Today, I'm going to explain how a trade defecit works, by expanding upon an example from an article by WALTER E. WILLIAMS. When I'm done, I hope that you'll better understand what a trade defecit is, and why it is not a preferable situation.
In a global view, let's say you have your grocer, who in this arguement supplies everything to you for some reason, and you have your employer, who buys your time from you.
Now, let's say you get paid 100 dollars per week. This is the equivilant to an export. You are exporting your time to your employer for money. At this point, you have a trade surplus of 100 dollars per week. Not bad! You now have 100 dollars per week more at your disposal than you did last week.
Let's say that you spend 100 dollars on groceries each week. This is anagolous to imports, because you are importing groceries to your cupboard. I don't know why you would, maybe you have a thyroid dysfunction, or you are addicted to caviar and faberge eggs or something. Anyway, now you have no trade surplus, and no trade defacit. The rates are in parity. This situation isn't good, nor is it bad. You have an equal amount of capital at your disposal as you did before.
Now, let's say you decide to double your caviar intake and suddenly start importing 200 dollars worth of food from the grocery store every month. You are now suffering a trade defecit of 100 dollars per month. This is considered by many to be a bad thing. The capital at your disposal now decreases 100 dollars every month.
Simple, isn't it? When we apply the above to nations, it's not quite so clear-cut, but it's close. While in our above example we only have two resources which create or demand capital, a nation has many resources which create and demand capital. A car plant, for example, will create cars and therefore create capital, regardless of whether the customer is domestic or foreign. A bakery will continue to create bread, and some measure of that bread will create capital and wealth within the nation of it's own origin, regardless. Thankfully, this means that even in the event of a trade defecit, it doesn't mean that the country is neccessarily getting poorer the moment it has a trade defecit.
However, it does mean, when a country is importing more than it exports, that whatever amount more it imports than exports, will be drained from the economy of that nation, just as even though the guy with a job and a grocer in our example above gets a cheque from his parents for 200 dollars every week, the trade defecit of 100 dollars means that the amount of capital he has available to him is still only 100 dollars (100 from the job + 200 from because his mother loves him - 200 from the grocer = 100 dollars).
In the case of a nation, the trade defecit becomes a drag on the amount of money in circulation in that nation, as dollars are sent to other nations in exchange for products don't come back, except through exports.
All of this implies that it is in a countries best interest to maintain a trade surplus, to increase the amount of capital in circulation in the nation, and help increase the power and wealth of the nation as a whole.
And saying that "namely, you can learn that it doesn't exist" shows that not only do you not understand the above, but that you don't understand the paper you just posted.
You lose any right to discuss anything when you decide to label yourself conservative, or your opponent liberal.
Not because either 'viewpoint' is invalid, but because it shows that you're nothing but a useless lemming who doesn't hasn't put the required effort into understanding this world to be arguing about it.
Actually, in my opinion. CP/M was superior to MS-DOS 1.0. I'm not alone in that belief. Guess who was first?
In fact, I also believe GEM was superior to Windows 1.0. Guess who was first?
We don't recognose those who did it best first. We recognise those who market better or have major players in the market behind them. We recognise those who have a catchy name or a cool jingle. We recognise those who have nice colours or those who win by default. It's mostly luck.
If you think we recognise those who did it best first, you've got a major thing to learn about capitalism in reality.
Borger: "Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.'"
Actually, it's more like a sock sorcerer sustaining the sensation of sumptuous saline sources by creating a secret sock singer to saucily suggest similar sancrosect shares.
Wait! I know, this is more like the boston strangler!
Wait! It's just like shoplifting! Shoplifting rasins! Everyone likes rasin, except for those liberal pansy rasin-haters!
I hate to knock a point of this post, especially since it's such a wonderful yin/yang with the post above it of another former MS employee, but if you believe antivirus software is the best way to stop viruses, then you have no business working in security. Just like how in physical security you want to lock as many doors as possible before flooding the area with guards, in computer security you want your machine to be as impervious to harm as possible before you start wasting resources actively scanning for malicious code.
If your scanner finds a virus or spyware, it's too late: you've already been compromised. Just because the virus was eliminated doesn't mean it didn't get a chance to cause damage somewhere, You can't trust that machine again.
If your anti-virus software or anti-spyware software catches something, you've already lost. Your machine has been compromised, and though that particular set of files was deleted, it has more than likely had time to drop it's payload.
This is anagolous to having a rare diamond hidden in a complex, and depending entirely on two guards in the room it's in to keep it safe. If those two people have to shoot someone, the complex is no longer secure, and it's no longer safe.
It's maleable, but it's neither hacking nor cracking. It's hardware and software working exactly as it's designed to without any action on the part of the user. Drive by a house, you're connected to the internet. In a way, that's actually less than clicking the link, because you have to willfully click the link. In this case, all you have to do is open your web browser and start surfing.
