 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » What's *BAD* about exploiting comparative advantages... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 2.7182818284590...... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
We all know the example of competitive advantages and how 2 companies
who are trading partners take advantage of this. Here's an example of
how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and
Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and Clothes.
The productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries are such
that if both countries devoted all their resources to Food production,
output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the production
of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can see
a *few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things are: Very
bad working conditions as countries "race to the bottom" to keep
prices low, and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job
outsourced.
However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow for us
all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price and this
allocates labor most efficiently? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
2.7182818284590... wrote
Why should we do your homework for you ?
[quote]We all know the example of competitive advantages and how 2 companies
who are trading partners take advantage of this. Here's an example of
how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and
Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and Clothes.
The productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries are such
that if both countries devoted all their resources to Food production,
output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the production
of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
[/quote]
Mindlessly silly, the real world is nothing like that.
[quote]If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can see
a *few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things are:
Very bad working conditions as countries "race to the bottom" to keep prices low,
[/quote]
That doesnt in fact happen. What actually happens is that hordes
that used to slave in the fields for fuck all work in much better
conditions in factorys etc, which might just be why they never
have any problem staffing the factorys and in fact have a problem
with far more who want to work there than they need etc.
[quote]and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job outsourced.
[/quote]
That doesnt happen either if there has been free trade right from the start.
[quote]However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow
for us all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price
[/quote]
While transport costs are a small part of the production costs, anyway.
[quote]and this allocates labor most efficiently?
[/quote]
Yep. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| phil scott... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:06 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]We all know the example of competitive advantages and how 2 companies
who are trading partners take advantage of this. Here's an example of
how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and
Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and Clothes.
The productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries are such
that if both countries devoted all their resources to Food production,
output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the production
of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can see
a *few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things are: Very
bad working conditions as countries "race to the bottom" to keep
prices low, and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job
outsourced.
However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow for us
all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price and this
allocates labor most efficiently?
[/quote]
you are 100% correct but only on the specific points you raise in
isolation from the larger
scene.. human life across the broad spectrum... a race to the bottom
precludes the wages
needed to purchase, so starvation and poverty set in... and that is
seen broadly world wide,
especially in the low cost of production nations...
today, these avoid starvation for some (just some, not all) of their
populations only because
they can sell to nations who prosper because their workers are paid
enough to support a robust
economy.. thats a termpory scene with world trade involving the low
wage nations.
the low wage approach while it ********IS*** a comparative advantage
and ****DOES*** provide
that advantage to the slave wage nations, only lasts as long it takes
wages in the buyer nations to
drop to similar levels... then the entire expoitive mess collapses.
****
Now... having said that... if i were chinese or Indian, Id be doing
****exactly** what these nations
are doing, and that is *** exploiting the comparative
advantages****
why? because we dont live forever, and it beats hell out of
starvation..'let the USA look out for itself'..
and that is fair also... it was the USA that opted to trade on this
basis, driving its own production and
consumer base into the tank... sheer idocy... but NOT the fault of the
Indians...who will end up starving
again as the US not goes under because of the collapse of its middle
class.
Poor now, these will buy *****more*** indian and chinese goods and
services... the race the
bottom is **ON.
In spades.
it will end badly..in fact its begun as we speak.
Thats what special interest does... it looks out for itself in
isolation from its larger host and their
interests.. these become pathogens, and in the end destroy their host,
then get burried with their host.
that entire thinking strategy is in the pits...seen in India, China
and in US corporations and govt.. these
decimate each other, the comparative advantages wax and wane.. shift
and change...as the water level
gets lower and lower... why? because the welfare of others, and
human kind was not considered by
any of those.
and will never be considered...because with a corporation or a
starving human, or a psychopath the only reality is the
immediate, short term, bottom line... with no regard for others (who
are largely just as desperate and ignorant... so why
would someone care about them.
One does not care about the other rats in a rat race... all of it
however is a race to the bottom, headed toward
Dawrin Awards for each and every participant.
wonderful isnt it?
****
One might ask, what are MY options.. well personally I opt to provide
superb work, engineering, and high end trades
at reasonable prices ***and*** with my customers interests at heart,
above my own interests. I am not a pathogen to
my hosts. I am a cure for that disease in my own sphere.
Is there a reward for not being a pathogen? oh yes. many many
rewards.
Its a great life on that path.. especially seen with aging,
the pathogenic class ages and dies badly.. its disease is
ugly and rampant... its intelligence gone.. the person becomes a
rotting organism while still alive.
do I serve these also, and in their best interests as best i can? of
course. its all part of ones
personal cure, and remaining a cure, and not becoming the disease, a
disease fed by self interest with
no regard for others.
Phil scott |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
phil scott wrote
[quote]2.7182818284590... <tangent1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
We all know the example of competitive advantages and how 2 companies
who are trading partners take advantage of this. Here's an example of
how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and
Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and Clothes.
The productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries are such
that if both countries devoted all their resources to Food
production, output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the
production of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can see
a *few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things are: Very
bad working conditions as countries "race to the bottom" to keep
prices low, and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job
outsourced.
However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow for us
all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price and this
allocates labor most efficiently?
you are 100% correct
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]but only on the specific points you raise in isolation from the larger scene..
[/quote]
Wrong again.
[quote]human life across the broad spectrum... a race to the bottom precludes
the wages needed to purchase, so starvation and poverty set in...
[/quote]
How odd that the race to the bottom on manufacturing wages
has actually produced the exact opposite in Chimerica.
Not only has there actually been a massive reduction in starvation
and poverty in Chimerica over say 30 years, we have actually seen
real living standards hike out of sight in china over that time for most.
Sure, some americans, particularly those who used to work in programming
before the Indian H1Bs showed up in large numbers did end up rather worse
off than they had been in say the 70s, but we also saw huge number of Indians
doing a hell of a lot better than they did in the 70s too by any sensible measure.
[quote]and that is seen broadly world wide, especially in the low cost of production nations...
[/quote]
Pure fantasy. China moved from real starvation and massive
poverty to vastly better on both measures than it used to be.
[quote]today, these avoid starvation for some (just some, not all) of their
populations only because they can sell to nations who prosper
because their workers are paid enough to support a robust economy..
[/quote]
And both Japan and China have moved on from that dramatically.
[quote]thats a termpory scene with world trade involving the low wage nations.
[/quote]
Try telling that to the Japs. Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh in your silly little pig ignorant face.
There hasnt been any starvation there since the war and just after it.
The only real starvation we have actually seen much of
recently in asia is North Korea and that didnt have damned
thing to do with any drive to the bottom on wages, just being
stupid enough to stick with an economic system that doesnt
work and cant react to a severe drought adequately.
[quote]the low wage approach while it ********IS*** a comparative
advantage and ****DOES*** provide that advantage to the slave
wage nations, only lasts as long it takes wages in the buyer nations
to drop to similar levels... then the entire expoitive mess collapses.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
That was not the cause of the complete implosion of the entire
world financial system, either just recently or in the 1920s either.
[quote]****
Now... having said that... if i were chinese or Indian,
Id be doing ****exactly** what these nations are doing,
and that is *** exploiting the comparative advantages****
[/quote]
And that will work for them, just like it did for Japan.
Corse it remains to be seen if India can actually do something
about its very fundamental problem, pumping out FAR more
kids than their circumstances can possibly support.
They havent even managed to work out how to do something about
huge numbers of Indians still quite literally shitting on the ground and
tossing their corpses and shit into their drinking water supply.
[quote]why? because we dont live forever, and it beats
hell out of starvation..'let the USA look out for itself'..
[/quote]
And it does that very effectively indeed.
Its even managed to work out how to avoid another great depression
once its completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
[quote]and that is fair also... it was the USA that opted to trade on this
basis, driving its own production and consumer base into the tank...
[/quote]
That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
[quote]sheer idocy... but NOT the fault of the Indians...who will end up starving
again as the US not goes under because of the collapse of its middle class.
[/quote]
The US aint going under, and the middle class isnt collapsing either.
[quote]Poor now, these will buy *****more*** indian and chinese
goods and services... the race the bottom is **ON.
In spades.
[/quote]
Only with low cost consumer goods.
[quote]it will end badly..in fact its begun as we speak.
[/quote]
In reality we've just avoided another great depression instead.
[quote]Thats what special interest does... it looks out for itself in isolation
from its larger host and their interests.. these become pathogens,
and in the end destroy their host, then get burried with their host.
[/quote]
Just another of your silly little fantasys. Economys dont work like that.
[quote]that entire thinking strategy is in the pits...seen in India, China
and in US corporations and govt.. these decimate each other,
the comparative advantages wax and wane.. shift and change...
as the water level gets lower and lower... why? because the welfare
of others, and human kind was not considered by any of those.
[/quote]
Doesnt need to be when everyone ends up much better off over the long haul.
[quote]and will never be considered...because with a corporation
or a starving human, or a psychopath the only reality is the
immediate, short term, bottom line... with no regard for
others (who are largely just as desperate and ignorant...
so why would someone care about them.
One does not care about the other rats in a rat race...
all of it however is a race to the bottom, headed
toward Dawrin Awards for each and every participant.
[/quote]
Tell that to Japan. Dont be too surprised when they all just laugh in your face.
[quote]wonderful isnt it?
[/quote]
Pathetic in your case.
[quote]****
One might ask, what are MY options.. well personally I opt
to provide superb work, engineering, and high end trades
at reasonable prices ***and*** with my customers interests
at heart, above my own interests. I am not a pathogen to
my hosts. I am a cure for that disease in my own sphere.
