[Ukraine] ahegao to the poles

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Ukraine] ahegao to the poles

What is the most powerful flying bug? This poll is closed.
🦋	15	3.71%
🦇	115	28.47%
🪰	12	2.97%
🐦	67	16.58%
dragonfly	94	23.27%
🦟	14	3.47%
🐝	87	21.53%
Total:	404 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Doktor Avalanche: Dec 30, 2008

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

I read one of the stories of the Ukrainian writers involved and its funny how interchangeable it is with a Russian setting

orc shapeshifters

# ? May 17, 2023 23:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 02:20

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003

I can't wait to fly to France to buy electronics made in China.

# ? May 17, 2023 23:57

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

dk2m posted:

This is further propagated in economic thinking, as free trade is taught to be completely divorced from the realities of great power politics and technological disparity. You read any mainstream economic thinker, or go through university, and you’re taught that if country a makes coconuts and country b makes bananas, efficient markets will connect the two together.

Ok, but what if country a makes coconuts and country b makes sophisticated computers?

quote:

“Comparative advantage” theory explains the processes of trade transactions between countries by introducing the concepts - “opportunity cost” and “comparative advantage”. In this theory, they say every good has an “opportunity cost”, this is the same as the amount of other good given inevitably up. In other words, “opportunity cost” of an item is a cost counted by output possible of other item that must be reduced in its amount.

Take a producer who produces two kinds of products- A and B, using the given conditions of production efficiently as an example. When he produces more good-A by a unit, he has to give up producing good-B by certain amount-Y. In this case, “opportunity cost” of good-A is counted by certain amount-Y of good-B forgone due to producing more of good-A.

In this theory, if a country has lower “opportunity cost” of a good than one another, the country has “comparative advantage” in producing the good, then has to specialize in producing it and exchange some amounts of it for other goods.

We assume that there are two countries-A and B, which could produce two kinds of products- rice and car individually. And suppose because these countries have natural and climatic conditions, country-A could produces rice as much as country-B does, whereas country-B could produce car not so much as country-A.

Suppose A could produce whether 120 000t of rice or 60 000 cars per year in attempt to produce only one kind of good and B whether 100 000t of rice or 40 000 cars per year.

Country-A’s “opportunity cost” of a million tons of rice is the same as 0.5 million cars (=6/12), and “opportunity cost” of a million cars is equal to 2 million tons of rice (=12/6). Similarly country-B’s “opportunity cost” of a million tons of rice is the same as 0.4 million cars (=4/10), and “opportunity cost” of a million cars is equal to 2.5 million tons of rice (=10/4).

In this analysis, A’s “opportunity cost” of a million cars is lower than B’s one, and B’s “opportunity cost” of a million of rice is smaller than A’s one. As a result, country-A has to specialize in producing cars, while B in producing rice. Then they should exchange their own product for other goods. This is a basic principle of the “comparative advantage” theory.

This is a distorted theory of the real cause for trade between countries and it is served defending theory used to justify imperialist exploiting nature in external trade.

First of all, the term “opportunity cost” itself is an unreasonable concept.

Theoretically, cost is calculated by total amounts of labor needed in production of commodity (labor amounts embodied in production for means of production plus labor amounts needed in production of new commodity using them).

But, in “comparative advantage” theory, the cost of commodity is considered to be all resources not only resources used actually in the production but also forgone other resources.

In practice, it is true that many other commodities available should be given up for increase in a certain commodity, so it is not possible to count one of all alternatives as an “opportunity cost” of it. And although each country produces the same kind of commodity, each one has its own distinguished points from others in terms of the qualities, quantities, and characteristics of it. So “opportunity cost”, as a criterion, cannot reflect all of differences of commodities.

It proves not to be true that “opportunity cost” is sole criterion to discover the cause for trade between countries. This “opportunity cost” is an intentional precondition to extract the cause for exchanges of products between countries and also a distorted form of production cost.