It's amazing that I made it to page 20 before I found anyone talking sense.
I was literally beginning to lose my faith in humanity with all these morons saying that an open, advertised wifi AP which actively seeks out wifi devices to connect to, is illegal to connect to.
The question becomes, is the fact that they're too ignorant to secure their new toy justification to call the cops if they see anyone trying to log into their access point?
I'd say not. I mean, you don't get to sue ford when you forget to replace the oil for two years and the engine dies, do you? You don't get to bring the city to court for stealing your ice cream cone because you tilted it a bit too much and it spilt onto the ground, do you?
The answers to those two questions, judging from the comments I've seen thus far, is frightening.
Even though it was an unsecured network, he was still stealing network bandwidth & accessing something he shouldn't be, its fair that he was caught & should be punished for it.
Don't visit my site, you dirty thief. You shouldn't be stealing my bandwidth and accessing something you shouldn't be!(Slashdot too! You should be ashamed of yourself!)
Completely irrelevant. If you don't want people using your broadband, don't advertise it's existance and help every wifi connected device in the area connect to it.
No, it's not. It's not at all! If you turned off ssid broadcasting and changed your ssid but didn't turn on encryption it would be, but the router actively advertises and actively helps wifi devices connect.
You guys are making me lose faith in humanity here! Are you all so dense that just because an invitation is digital you can't comprehend it?!
No, it's not. The difference is the invitation. Frankly, I'm not so sure I want to allow people like you to have wifi, since you so fundamentally misunderstand the technology.
And don't visit my website below. I never gave you permission to go there! Just because your neighbour left his book on the deck doesn't mean you can run up and read it!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because unemployment in China is just so low!
Today, I'm going to explain how a trade defecit works, by expanding upon an example from an article by WALTER E. WILLIAMS. When I'm done, I hope that you'll better understand what a trade defecit is, and why it is not a preferable situation.
In a global view, let's say you have your grocer, who in this arguement supplies everything to you for some reason, and you have your employer, who buys your time from you.
Now, let's say you get paid 100 dollars per week. This is the equivilant to an export. You are exporting your time to your employer for money. At this point, you have a trade surplus of 100 dollars per week. Not bad! You now have 100 dollars per week more at your disposal than you did last week.
Let's say that you spend 100 dollars on groceries each week. This is anagolous to imports, because you are importing groceries to your cupboard. I don't know why you would, maybe you have a thyroid dysfunction, or you are addicted to caviar and faberge eggs or something. Anyway, now you have no trade surplus, and no trade defacit. The rates are in parity. This situation isn't good, nor is it bad. You have an equal amount of capital at your disposal as you did before.
Now, let's say you decide to double your caviar intake and suddenly start importing 200 dollars worth of food from the grocery store every month. You are now suffering a trade defecit of 100 dollars per month. This is considered by many to be a bad thing. The capital at your disposal now decreases 100 dollars every month.
Simple, isn't it? When we apply the above to nations, it's not quite so clear-cut, but it's close. While in our above example we only have two resources which create or demand capital, a nation has many resources which create and demand capital. A car plant, for example, will create cars and therefore create capital, regardless of whether the customer is domestic or foreign. A bakery will continue to create bread, and some measure of that bread will create capital and wealth within the nation of it's own origin, regardless. Thankfully, this means that even in the event of a trade defecit, it doesn't mean that the country is neccessarily getting poorer the moment it has a trade defecit.
However, it does mean, when a country is importing more than it exports, that whatever amount more it imports than exports, will be drained from the economy of that nation, just as even though the guy with a job and a grocer in our example above gets a cheque from his parents for 200 dollars every week, the trade defecit of 100 dollars means that the amount of capital he has available to him is still only 100 dollars (100 from the job + 200 from because his mother loves him - 200 from the grocer = 100 dollars).
In the case of a nation, the trade defecit becomes a drag on the amount of money in circulation in that nation, as dollars are sent to other nations in exchange for products don't come back, except through exports.
All of this implies that it is in a countries best interest to maintain a trade surplus, to increase the amount of capital in circulation in the nation, and help increase the power and wealth of the nation as a whole.
And saying that "namely, you can learn that it doesn't exist" shows that not only do you not understand the above, but that you don't understand the paper you just posted.
You lose any right to discuss anything when you decide to label yourself conservative, or your opponent liberal.
Not because either 'viewpoint' is invalid, but because it shows that you're nothing but a useless lemming who doesn't hasn't put the required effort into understanding this world to be arguing about it.
Thank you, and good day.
Actually, in my opinion. CP/M was superior to MS-DOS 1.0. I'm not alone in that belief. Guess who was first?