[/quote]
Like hell you are. You ended up with fuck all in the way of
assets and have to keep working when most have retired,
essentially because you completely fucked up in that area.
[quote]Is there a reward for not being a pathogen? oh yes.
many many rewards.
Its a great life on that path.. especially seen with aging,
[/quote]
Only because you managed to make it to medicare.
[quote]the pathogenic class ages and dies badly.. its disease
is ugly and rampant... its intelligence gone.. the person
becomes a rotting organism while still alive.
[/quote]
Been having those pathetic little fantasys long ?
[quote]do I serve these also, and in their best interests as best i can?
of course. its all part of ones personal cure, and remaining a
cure, and not becoming the disease, a disease fed by self
interest with no regard for others.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:06:01 -0800, 2.7182818284590... wrote:
[quote]We all know the example of competitive advantages and how 2 companies
who are trading partners take advantage of this. Here's an example of
how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and Southland,
that both produce and consume two goods, Food and Clothes. The
productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries are such that if
both countries devoted all their resources to Food production, output
would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the production
of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can see a
*few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things are: Very bad
working conditions as countries "race to the bottom" to keep prices low,
and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job outsourced.
However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow for us
all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price and this
allocates labor most efficiently?
[/quote]
What happens is that property rights enforcements (the cost of
government) do not map equally between the two trading partners and one
of them has much more overhead because of this. The Japanese are able to
spend their tax proceeds on education, research, development, physical
infrastructure, and health care because they have no military budget to
speak of. Meanwhile, the USA spends 60% of its discretionary budget on
military activities that, by securing ownership rights, _PROMOTE_ the
financial exploitation of labor.
On the other side of the coin, the USA has much more natural resources
per capits than do most other counties. This _should_ allow labor a
better circumstance when dealing with the rentier. The *BAD* part of
exploiting comparative advantage is that it reduces American wages as
compared to financial incomes and hence it exacerbates class disparity in
the USA. Eventually, the financial interests will own so much of the
American means of production that peasantry (as in China and India) will
be the result. The current trend is like massive immigration. The end
of the middle class.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:27:08 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]2.7182818284590... wrote
Why should we do your homework for you ?
We all know the example of competitive advantages and how 2 companies
who are trading partners take advantage of this. Here's an example of
how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and
Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and Clothes.
The productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries are such
that if both countries devoted all their resources to Food production,
output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the production
of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
Mindlessly silly, the real world is nothing like that.
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can see a
*few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things are: Very bad
working conditions as countries "race to the bottom" to keep prices
low,
That doesnt in fact happen. What actually happens is that hordes that
used to slave in the fields for fuck all work in much better conditions
in factorys etc, which might just be why they never have any problem
staffing the factorys and in fact have a problem with far more who want
to work there than they need etc.
[/quote]
And meanwhile, the people that had good paying jobs in the factories of
the consuming nation now have a job cutting the lawn of the rich people
who own the factories where the hordes are now employed in the producing
nation. In the consuming nation, the GDP is made up of financial income
as opposed to wage and productive income.
[quote]and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job outsourced.
That doesnt happen either if there has been free trade right from the
start.
[/quote]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote]However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow for us
all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price
While transport costs are a small part of the production costs, anyway.
[/quote]
Transport costs are a negligible factor in the larger scheme. And NO,
this situation does not allow us all to have more stuff. The financial
weenies end up getting a lot richer and the middle class gets the shaft.
[quote]and this allocates labor most efficiently?
Yep.
[/quote]
If the objective is the efficient allocation of worldwide labor and the
enrichment of the financial crooks then free trade is very successful.
If the objective is the prosperity of the American middle class then free
trade sucks.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:06:01 -0800, 2.7182818284590... wrote:
We all know the example of competitive advantages and how 2 companies
who are trading partners take advantage of this. Here's an example
of how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and
Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and
Clothes. The productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries
are such that if both countries devoted all their resources to Food
production, output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the
production of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can
see a *few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things are:
Very bad working conditions as countries "race to the bottom" to
keep prices low, and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job
outsourced.
However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow for us
all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price and this
allocates labor most efficiently?
What happens is that property rights enforcements (the cost of
government) do not map equally between the two trading partners and
one of them has much more overhead because of this. The Japanese are
able to spend their tax proceeds on education, research, development,
physical infrastructure, and health care because they have no
military budget to speak of. Meanwhile, the USA spends 60% of its
discretionary budget on military activities that, by securing
ownership rights, _PROMOTE_ the financial exploitation of labor.