“Comparative advantage” theory itself, based on the term “opportunity cost”, also is no more than nonscientific theory.

This theory says that cause for exchanges between countries is attribute[d] to the differences of “opportunity cost” of a good; due to the difference of “opportunity cost” of a good, each country which has relatively lower “opportunity cost” of a good than others has “comparative advantage” in this production, and takes part in the exchanges with its own good.

But, in effect, trade between countries does not occur due not to the differences in “opportunity cost” of goods.

In general, the basis that occurs the trade between countries is social division of labor and differentiation of ownership of products. Social division of labor is a condition to occur the exchangeability that one should be exchanged with one another. Another essential condition is differentiation of ownership of products; this is the condition that does exchange of products in the form of sale between trade parties. Social division of labor combined with differentiated ownership of products occur the trade relations between producers.

Condition that ownership of products are differentiated with the nation and state as a basic unit makes the social division of labor to become the major condition to cause for the trade between countries.

Basically, each country makes its products different from others in terms of quantities, qualities and structures of products because each country has different conditions including natural and economic conditions and environment, styles and tastes of people’s economic lives, development level of science and technology and so on. So these conditions makes it possible to occur the trade between countries that some countries with surplus products can sell them to others and also other some countries purchase products that they cannot produce at all or produce as much as they need.

Here, the case in which a country cannot produce at all or can produce less represents not existing the division of labor specialized in this production as partly as they do not have at all or have less. Although the goods are same in kind, they may have difference in terms of quality of the good.

This is because of existing of different division of labor that is similar with each other at a glance but is different from each other in detail.

However, in ‘‘comparative advantage’’ theory, they concentrate only on division of labor producing the goods with different value, and elicite exchange relations ignoring above all conditions subjectively and unreasonably.

‘‘Comparative advantage’’ theory serves as a theoretical tool to justify the exploiting and predatory nature of trade relations and to support the imperialist trade policy.

In a view of principle, when each commodity may be exchanged basing only on its value, such exchange can be the equivalent and mutual benefit exchanges. This is a basic economic law.

But bourgeois theory justifies the unfair international division system of labour which is an economic basis of non-equivalent exchange by insisting on “comparative advantage” theory.

In practice, international trade between developed and developing countries is non-equivalent exchange. In such unfair international trade, developed countries sell their products such as industrial products, processed products, intellectual products to developing countries at higher prices than in international market, while they buy developing countries’ products such primary products as minerals, agricultural products at lower prices than in international market.

If following this theory, backward countries in economic development including developing countries have “comparative advantage” in primary industries and traditional industries which have low level of technical development for production and are needed huge labor. It is because imperialist countries have been developing processing industries and technical intensive industries, so they have low “opportunity cost” and f[a]vorable “comparative advantage” in these sectors. Conversely, the economically backward countries inevitably have low “opportunity cost” and favorable “comparative advantage” in primary industries and traditional industries. As a result, it should be formed one-sided international division system of labor and non-equivalent exchange between imperialist countries and colonial and developing countires.

So imperialist countries can always hold more favorable positions in overall production and trade transaction than developing countires, thus they make lots of profits through the non-equivalent exchange in the international trade. But developing countries only conduct their economic activities with one-sided and deformed economy and finally they cannot avoid the social poverty as well as the serious environmental problems and depleting resources. Furthermore, it causes the big differences between imperialist countries where “the rich get richer” and developing countries where “the poor get poorer”.

It shows that bourgeois “comparative advantage” theory is a theoretical tool supporting activities by imperialists who maintain the old and unfair international economic order and strengthen the exploitation and plunder through it.

If following this theory, the economy of developing countries is limited in primary industries like agricultural and mining industries that they have “comparative advantage”, which have been favorable developed so that imperilaists strengthen the economic exploitation and plunder in those sectors. Thus, they cannot ensure their economic and political independences, and they would become the victims of “globalization” and the economic appendages of imperialists.

