosophy brain teasers that get slung around in undergrad, such as "how do we know the sun will rise tomorrow" or "if Mary spends her whole life in a totally colourless room but learns everything scientific there is to know about the biology and physics of colour, then what if anything does she learn the first time she sees a red apple?" Among many other issues, comparative advantage reduces all forms of commercial and industrial activity to the extreme abstraction of labour hours and simply asks which country produces more of a good in a single hour of work. The theory gives no acknowledgement to how different industries or forms of economic activity have significant externalities associated with them. Of course in practice there are some key differences between the economic and social structures of a country that specializes in exporting high-tech manufactured goods vs. a country that exports raw materials or agriculture. By the logic of comparative advantage it was a mistake for the United States to pursue the industrial policies that developed America into the manufacturing hub of the world because clearly they would have been better off remaining an agrarian republic that traded with Europe for most of it's finished goods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/trump-to-oversee-fiscal-bloodbath-instead-of-prosperity-says-reagan-omb-director.html Interesting talk from David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, on CNBC. Arguing that Trump has no room to grow the economy since things are at highs right now and that the market is delusional about a Reagan 2.0 grow. Also pointing over that the fight over repealing the ACA is going take months of time and that the debt ceiling is going back into place in March. That the tax reform will be a neutral swap that doesn't put money into the economy. Seems to think there'll be a showdown over amount of debt added over the infrastructure bill from the more fiscal Republicans. Thoughts? I for one am wondering when the bubble is gonna burst on Wall Street's dream of there's going to be a massive economic boost from Trump's economic policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Thoughts? I for one am wondering when the bubble is gonna burst on Wall Street's dream of there's going to be a massive economic boost from Trump's economic policy. Not anytime soon, there are a lot of fortune 500 companies which would stand to gain from both tax cuts and the tariffs Trump keeps promising. I'd be more worried about Silicon Valley imploding on itself if Uber, Snapchat or Airbnb tries to IPO which could shake faith in the entire tech sector and kick off a recession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Comparative advantage is an attractive theoretical model because it is so obviously true no matter how more complicated you make the factors in it. It's not true that there are no "more realistic" developments of this setup, it's just easy to see that this mechanism will prevail in this model class anyway. What you need to understand though is that the model is not half as normative as it is made out to be here. I have already written above how it is not at all clear that trade will lead to convergence of technology and living standards. Blindly optimizing comparative advantage may optimize global welfare and is efficient, and that will remain true no matter what bells and whistles you put on that model, BUT the distribution mechanism is not at all specified enough to make it a necessarily good idea. But there we are in the details of international trade policy already, because all sorts of strategies that will be proposed presume the existence of a more-or-less international market. And when we are arguing here, it was first about arguments like "globalization is bad because capitalism". Well, the reality is that the problem to solve are poverty levels north of 75% across most of the people living on this earth. And what alternatives are there? Foreign aid is ineffective. First, it is impossible to control how foreign aid is used. Given that part of reality, and the reality that inequality is large in developing countries, most of the money ends up in the hands of elites: either directly, or indirectly through corruption and exploitative institutions. Due to these exploitative institutions, foreign aid is unable to stimulate growth and change (see Acemoglu/Robinson). Furthermore, it can be said that therefore foreign aid supports and cements inequality and exploitative institution orders in developing countries. Given this dire outlook, the exponential decrease in poverty and illiteracy due to international trade is nothing but cool and good. Whoever doesn't understand the magnitude of improvement in quality of life this has brought to the majority of people living on earth, is a sheltered rich-world baby. If you do not comprehend that precisely in the countries participating in international trade and industry, the poverty level (people with less than 2$ adjusted PPP per day) has dropped from 95% of the population in 1981 to less than 30% in 2011, all while in the countries NOT participating much in international trade, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, the drop was only from 75% to around 70%. And this with substantial foreign aid influx with all sorts of different programs! These facts are just more extreme if you consider longer time frames and lower poverty thresholds. So if you assume technological diffusion will just magically create factories and jobs, then reality has already proven you wrong. If you assume that poverty levels have to decline because of growth convergence, then reality has proven you wrong. If you assume that participation in trade has not lead to the comparably biggest decline in poverty levels, then you are also wrong. Some pages before, I have written enough words on the negatives of international trade and the