On the other side of the coin, the USA has much more natural resources
per capits than do most other counties. This _should_ allow labor a
better circumstance when dealing with the rentier. The *BAD* part of
exploiting comparative advantage is that it reduces American wages as
compared to financial incomes and hence it exacerbates class
disparity in the USA. Eventually, the financial interests will own
so much of the American means of production that peasantry (as in
China and India) will be the result. The current trend is like
massive immigration. The end of the middle class.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
There's a reason that the best you ever managed is driving a truck, for a while. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]Rod Speed wrote
2.7182818284590... wrote
Why should we do your homework for you ?
We all know the example of competitive advantages and how
2 companies who are trading partners take advantage of this.
Here's an example of how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and
Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and
Clothes. The productive capacities and efficiencies of the
countries are such that if both countries devoted all their
resources to Food production, output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the
production of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
Mindlessly silly, the real world is nothing like that.
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can
see a *few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things
are: Very bad working conditions as countries "race to the bottom"
to keep prices low,
That doesnt in fact happen. What actually happens is that hordes
that used to slave in the fields for fuck all work in much better
conditions in factorys etc, which might just be why they never
have any problem staffing the factorys and in fact have a problem
with far more who want to work there than they need etc.
And meanwhile, the people that had good paying jobs in the
factories of the consuming nation now have a job cutting the
lawn of the rich people who own the factories where the
hordes are now employed in the producing nation.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
Fuck all of the factorys in china are owned by any american
and what american that make real money out of imports from
china like Walmart owners, employ illegals to cut the lawn anyway.
The ex factory workers in the US that dont retire when the factory
closes that do have a clue work in the areas that cant be exported
to china like house, road, bridge etc construction when they didnt
have enough of a clue to notice that the aircraft and military
hardware factorys were much better employment prospects.
[quote]In the consuming nation, the GDP is made up of financial
income as opposed to wage and productive income.
[/quote]
Mindlessly superficial. You've ignored the entire service sector
which just happens to completely dominate the GDP of every
modern first and second world country, even places like Japan.
[quote]and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job outsourced.
That doesnt happen either if there has been free trade right from the start.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, fart.
No surprise that the best you have ever been able to manage is truck driver, for a while.
Bet you really wowed them in the diner.
[quote]However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow
for us all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price
While transport costs are a small part of the production costs, anyway.
Transport costs are a negligible factor in the larger scheme.
[/quote]
Try telling that to those who try to move finished houses from china to america.
[quote]And NO, this situation does not allow us all to have more stuff.
[/quote]
Corse it does.
[quote]The financial weenies end up getting a lot richer and the middle class gets the shaft.
[/quote]
Financial weenies ARE the middle class, fool.
[quote]and this allocates labor most efficiently?
Yep.
If the objective is the efficient allocation of worldwide labor and the
enrichment of the financial crooks then free trade is very successful.
[/quote]
And thats also delivered real living standards for the middle class that
leaves what they had in the 50s for dead too. In spades with 1910s.
[quote]If the objective is the prosperity of the American middle class then free trade sucks.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fanatasyland.
NO ONE IN THE MIDDLE CLASS WORKS ON THE FACTORY FLOOR, FOOL. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:05:27 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:06:01 -0800, 2.7182818284590... wrote:
We all know the example of competitive advantages and how 2 companies
who are trading partners take advantage of this. Here's an example of
how this works:
"Suppose there are two countries of equal size, Northland and
Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and Clothes.
The productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries are such
that if both countries devoted all their resources to Food production,
output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 400 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the production
of Clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative
advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 300 50
TOTAL 300 150
This all sounds great, so what's very bad about free-trade? I can see
a *few* bad things that could happen. Among the bad things are: Very
bad working conditions as countries "race to the bottom" to keep
prices low, and also, the initial shock/pain of having a job
outsourced.
However, doesn't the economics of comparative advantages allow for us
all to have more goods and services at a cheaper price and this
allocates labor most efficiently?
What happens is that property rights enforcements (the cost of
government) do not map equally between the two trading partners and one
of them has much more overhead because of this. The Japanese are able
to spend their tax proceeds on education, research, development,
physical infrastructure, and health care because they have no military
budget to speak of. Meanwhile, the USA spends 60% of its discretionary
budget on military activities that, by securing ownership rights,
_PROMOTE_ the financial exploitation of labor.
On the other side of the coin, the USA has much more natural resources
per capits than do most other counties. This _should_ allow labor a
better circumstance when dealing with the rentier. The *BAD* part of
exploiting comparative advantage is that it reduces American wages as
compared to financial incomes and hence it exacerbates class disparity
in the USA. Eventually, the financial interests will own so much of
the American means of production that peasantry (as in China and India)
will be the result. The current trend is like massive immigration.
The end of the middle class.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
There's a reason that the best you ever managed is driving a truck, for
a while.
[/quote]
Yeah.... The reasons were that I enjoyed it and was able to rent out my
house and pay it off. I saw some very beautiful country and had a lot of
interesting experiences that I would not trade. :)
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:23 am
|
|