Taken from: Bourgeois “Comparative Advantage” Theory Justifying Imperialist Trade Policy and Its Reactionary Nature, Kim Un Chol, Faculty of Economics, Kim Il Sung University

gradenko_2000 has issued a correction as of 00:08 on May 18, 2023

# ? May 18, 2023 00:04

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

My comparative advantage is in being rich. Your comparative advantage is in being poor.

# ? May 18, 2023 00:10

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

bedpan posted:

My comparative advantage is in being rich. Your comparative advantage is in being poor.

I think this was said verbatim in a class I took once

# ? May 18, 2023 02:05

Nix Panicus: Feb 25, 2007

A whole lot of people start off thinking exploiting other nations is terrible and then get taught about comparative advantage and decide that exploitation is good, actually, and mutually beneficial for everyone. It doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny but most people just stop there

# ? May 18, 2023 02:10

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

I�m just glad I only had to take a few of these classes

Maybe they teach it to Defence Studies students wrong, as a joke?

# ? May 18, 2023 02:23

holefoods: Jan 10, 2022

lmao at ownership of means of production under capitalism

# ? May 18, 2023 02:28

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

holefoods posted:

lmao at ownership of means of production under capitalism

As shown by my posting none of this stuck, but I never understood what they were talking about, particularly our� frugal meritocracy?

# ? May 18, 2023 02:32

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

i am speechless

# ? May 18, 2023 02:45

Nix Panicus: Feb 25, 2007

'Calls on Americans to take up the thankless task of Empire now that they have taken the Philippines from Spain'
:barf:

# ? May 18, 2023 02:46

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

Frosted Flake posted:

As shown by my posting none of this stuck, but I never understood what they were talking about, particularly our� frugal meritocracy?

oh

my

god

# ? May 18, 2023 02:47

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

we're all so loving dead

# ? May 18, 2023 02:51

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Officers need to know how the world works!

# ? May 18, 2023 02:55

Nix Panicus: Feb 25, 2007

'No bourgeoisie no democracy' juxtaposed with 'not a strong enough bourgeoisie to replace aristocracy' is also a hell of a thing. The lower classes are never to be allowed near the levers of power. That's doing a populism and that's undemocratic.

# ? May 18, 2023 02:55

CODChimera: Jan 29, 2009

Nix Panicus posted:

Has there ever been any confirmation that there were DU shells in that ammo dump last week, or even that it was an ammo dump as opposed to fuel or something else? Twitter was awash with 'gamma radiation spikes' but that's not how DU works. NAFO Twitter claimed it was a Soviet era rocket fuel dump that Russia 'forgot' about, which is also pretty lol

Is this just one of those giant fireballs we'll have to wait a decade to get the real report on?

obviously i have no idea how true that is but they claimed the huge strike before this one was also a rocket fuel dump

# ? May 18, 2023 02:57

Slim Jim Pickens: Jan 16, 2012

The idea that Imperial or Nazi Germany did not have a bourgeoisie is one of those lingering Anglosphere brainworms that defy all sense and logic.

Something about this lecture being made over powerpoint bullet points is so appropriate to the inanity of it all.

# ? May 18, 2023 03:01

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

the 120 mm DU shells all went off and collided perfectly in midair causing a depleted nuclear explosion so no radiation

# ? May 18, 2023 03:02

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Our empire deserves to be thanked for the back breaking labour we perform of keeping our commando lug sole boots grinding on your necks while we loot your nations.

That's heritage Vibram rubber. Be more grateful.

# ? May 18, 2023 03:08

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Opium to balance trade.

# ? May 18, 2023 03:19

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

this burning hosed up planet full of pandemics, wars and grinding poverty? The one on its way to catastrophic environmental collapse? *gestures at burning planet, screaming can be heard in the background*

Some thanks would be nice

# ? May 18, 2023 03:28

CODChimera: Jan 29, 2009

it's interesting that russia are still advancing in bakhmut despite everything

# ? May 18, 2023 03:28

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

Is a political science degree 5 courses a semester like this for four years?