In fact, I also believe GEM was superior to Windows 1.0. Guess who was first?
We don't recognose those who did it best first. We recognise those who market better or have major players in the market behind them. We recognise those who have a catchy name or a cool jingle. We recognise those who have nice colours or those who win by default. It's mostly luck.
If you think we recognise those who did it best first, you've got a major thing to learn about capitalism in reality.
Wow.
Please. Let me have a toke of whatever you're smoking.
Besides that red herring...
Yeah, or,
Borger: "Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.'"
Cheney: "No, I never said that."
Wait, do you mean Karl "Traitorous scumbag who gave the identity of an undercover operative" Rove?
Because if you do, I think you should tell him to change his nickname. It's way too long for a business card.
Piss off. Content that people actually WANT you to download is superior to content you're getting illegally. Don't scare them away. :P
U cud B trying 2 give the secret of life and U would still B a jackass for trying 2 abbreviate three letter words. kthxbye.
Yeah, but sadly, we'll never know, since they should be in the kitchen right about now, making me my dinner...
(You gotta attack a stereotype with a stereotype, right?)
Wow. Americans? You've lost your right to say anything about hate speech legislation abroad. :P
Actually, it's more like a sock sorcerer sustaining the sensation of sumptuous saline sources by creating a secret sock singer to saucily suggest similar sancrosect shares.
Wait! I know, this is more like the boston strangler!
Wait! It's just like shoplifting! Shoplifting rasins! Everyone likes rasin, except for those liberal pansy rasin-haters!
Hrm....Maybe we should drop the stupid similies?
Congratulations, you've invoked godwins law for legalities.
WHOAH.
whoah whoah whoah whoah whoah.
Go take a walk and calm the fuck down.
This is a sleazy business tactic, nothing more.
Your arguement takes a critical hit when you say he used a word he didn't. He said "distribution", not "integration".
I hate to knock a point of this post, especially since it's such a wonderful yin/yang with the post above it of another former MS employee, but if you believe antivirus software is the best way to stop viruses, then you have no business working in security. Just like how in physical security you want to lock as many doors as possible before flooding the area with guards, in computer security you want your machine to be as impervious to harm as possible before you start wasting resources actively scanning for malicious code.
If your scanner finds a virus or spyware, it's too late: you've already been compromised. Just because the virus was eliminated doesn't mean it didn't get a chance to cause damage somewhere, You can't trust that machine again.
If your anti-virus software or anti-spyware software catches something, you've already lost. Your machine has been compromised, and though that particular set of files was deleted, it has more than likely had time to drop it's payload.
This is anagolous to having a rare diamond hidden in a complex, and depending entirely on two guards in the room it's in to keep it safe. If those two people have to shoot someone, the complex is no longer secure, and it's no longer safe.
It's maleable, but it's neither hacking nor cracking. It's hardware and software working exactly as it's designed to without any action on the part of the user. Drive by a house, you're connected to the internet. In a way, that's actually less than clicking the link, because you have to willfully click the link. In this case, all you have to do is open your web browser and start surfing.
It's amazing that I made it to page 20 before I found anyone talking sense.
I was literally beginning to lose my faith in humanity with all these morons saying that an open, advertised wifi AP which actively seeks out wifi devices to connect to, is illegal to connect to.
The question becomes, is the fact that they're too ignorant to secure their new toy justification to call the cops if they see anyone trying to log into their access point?
I'd say not. I mean, you don't get to sue ford when you forget to replace the oil for two years and the engine dies, do you? You don't get to bring the city to court for stealing your ice cream cone because you tilted it a bit too much and it spilt onto the ground, do you?
The answers to those two questions, judging from the comments I've seen thus far, is frightening.
Even though it was an unsecured network, he was still stealing network bandwidth & accessing something he shouldn't be, its fair that he was caught & should be punished for it.
Don't visit my site, you dirty thief. You shouldn't be stealing my bandwidth and accessing something you shouldn't be!(Slashdot too! You should be ashamed of yourself!)
Why do you think there's a billion comments about this? It's not right! At all!
Completely irrelevant. If you don't want people using your broadband, don't advertise it's existance and help every wifi connected device in the area connect to it.
No, it's not. It's not at all! If you turned off ssid broadcasting and changed your ssid but didn't turn on encryption it would be, but the router actively advertises and actively helps wifi devices connect.
You guys are making me lose faith in humanity here! Are you all so dense that just because an invitation is digital you can't comprehend it?!
No, it's not. The difference is the invitation. Frankly, I'm not so sure I want to allow people like you to have wifi, since you so fundamentally misunderstand the technology.
And don't visit my website below. I never gave you permission to go there! Just because your neighbour left his book on the deck doesn't mean you can run up and read it!