outlook of technological and welfare convergence. But let's stop with this exploitation bullshit now. Whether you like it or not, the only effective and realistic instrument for improving people's life has been profit interest of international capital. The only way forward is to recognize this and deal with it, not live in some sort of fantasy world where bound capital (aka the wealth y'all wanna distribute here) in terms of factories and universities, and all the connected infrastructure, will just unroot and magically fly through the air to Africa. I mean gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/trump-to-oversee-fiscal-bloodbath-instead-of-prosperity-says-reagan-omb-director.html Also the kind of 'tax reform' they are likely to pass is only going to increase the deficit because it's going to allow higher income earners to pay less and there will likely be a cut on either capital gains or corporate taxes or both. Then when the effects of the ACA repeal begin we will either already be in a recession or it will trigger one. Proposed Republican policies are going to yank a lot of money out of the economy as there will be another reverse wealth transfer back up the ladder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:hen we are arguing here, it was first about arguments like "globalization is bad because capitalism". Assuming that this is the actual policy of nations. Given that half of Europe and the POTUS is in a process of enacting protectionist policy's and leaving global trade treaties, i would say that the political aim is to keep the populace happy by providing them with jobs. While globalization has done a good job of raising GDP it has been devastating to rural communities and employment. Alleviating poverty was never a direct goal by any country, just a side effect of capital accumulation strategies by companies and governments. If it really was a priority, we could sacrifice a great deal in the west to make it a reality. For example, eliminating farming subsidies. But that is political suicide, so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Most of those jobs are not coming back and I'm wondering how bad this will get before people start to realize that. Corporations have more power than governments to a certain degree in a globalized world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
Maybe in America. Here in iceland we are two healthy middle age tech professionals, and the amount of services we receive for the taxes we pay easily outweigh the costs. Just comparing childcare costs with our peers in the USA is practically enough to make up the difference (not to mention intangibles that are still tax related like school shootings not even existing here), let alone what our son's eventual university will cost, the higher likelihood both our pensions will exist by retirement, and our healthcare not connected to employment. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Maybe in America. Here in iceland we are two healthy middle age tech professionals, and the amount of services we receive for the taxes we pay easily outweigh the costs. Just comparing childcare costs with our peers in the USA is practically enough to make up the difference (not to mention intangibles that are still tax related like school shootings not even existing here), let alone what our son's eventual university will cost, the higher likelihood both our pensions will exist by retirement, and our healthcare not connected to employment. The young tech professionals in the US just aren't having kids in high tax areas. If you don't have kids to have childcare or university costs, would you still think you're getting more out then you're putting in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:The young tech professionals in the US just aren't having kids in high tax areas. If you don't have kids to have childcare or university costs, would you still think you're getting more out then you're putting in? It'd probably be less, but our son is only 2, and I've lived here for 10 years. I took a huge salary cut, taxes went up, gas is 6+ dollars a gallon, yet I have more disposable income, paid off my house before 35, and never have to worry about hate crimes (gay man) was able to marry 6 years before it was possible stateside, and have zero fear of the police here, so overall I'd say yes. Plus I have a functional sense of human empathy, so knowing my neighbors and relatives are going to good schools also makes me feel like I'm getting something out of those taxes. *edit* isn't also the main reason tech workers aren't having kids because of how ridiculously expensive it is and lack of basic services like paternity pay and affordable childcare? I see those things as very connected, ie if they got more services like we do in Iceland, they'd be having more kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Most of those jobs are not coming back and I'm wondering how bad this will get before people start to realize that. Corporations have more power than governments to a certain degree in a globalized world. I'm not saying that it will actually work trying to undo globalization by going in reverse will cost more than it creates. But clearly they're not happy with the development, and will vote for change until a solution is found or there is revolt. To make an analogy, "There is not enough food, so i guess you'll have to starve to death" is not something anyone will accept, even if they "realize" it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:*edit* isn't also the main reason tech workers aren't having kids because of how ridiculously expensive it is and lack of basic services like paternity pay and affordable childcare? I see those things as very connected, ie if they got more services like we do in Iceland, they'd be having more kids. It's part of it. A mix of obscene rent in tech town, massive crushing student debt, and the cost of having a babby in the first place puts a crunch on it. It's crowded as hell where tech jobs exist too. No sense trying to raise a family in a closet you're renting for $2,000 a month. American culture also doesn't value family much these days. We care about personal net worth and...well, not much else. You have to work 500 hours a week and make as much money as possible or you're a loser.