Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

You stucked in mercantilism it seems. When somebody makes same things cheaper its making economy more efficient. Its not profititable only for producer but also for customers. There will be allways differences in labour costs, remove Chinese and you will have Indian producer, remove Chinese and Indian producers and you will get Russian producer ...remove Russian producer and you will get Czech one. That way you can get to small market of Valencia. The only noticeable difference will be that you will gradually pay more for same product and shortage until will new producers start producing. This all will be additional costs.
(editado)

When somebody makes same things cheaper its making economy more efficient.

I don't think your studie is Economy, right?

And I wonder how moving jobs to low wage countries can make the local economy more efficient. If you ask me, this means problems to this local economy and has nothing to do with efficiency. Yeh efficiency for companies > more profit ...

Its not profititable only for producer but also for customers.

Not true. A lot depends of in which countries these products are sold. Richer countries/regions often or even always pay more for the same products. For example the same phone I have, Samsung Ace, is almost twice as cheap in India as it is in the Netherlands. So the consumer isn't paying less, the producers make more money of richer countries. Or do you think my phone is sold in India below the production price? :P

edit: almost twice as cheap
(editado)

I don't think your studie is Economy, right?

You don't have to have done economics to come to that (correct) conclusion like Red did.

And I wonder how moving jobs to low wage countries can make the local economy more efficient. If you ask me, this means problems to this local economy and has nothing to do with efficiency. Yeh efficiency for companies > more profit ...

I don't think your study is economy, right?

Not true. A lot depends of in which countries these products are sold. Richer countries/regions often or even always pay more for the same products. For example the same phone I have, Samsung Ace, is almost twice as cheap in India as it is in the Netherlands.

Nope, nevermind the previous question. It most certainly isn't your area of knowledge.

Yes, the Samsung Ace might be twice as expensive in the Netherlands as it is in India. That's not the point though. The point is that if the Samsung Ace is produced in India (or whatever low-cost country it is made in), it is way cheaper for you in the Netherlands than it would be if it were to be produced in the Netherlands (regardless of the difference between the Dutch consumer price and the Indian consumer price).

So the consumer isn't paying less, the producers make more money of richer countries. Or do you think my phone is sold in India below the production price? :P

You're wrong. Yes, the producers (often western companies) make more money. But besides that, the western consumer is paying less to. This type of trade has three winners: 1) foreign local economy, 2) consumers at the home country and 3) producers from the home country (that now are producing at a lower cost in China, India, ...).

So yeah, I don't think you have done any studies in economics. Maybe you had one course of economics while you studied (whatever it was), but what is certain is that - if you had such a course - you didn't understand it very well.

Edit: for the record, I'm doing my Master's in Applied Economics right now.
(editado)

And I wonder how moving jobs to low wage countries can make the local economy more efficient.

the point I see is that the distribuition of incomes changes.
And the distribuition of income is not indipendent from the wealth of a nation.

Obviously if something can be produced with a lower price (because of lower production costs) it is more efficent, but when it is done cutting on labour costs it means a different distribution of incomes, to a more polarized one.

there are 2 thing to say about that, imho:
-the ideological aspect:for someone this is right (to everyone according to his capacity), for someone this is wrong (to everyone according to his needs). That is a personal and moral choice imho, and nobody can claim some sort absolut truth about it.
-the economical consequences: the more you make efficency cutting labour costs, the more income are polarized. The more incomes are polarized the more middle-classes people disappear.
On the other side if you don't do it, other countries good's will invade your markets with their lower prices..
So the growth of world economy has to move between the normal prices competion to gain the markets and the lack of demand that comes from it. One day it kills some economy because of its lack of competitivity, one day it kills another for the lack of demand.
Our actual crisis come from the view of our politicians that refuse to recognize this problem and continue to sell us that if we make more efficency/productivity, we'll be able to sell more to other countries.. yes, but tomorrow they'll do the same, and this can only produce poverty and crisis.

That is what we see today: with even government that do everything to gain competitivity (look at monetary politics of Japan, USA or China that stamp money to keep their change rate low artificially.. and so we (EU) will soon must do..). And what for? For their iternal markets safe? No, to sell better to their competitors..
(editado)

Higher Business Management (HBO)

And I don't know how much my phone or any other phone, tablet, etc, would have cost if it was produced in my country as it isn't produced here.

EDIT: oh, and how many jobs did you have to know what consequences populair terms as cutting costs and efficiency have on the workers? It's nice to learn the theory, but in practise you can see and feel the results.

(editado)

This type of trade has three winners: 1) foreign local economy, 2) consumers at the home country and 3) producers from the home country

for point n. 1 it can be true, for 3 you can be sure it's true..
but for n. 2, home consumers are not winners, because some of them are loosing their job.