# ? May 18, 2023 03:39

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

*opens powerpoint*

this is pedagogy, im going to be pedagogical

*types nonsense*

# ? May 18, 2023 03:42

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

Years before I heard Chapo make fun of him, I had a class where the main readings were a book by Thomas Friedman.

e: The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

# ? May 18, 2023 03:44

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

Frosted Flake posted:

As shown by my posting none of this stuck, but I never understood what they were talking about, particularly our� frugal meritocracy?

who lotta poo poo makes a lot more sense now

# ? May 18, 2023 03:44

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

bedpan posted:

who lotta poo poo makes a lot more sense now

lol about me or generally?

# ? May 18, 2023 03:46

Weka: May 5, 2019; That child totally had it coming. Nobody should be able to be out at dusk except cars.

holefoods posted:

lmao at ownership of means of production under capitalism

That's the definition of capitalism.

# ? May 18, 2023 03:53

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

Frosted Flake posted:

lol about me or generally?

generally

# ? May 18, 2023 03:56

Ansar Santa: Jul 12, 2012

My question is, what rank is a Timmys Team Member in the CAF?

# ? May 18, 2023 03:57

Slim Jim Pickens: Jan 16, 2012

Timmys was bought by an American company and immediately became dogshit. At the same time, Members are now the same rank as the governor general

# ? May 18, 2023 04:04

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

I�ll cop up to this lecture on the importance of leadership in international relations making sense to me at the time

# ? May 18, 2023 04:06

Psycho Society: Oct 21, 2010

Weka posted:

That's the definition of capitalism.

wild

# ? May 18, 2023 04:06

Kindest Forums User: Mar 25, 2008; Let me tell you about my opinion about Bernie Sanders and why Donald Trump is his true successor.

You cannot vote Hillary Clinton because she is worse than Trump.

Frosted Flake posted:

As shown by my posting none of this stuck, but I never understood what they were talking about, particularly our… frugal meritocracy?

This can't be loving real.

# ? May 18, 2023 04:08

Psycho Society: Oct 21, 2010

the last slide reminds me of the Goon manuscript "killing for peace", said to have been barely muscled out of hollywood fame by Platoon, and which apparently you can now read on kindle for five dollars

# ? May 18, 2023 04:13

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

Kindest Forums User posted:

This can't be loving real.

# ? May 18, 2023 04:13

Meow Tse-tung: Oct 11, 2004; No one cat should have all that power

Regarde Aduck posted:

oh

my

god

that can't be real. is that like wimp-lo training?

# ? May 18, 2023 04:22

Alpha 1: Feb 17, 2012

Kindest Forums User posted:

This can't be loving real.

I finally understand how people contract NATO Brain.

# ? May 18, 2023 04:24

SplitSoul: Dec 31, 2000

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/WonkVJ/status/1658716403040686080

quote:

Francis Fukuyama: "But I do think that, you know, peace and prosperity in a way breeds its own form of complacency. [...] That's why the invasion of Ukraine was such a shock to everybody living in the peaceful, western world, because, in our lifetimes, we've never witnessed one country just launching a, you know, big military invasion across an international border, trying to conquer another country."
Chris Hayes: "Well, Iraq."
Francis Fukuyama: "Well, Iraq... well, but... yeah, okay."

Not listening to the whole thing, but Hayes immediately follows up by mentioning Timothy Snyder's recent appearance on the podcast.

# ? May 18, 2023 04:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 02:20

dk2m: May 6, 2009

I�m genuinely flabbergasted at FFs posts, I refuse to believe that leaders are being trained on material that appears to have been compiled from a 3rd graders social studies book

# ? May 18, 2023 04:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Ukraine] ahegao to the poles

«‹›3745 »