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's part of it. A mix of obscene rent in tech town, massive crushing student debt, and the cost of having a babby in the first place puts a crunch on it. It's crowded as hell where tech jobs exist too. No sense trying to raise a family in a closet you're renting for $2,000 a month. Aren't nearly everything in that list, things that nations with better safety nets (funded by taxes not being wasted on war) cover or ameliorate? Also your last bit isn't wrong. The difference in how family focused and the feeling of being part of a society here is hugely different than the "every house is a castle" mentality stateside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Aren't nearly everything in that list, things that nations with better safety nets (funded by taxes not being wasted on war) cover or ameliorate? Yup but that is communism and we don't do that here you dirty disgusting red. Stay in Europe. ... Actually that would probably be better for you anyway. It's downright bizarre that the same people screeching that young Americans aren't buying houses and forming babbies are the same ones setting things up so they can't. Wages have stagnated while cost of living has gone up anywhere you'd actually want to live. Tax cuts or bailouts for the rich are basically mandatory every administration. All that matters is net worth so whatever makes a billionaire another billion is cool and good because he deserves it. If he didn't he'd never have become a billionaire in the first place!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Just another day in late capitalism: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich The New Yorker posted:“Saying you’re ‘buying a house in New Zealand’ is kind of a wink, wink, say no more. Once you’ve done the Masonic handshake, they’ll be, like, ‘Oh, you know, I have a broker who sells old ICBM silos, and they’re nuclear-hardened, and they kind of look like they would be interesting to live in.’”
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Actually that would probably be better for you anyway. It's downright bizarre that the same people screeching that young Americans aren't buying houses and forming babbies are the same ones setting things up so they can't. But don't you know, housing has to go up up up forever and their property values must forever increase while they pay no taxes (and save no money)! If you don't buy their houses at hugely inflated prices and tie yourself to an impossible mountain of debt, how is their housing value supposed to go up in perpetuity? Even worse, if you stop having kids, how are you going to inflict the same fate upon them when it's time for you to sell your house at 10X what you paid for it? Bay Area thing here: It's amazing to watch people write op-eds to papers wherein they talk about how their own children don't deserve to live in the region. The other fun one I saw last year was in Palo Alto where interview quotes for an article had residents talking about how their firefighters and school teachers should get second jobs if they want to live within an hour of the town they work in. How loving detached from sanity do you have to be to have the gall to say your own kids shouldn't get the life you had?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Sundae posted:How loving detached from sanity do you have to be to have the gall to say your own kids shouldn't get the life you had?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Sundae posted:How loving detached from sanity do you have to be to have the gall to say your own kids shouldn't get the life you had? Just pretend they're Gollum who has the One Ring. I mean that's literally the mindset. MINE, GIMMIE, NOT YOURS, STUPID SELFISH CHILDREN
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
So now that Trump has revealed himself to be a true blue protectionist why is the stock market still going up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:So now that Trump has revealed himself to be a true blue protectionist why is the stock market still going up? Stock markets feel happy when a Republican is in charge. Right up until the crash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
A really strong piece from a good economist demonstrating the minuscule impact of trade on US manufacturing employment. http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/24/14363148/trade-deals-nafta-wto-china-job-loss-trump
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:So now that Trump has revealed himself to be a true blue protectionist why is the stock market still going up? Because if it goes down they will lose money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:So now that Trump has revealed himself to be a true blue protectionist why is the stock market still going up? He will likely manage to lower taxes and vomit piles of money into the private sector. The hiring freeze will also make government services suck so private sector jobs will probably come up. The government can't create more federal employees but notice that there doesn't seem to be a restriction on just paying a company to do stuff. The short term gains are probably going to be good but expect a looooot of bubbles. The tech sector is already starting to pop I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The tech sector is already starting to pop I think. I'm curious to hear why you think this is the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 23:43
|
|