What is missing in your speech is a macroeconomic look, if you look only microeconomically (I don't know if this word really exist!) it lead you to think it is substainable, but it isn't, as world consume crisis shows.

I don't think your studie is Economy, right?



And I don't know how much my phone or any other phone, tablet, etc, would have cost if it was produced in my country as it isn't produced here.

You are right. You don't know. So, listen to someone who does and who tells you, e.g. in this case Levitate.

To all of you: to have studied economy doesn't mean you'd always be right. So cut it on that point.

@el pupe:
Can you explain me precisely what you mean with:

the point I see is that the distribuition of incomes changes.
And the distribuition of income is not indipendent from the wealth of a nation.

Because I find it difficult to understand what you mean. btw, do you have any example/fact confirming this statement?

quite plain.
when productivity is made by a progress of technology or better production standards you create wealth.
When you make productivity cutting on labour costs you simply change the distribuition of the same wealth produced.

for the second point:
The distribuition of wealth is a key factor for analizing the real wealth producted. the motivation is not on the offer side, but on the demand side!
I would say that the BIG error is in forgetting the ford lesson only to try to aggress foregin markets

do you have any example/fact confirming this statement?

ehm, I think (well almost every economist think so..) that actual crisis is been caused by this.
I didn't read anything else (anything of serious!!!)

some else thing to see:
polarization
effects of polarization

To all of you: to have studied economy doesn't mean you'd always be right. So cut it on that point.

I agree. But it was Charles who started doing so, while he also doesn't have a relevant degree in economics.

And I don't know how much my phone or any other phone, tablet, etc, would have cost if it was produced in my country as it isn't produced here.

It doesn't have to be produced in the Netherlands to have a clear view on what it would cost (in relative terms) if it were to be produced in the Netherlands.

This is a plain stupid logic. If you consequently follow it, all your arguments against the introduction of libertarianism are wrong, "as libertarianism isn't introduced here". Stupid logic.

oh, and how many jobs did you have to know what consequences populair terms as cutting costs and efficiency have on the workers?

Very ugly sentence. Incomprehensible.

but for n. 2, home consumers are not winners, because some of them are loosing their job.

Yes, some are losing their job. That is outweighed by the decreasing consumer price, and therefore the gained welfare for all consumers.

You are saying I'm looking through micro-economical (yes, the word exists :p) glasses, but you're the one who is missing the big (macro-economical) picture.

Look, if you are against trade with China, that gives us the right to be against trade with the Eastern European countries. And in the end, you end up with mercantilism which is for sure the worst situation for every single nation.

Yes, some are losing their job. That is outweighed by the decreasing consumer price, and therefore the gained welfare for all consumers.

ehm. come on levitate.. let's discuss seriously!

Look, if you are against trade with China

I'm not against it, I observe its consequences. I think this is a closed road we are running in.
I think we must change the price competition ideology into a more substainable one.

ehm. come on levitate.. let's discuss seriously!

You're looking at it individually (for every economic agent alone) again. I'm not saying it's outweighed for every economic agent, I'm saying it's outweighed on a macro-economical scale. The loss of jobs is worth it.

I'm not against it, I observe its consequences. I think this is a closed road we are running in.

You can call it what you want, it's still the same. You just don't understand the concept (and the benefits) of trade. That's why you're a protectionist ;-)

I think we must change the price competition ideology

Price is only one of the issues you can compete with. A valid one.

You're looking at it individually (for every economic agent alone) again. I'm not saying it's outweighed for every economic agent, I'm saying it's outweighed on a macro-economical scale. The loss of jobs is worth it.

I think you are wrong.

there is a table factory with 100 employees
lets say it produce 1 table for 10 $ (5$ of costs +5$ of labour cost)
it sells tables for 11 $ gaining 1$ for table sold.

they go and delocalizate to china and get a better "productivity", in fact it can produce a table for 7 $ (5 + 2 of labour less payed)

They sell the tables for 9$ and get thos 2$ more of income.
Buyers pays the table 2$ less and get a cheaper table,
you say everything is fine everyone happy (even the 2$ per table chinese worker...)

BUT, i sell 100 table less, and there are 100 people that can't buy it.
And those people won't buy anything else.

the point is in making a fair balance of what this model leads to.
It leads to a society without a large majority of buyers.
When you do only with your table factory you won't notice the problem, because all the other factories and services are still there to pay salarie to "strong buyers" that run your table demand.
But if every factory does the same?
It still work?
no it doesn't!

and here you are your global crisis!
(editado)

Price is only one of the issues you can compete with. A valid one.

I insist: where prices (or product) is improved by the cut of labour costs you are not creating any kind of wealth.