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

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.

Are you trying to prove that with lower prices, less people will be able to buy the table? 'Cause that's a battle you'll never going to win.

In your ridiculous, simplistic example, you forget to mention the people who can't buy the table for 11$ but who can buy it for 7$. And you forget to mention that the 4$ surplus that people who bought the table (and who could afford to buy it for 11$) have, will also be spent on something else.

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

You can insist all you want, it doesn't make it right. It's creating wealth, both in Italy as in China.

In your ridiculous, simplistic example, you forget to mention the people who can't buy the table for 11$ but who can buy it for 7$.

that's the illusion.
It works only if only the table factory delocalizate. if the other factories do the same nobody buy no more tables.

And you forget to mention that the 4$ surplus that people who bought the table (and who could afford to buy it for 11$) have, will also be spent on something else.

Amd that's the other illusion.
One ultra rich consumer doesn't consume as 1000 normal consumers.
The demand this two hypotesys produce are very different.
Even if you are the richer man on earth you won't need to buy 1000 tables.. (and the % of your income you use for consumption is very low, even if you buy private jets and yachts, that's why the different distribution of income has a big effect on economy!!!)
(editado)

First 'illusion': I'm not saying anyone will buy more tables. I'm saying more people will buy one table.

Second 'illusion': I think your English is too weak to understand me. Or your English is too weak to explain yourself. What you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Let's finish here, I suddenly remember why discussing with you is pointless.
(editado)

no and no.
As I tried to answer your first answer doens't run because of the fact that delocalization hits a lot kind of production, so ther will be no more people buying tables even if the price is low.

For the second you did't understand.
Your 2$ saved in buying tables are real only if you buy it.
The polarization of incomes lead to a little number of very rich consumers that don't face the same quantity of demand od a large amount of "middleclass" consumer

Let's finish here, I suddenly remember why discussing with you is pointless.

my english can be poor. But i see that your arguments ends often in a NO-answer post.
(editado)

See previous post. We speak a different English.

I have recently come to a conclusion that the closest branch of science to economy is psychology. Only psychology can give answers about why intelligent people are able to be so persistent about making basic level mistakes in economic reasoning. I mean, basic economic models are really not so difficult to comprehend and still, seemingly reasonable people are still able to insist on flawed ideas that have already been proven as wrong so many times.

If people in another foreign country can provide the same good or service for less money than local companies, why would anyone insist on a more expensive local solution? Just to keep these jobs for some more time? These jobs are already lost. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with immediately.

And this doesn't even have to be the most opportunistic of the choices for the local country. It's just simply the most fair choice from a global perspective. No good or service are made for the sake of workers. It's always for the sake of consumers. And it's always in the consumer's interest to get something cheaper. Protecting jobs at another party's (local consumers and foreign producers) expense is just plain wrong and unfair. That's simply a case of pure negative selection and economic progress is based on positive selection.

If these jobs aren't competitive any more, the only fair and reasonable thing to do is to create new ones that are competitive. And this needs to be done as soon as possible. Postponing this task is not only making the first step more and more difficult but also preventing foreign producers that are more willing and able from realizing their deserved opportunity. How would you like to be an exporter that is treated the same way in foreign countries? You managed to become competitive but you are robbed of your deserved reward by an administrative decision.

It's quite understandable that closing jobs and making new business is not an easy task. But turning our face away from reality of such situation will only make it more difficult. And after all, it's just plain cowardly.

I have recently come to a conclusion that the closest branch of science to economy is psychology.

I agree

If people in another foreign country can provide the same good or service for less money than local companies, why would anyone insist on a more expensive local solution? Just to keep these jobs for some more time? These jobs are already lost. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with immediately.

LOL, man is animal with intelligence, it can imagine rules that allow him to live better.

It's just simply the most fair choice from a global perspective. No good or service are made for the sake of workers. It's always for the sake of consumers. And it's always in the consumer's interest to get something cheaper.

all false or ideologic statements

You really believe economic rules the world, well I think you're wrong.
Politics and RULES does. Different rules = different economy. So your conclusion are not true in any case, are true only until we continue to have this "free market ideology" rules.

