You are not in essence being FORCED to buy foreign goods. If you were being FORCED, then there would be somebody with a gun (e.g. your own government) FORCING you to buy foreign goods. Instead, you are proposing that your own government FORCE sellers of foreign-made goods to pay taxes.
By the way, if we don't buy goods made in foreign countries, they won't have the money to buy our goods. In essence, you desire that people who work in the export trade lose their jobs in order to protect people who work in the import trade. How is that good? How is that kind? You want to use the proxy violence of government to hurt some peaceful people in order to help others. -russ
Re:You are a TRAITOR and should be punished as suc
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
You are a MORON and should be punished as such.
Look, what you suggest makes no sense... unless you're an idiot. Companies and countries are completely different things. See the minor difference in spelling? It makes all the difference in the world.
It doesn't really matter which country a company is located in, just as it doesn't matter which state, county, town, village, street, or address a company is located at. -russ
Re:Tariffs make things BETTER, not worse
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Your understanding of economics is proportional to a massuse's understanding of brain surgery. Tell me, if tariffs are so good, why not have tariffs between states? Between towns? Between people?
A tariff only serves corporations who cannot compete and thus lobby legislators. IDIOTS LIKE YOU allow legislators to favor these corporations. This has many pernicious effects, chief among them is to give corporations an incentive to buy legislators.
Company B will find that they have spent a lot of money to gain a little money, and then they'll never make that mistake again.
Okay, so then no matter how the country's government is structured, a comparative advantage is gained by subsidization. From other country's perspective, they're being given a gift from the taxpayers of the subsidizing country. What's wrong with a gift? It hurts some producers, but the consumers gain more than the producers are hurt.
There is no such thing as a "natural spot" in a free market. Everything is always changing. Where did you get this idea of a "natural spot"? -russ
Basically, what you're seeing here is comparative advantage expressing itself in a perverse way. The voters in B desire to have a comparative advantage over A. They can't do it by simple competition, so they buy it. Is there anything wrong with that?
I mean, that is, *I* see problems with it, but I don't understand why you do. What's wrong with people voting to get what they want? -russ
Indeed! But don't forget, they're powerful, greedy and unethical. How long do you think this group will hold together? There's a large reward for the first party to break ranks with the group, and.... they do. Any doubts? Look at with happens to OPEC on a regular basis.
one huge superstore
Oh, you mean Wal*Mart? Guess what? Dollar stores are cheaper than Wal*Mart, and are out-competing them. What goes around comes around.
sell products at a price lower than wholesale
I love it when stores do this! It's not a profitable way to put your competitors out of business, but it sure is great for consumers! -russ
You don't understand how free trade works. Free trade is where *you* don't put any restrictions on trade. It doesn't really matter what the other guy does. Britain abolished their "corn" (grain) laws unilaterally. Some speculate that that act alone catapulted Britain into its empire.
We can indeed have free trade with China. If China wishes to subsidize foreign trade by buying dollars (which is what they do), then so be it. They'll have to start buying American stuff with those dollars sooner or later.
You simply don't understand comparative advantage, do you? Basically, the conclusion goes like this: you do what you're best at, I'll do what I'm best at, and we'll trade to get each other's stuff. If you work through some numbers, you'll soon see that even if I'm "the bigger guy" trading with a "less developed market", it *still* makes sense for me to trade. Let's say that we're on a desert island, and I'm better than you at everything, no matter what it is. Does it make sense for me to do everything? Obviously not. If I'm best at smashing coconuts, and you're best at weaving palm leaf mats, then I should give you smashed coconuts for your palm leaves EVEN THOUGH my palm mats would be woven better or faster than yours. If I took the time away from smashing coconuts to make palm mats, I would be worse off, because I'm switching from something I'm best at to something I'm less good at. I'm better off if I keep smashing coconuts, because I'll have to spend less time to get the same amount of palm mats.
See? This same principle applies to countries. It's cheaper for everyone to do what they're best at, even if they're better at everything than anyone else. -russ
Well, that's an interesting rewrite of history. America used to be full of voluntary organizations which existed to solve the problems you want a government to solve. Those organizations have mostly gone away because the money they used to get now goes to the government. No, the reason we have a big government is simply because people became convinced that socialism was the future and capitalism the past. The trouble is that socialism and freedom are incompatible with each other, and people have found that socialism isn't worth the freedom you have to give up to get it. -russ
Well, that sure explains why you aren't a libertarian. You're stupid!
Why would somebody campaign for votes outside cities, when the cities have all the people? So basically, any and all rural issues would disappear and America would be run by the cities FOR the cities. IS.... NOT.... THAT.... COMPLETELY... OBVIOUS? -russ
YOu misunderstand the structure of AMerica. We have (or should have) a weak federal government whose only purpose is the national defense, and to ensure that states do not put up barriers between movement of people and goods between states. Any further regulation should happen at the state level. The fact that we don't have that structure anymore is good evidence that people don't understand why it's needed. -russ
They fail to see one aspect of humanity. Power corrupts. There is greed. If left unchecked, the powerful will enslave the rest of us.
You're wrong. Libertarians acknowledge that power exists, and seek to set power against power. The reason that libertarians favor market competition is because it sets the powerful against each other.
There is something wrong when wealth can be concentrated into so few people, that the rest of the USA is left with less.
There isn't a finite amount of wealth. If one person becomes wealthy, that doesn't mean that someone else became poor. Where did you learn about economics? Remind me not to go there. -russ
Oh-ho, have you??? How are you doing this? On Windows or Linux? Open source or proprietary?? I haven't found ANY open source code that modifies EXIF data. There's lots that reads it, but none that I can use to add GPS information. I was planning to have to modify an EXIF file myself. -russ
Well, I don't expect too many Libertarians to get too many votes this November. We can use the attention, however, to educate people about the perniciousness of the war on drugs, and the IRS. -russ
When everyone else is earning double-digit interest, is there anything good about earning 1%? I suppose that if von Mises hadn't predicted the mechanism of the failure of socialism, you might have a point. They went down in exactly the way he predicted they would.
Interesting that you defend socialism by pointing out how non-egalitarian such societies are. I thought that the chief benefit of socialism was that it didn't let anybody get too poor... or too rich.
You claim that socialism has succeeded. In fact, the socialism of a hundred years ago exists nowhere today. A defining characteristic of that socialism was central control and the lack of a market. Quietly, all socialists have given up on that kind of socialism, and without notice, have switched to democratic market socialism. In other words, socialism is dead, and non-free-market capitalism has won everywhere. -russ
There is no evidence that immigrants cause any of those problems. The one thing that more immigrants do is depress wages in the immigrant community, but only by a small amount for a small amount of time. -russ
Slashdot Mirror
You are not in essence being FORCED to buy foreign goods. If you were being FORCED, then there would be somebody with a gun (e.g. your own government) FORCING you to buy foreign goods. Instead, you are proposing that your own government FORCE sellers of foreign-made goods to pay taxes.
By the way, if we don't buy goods made in foreign countries, they won't have the money to buy our goods. In essence, you desire that people who work in the export trade lose their jobs in order to protect people who work in the import trade. How is that good? How is that kind? You want to use the proxy violence of government to hurt some peaceful people in order to help others.
-russ
You are a MORON and should be punished as such.
... unless you're an idiot. Companies and countries are completely different things. See the minor difference in spelling? It makes all the difference in the world.
Look, what you suggest makes no sense
It doesn't really matter which country a company is located in, just as it doesn't matter which state, county, town, village, street, or address a company is located at.
-russ
Your understanding of economics is proportional to a massuse's understanding of brain surgery. Tell me, if tariffs are so good, why not have tariffs between states? Between towns? Between people?
A tariff only serves corporations who cannot compete and thus lobby legislators. IDIOTS LIKE YOU allow legislators to favor these corporations. This has many pernicious effects, chief among them is to give corporations an incentive to buy legislators.
Tariffs are evil.
-russ
One True Way (tabs btw).
Spaces BTW.
Company B will find that they have spent a lot of money to gain a little money, and then they'll never make that mistake again.
Okay, so then no matter how the country's government is structured, a comparative advantage is gained by subsidization. From other country's perspective, they're being given a gift from the taxpayers of the subsidizing country. What's wrong with a gift? It hurts some producers, but the consumers gain more than the producers are hurt.
There is no such thing as a "natural spot" in a free market. Everything is always changing. Where did you get this idea of a "natural spot"?
-russ
Basically, what you're seeing here is comparative advantage expressing itself in a perverse way. The voters in B desire to have a comparative advantage over A. They can't do it by simple competition, so they buy it. Is there anything wrong with that?
I mean, that is, *I* see problems with it, but I don't understand why you do. What's wrong with people voting to get what they want?
-russ
form unethical groups,
.... they do. Any doubts? Look at with happens to OPEC on a regular basis.
Indeed! But don't forget, they're powerful, greedy and unethical. How long do you think this group will hold together? There's a large reward for the first party to break ranks with the group, and
one huge superstore
Oh, you mean Wal*Mart? Guess what? Dollar stores are cheaper than Wal*Mart, and are out-competing them. What goes around comes around.
sell products at a price lower than wholesale
I love it when stores do this! It's not a profitable way to put your competitors out of business, but it sure is great for consumers!
-russ
The Constitution is certainly a compromise.
You don't understand how free trade works. Free trade is where *you* don't put any restrictions on trade. It doesn't really matter what the other guy does. Britain abolished their "corn" (grain) laws unilaterally. Some speculate that that act alone catapulted Britain into its empire.