But turning our face away from reality of such situation will only make it more difficult. And after all, it's just plain cowardly.

That's the slave speech: "freedom doens't exist!"
:P

I think sociology is even closer to economy (but then again, psychology and sociology are very close to each other too).

When somebody makes same things cheaper its making economy more efficient

False. If you make things cheaper because you pay your workers a slave salary, then those workers will use their little wage to buy food and the rent of the house, any other good will be sold so economy wont be efficient


Is like, in medieval times, the count had their vegetables for free because the farm workers were their slaves. So this someone count made their vegetable production really cheap. Is that efficient? of course not


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

I understund there will allways be different cost productions. But if someone produces cheap, not because a better production system or better tech or cheaper coin to exchange making exportations easier, but because they pay their worker a slave salary, then this is not efficiency

lets say it on a simple example_

imagine u live in a country with 20 people. 15 of them are workers. 5 has companies. If the workers have good salarys they will buy outputs from these 5 companies according to their likes. If they have slave salarys they wont buy anything but food, so this also prejudices the company mens

conclusion: letting comerce with countries without a decent salary laws has the result of a less efficient situation
(editado)

If these jobs aren't competitive any more, the only fair and reasonable thing to do is to create new ones that are competitive.

Imagine a new dictator in Africa, who slaves his population and force them to work for nothing. The outputs will be cheaper. Is that efficient? No. Will your national jobs automatichly to be not competitive because this new dictator? common sense tell me not to trade with this country

(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 (that now are producing at a lower cost in China, India, ...).

1) and 2) Thats true. But 3) local productors they are losers on this situation

so: 1) local productors
2) local consumers without jobs

are losers on this situation. It only benefit the foreign economy and yeah the local consumers...while they mantain their jobs. Because anyone working on any product china wants to do, will lose his job, so will not have more benefit as local consumer as far as without job there isnt money to spend, even outputs are cheaper

False. If you make things cheaper because you pay your workers a slave salary, then those workers will use their little wage to buy food and the rent of the house, any other good will be sold so economy wont be efficient

What is a slave salary in Belgium, is a normal salary in Eastern Europe. What is a slave salary in Eastern Europe, is a normal salary in China. In depends on the cost of living to determine whether or not it is a slave salary.

Is like, in medieval times, the count had their vegetables for free because the farm workers were their slaves. So this someone count made their vegetable production really cheap. Is that efficient? of course not

I hope this is not a serious argument or a serious example.

but because they pay their worker a slave salary, then this is not efficiency

I am looking forward to your definition of efficiency. Because yes, that is efficiency.

imagine u live in a country with 20 people. 15 of them are workers. 5 has companies. If the workers have good salarys they will buy outputs from these 5 companies according to their likes. If they have slave salarys they wont buy anything but food, so this also prejudices the company mens

That's not the case here. If you want to make an example, you have to have at least 2 countries (home country and foreign country).

conclusion: letting comerce with countries without a decent salary laws has the result of a less efficient situation

A wrong conclusion based on a simplistic, wrong example. This way, it is indeed possible to prove that protectionism works. Now let's get back to reality.

I am looking forward to your definition of efficiency. Because yes, that is efficiency.

No, paying slave salarys to ur workers may be efficient to the company men but not to the whole economy. The rest of people owning a company will have less market because the slave salary workers wont buy any good except the basic ones

seems you havent heard about a guy called Keynes

so: 1) local productors
2) local consumers without jobs

are losers on this situation.

1) They are getting competition, yes. Competition is good and makes the economy more efficient. Also, a lot of the local producers are having joint ventures with Western companies which is a gain for them in terms of knowledge. So they aren't really losers in the situation.

2) You have to compare with the situation without trade. When comparing to the situation without trade, the local consumers without jobs aren't losing (in contrary, they're winning because the goods that enter the market are made more efficiently (compared to the Chinese autarky) and therefore, will be sold for a lower price).

So no, there are no losers here.