We can indeed have free trade with China. If China wishes to subsidize foreign trade by buying dollars (which is what they do), then so be it. They'll have to start buying American stuff with those dollars sooner or later.
You simply don't understand comparative advantage, do you? Basically, the conclusion goes like this: you do what you're best at, I'll do what I'm best at, and we'll trade to get each other's stuff. If you work through some numbers, you'll soon see that even if I'm "the bigger guy" trading with a "less developed market", it *still* makes sense for me to trade. Let's say that we're on a desert island, and I'm better than you at everything, no matter what it is. Does it make sense for me to do everything? Obviously not. If I'm best at smashing coconuts, and you're best at weaving palm leaf mats, then I should give you smashed coconuts for your palm leaves EVEN THOUGH my palm mats would be woven better or faster than yours. If I took the time away from smashing coconuts to make palm mats, I would be worse off, because I'm switching from something I'm best at to something I'm less good at. I'm better off if I keep smashing coconuts, because I'll have to spend less time to get the same amount of palm mats.
See? This same principle applies to countries. It's cheaper for everyone to do what they're best at, even if they're better at everything than anyone else.
-russ
Interestingly, the education department knows that fewer people are illiterate because they sent them WRITTEN QUESTIONS.
-russ
Well, that's an interesting rewrite of history. America used to be full of voluntary organizations which existed to solve the problems you want a government to solve. Those organizations have mostly gone away because the money they used to get now goes to the government. No, the reason we have a big government is simply because people became convinced that socialism was the future and capitalism the past. The trouble is that socialism and freedom are incompatible with each other, and people have found that socialism isn't worth the freedom you have to give up to get it.
-russ
Well, that sure explains why you aren't a libertarian. You're stupid!
.... NOT .... THAT .... COMPLETELY ... OBVIOUS?
Why would somebody campaign for votes outside cities, when the cities have all the people? So basically, any and all rural issues would disappear and America would be run by the cities FOR the cities. IS
-russ
YOu misunderstand the structure of AMerica. We have (or should have) a weak federal government whose only purpose is the national defense, and to ensure that states do not put up barriers between movement of people and goods between states. Any further regulation should happen at the state level. The fact that we don't have that structure anymore is good evidence that people don't understand why it's needed.
-russ
They fail to see one aspect of humanity. Power corrupts. There is greed. If left unchecked, the powerful will enslave the rest of us.
You're wrong. Libertarians acknowledge that power exists, and seek to set power against power. The reason that libertarians favor market competition is because it sets the powerful against each other.
There is something wrong when wealth can be concentrated into so few people, that the rest of the USA is left with less.
There isn't a finite amount of wealth. If one person becomes wealthy, that doesn't mean that someone else became poor. Where did you learn about economics? Remind me not to go there.
-russ
Good guess! They said at OSCON that it will be at most quarterly, and quite thick.
-russ
Wow. That's an interesting view of the world. Wrong, but interesting.
-russ
shild is more commonly spelled shield.
hid is more commonly spelled hide.
where is more commonly spelled were.
admint is more commonly spelled admit.
Why don't you tell me what that makes you?
A good speler?
-russ
p.s. you are too stupid for words. Perhaps abuse will make you go away?
Oh-ho, have you??? How are you doing this? On Windows or Linux? Open source or proprietary?? I haven't found ANY open source code that modifies EXIF data. There's lots that reads it, but none that I can use to add GPS information. I was planning to have to modify an EXIF file myself.
-russ
Sigh. Far and away the easiest way to find the answer to this question is to google for it.
-russ
I refuse to argue with someone who uses ad-hominem.
-russ
China is switching from a command economy to a market economy. It's in all the newspapers.
-russ
I might have replied ... but now I hope that you see that I must not.
-russ
So where is the georeferencing information? I want a World File!!
-russ
Well, I don't expect too many Libertarians to get too many votes this November. We can use the attention, however, to educate people about the perniciousness of the war on drugs, and the IRS.
-russ
When everyone else is earning double-digit interest, is there anything good about earning 1%? I suppose that if von Mises hadn't predicted the mechanism of the failure of socialism, you might have a point. They went down in exactly the way he predicted they would.
... or too rich.
Interesting that you defend socialism by pointing out how non-egalitarian such societies are. I thought that the chief benefit of socialism was that it didn't let anybody get too poor
You claim that socialism has succeeded. In fact, the socialism of a hundred years ago exists nowhere today. A defining characteristic of that socialism was central control and the lack of a market. Quietly, all socialists have given up on that kind of socialism, and without notice, have switched to democratic market socialism. In other words, socialism is dead, and non-free-market capitalism has won everywhere.
-russ
There is no evidence that immigrants cause any of those problems. The one thing that more immigrants do is depress wages in the immigrant community, but only by a small amount for a small amount of time.
-russ