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

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.

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

Once again, slave salaries are not only determined to Spanish standards. (I know you ignored this because you don't have a reply, so I'll repeat it until you do reply on it.)

And yes, such low salaries make the WORLD ECONOMY (so the economy in total) more efficient.

seems you havent heard about a guy called Keynes

Seems like that's the only economist you know.
(editado)

competition is fine if it has justice. Woulld you like to pllay football against a guy who uses dope? i dont think so

so its the same, a country paying slave salary and exporting their goods make the countrys that dosent "dope "had a less efficient economy

Once again, slave salaries are not only determined to Spanish standards. (I know you ignored this because you don't have a reply, so I'll repeat it until you do reply on it.)

I am not relating to spanish standars. im relating the slave salary to their own medium price of outpus etc

competition is fine if it has justice. Woulld you like to pllay football against a guy who uses dope? i dont think so

Because off-shoring is using drugs.

It's more like: "Would you like to play football against Barça?" Yes, Barça seems unbeatable, but they really aren't. Look at last week.

Now can we skip the stupid, ridiculous and overly simplistic comparisons and examples?

Any example in economy must be simple. Its called "models" You use a simple example and then extrapolate . Its impossible to have a real example with the 1000000000000000 variables there are in real economy

Now can we skip the stupid, ridiculous and overly simplistic comparisons and examples?

I allready anwered that, but want to add that is irritating that you judge other examples with that kind of adjetives. Is not only irritating but useless. You should make a more sophisticated example, but examples in economy always are simple, and then extrapolate
(editado)

Of course they must be simple. That's why I said they are 'overly simplistic'.

all false or ideologic statements

...

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

The problem in this case is that in principle you fight for freedom of your people by limiting the freedom of other people. Why should an Italian or a Croatian be worth more than a Chinese?

A job is something that you deserve every day. It doesn't fall from the sky nor from the government. It is created 1st by consumers' needs, both local and foreign, and 2nd by the best ability of the producer that gets chosen by these consumers in need. Every day. Over and over again. That's the sequence of events that creates and maintains a job..

When you go into this natural sequence of events and manipulate it to maintain the status quo, then you only start up a process of negative selection. This is also bad for the mindset of the people you are trying to "protect". You give them a message: "What you do should be good enough. Don't try any harder and don't try to adapt. I will protect you from the competition and the necessary changes."

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." Charles Darwin

So basically, you are telling your people that evolution is not good for them. That the key to their freedom is that they don't adapt and don't fight to survive because the remainder of economy that they live in is wealthy enough to protect them and fight away the change. Well, it will protect them for some time at least and at the expense of healthy parts of the economy and/or the future generations.

You are right. Economy is created by politics and rules. That's why it is the closest to psychology and sociology. The difference between you and me and all other people is in the economic and political rules we choose to apply.

I believe that I have argumented the rules I advocate and you just yell: "Ideology!" at me and all other people you disagree with.

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

Of course I am against such trade. But these are just bad examples. Well, horrible examples to be more precise. You can't make argumentation on bad examples.

I am against trade with such countries and any economic benefits (cheaper goods) at the expense of enslaved people. Economic sanctions should be made against such countries and even war to liberate these people.

Economic sanctions should be made against such countries and even war to liberate these people.

Well, that's politics and that's the point from which we disagree I guess ;-)

I am against all economic sanctions imposed by governments around the world. But I do agree that it is morally unacceptable to trade with such countries.

Of course I am against such trade. But these are just bad examples. Well, horrible examples to be more precise. You can't make argumentation on bad examples.

Its a real live example, see china pe. Maybe china not so bad but close to
(editado)

I didn't say that it's an imagined example but that bad examples only tell us what and how not to do. They don't say anything about what is right. Bad examples are a classic straw-man argument: "If it doesn't work in this bad example, then it also doesn't work in this good example." False argumentation.

And in principle I agree with you about China. I wouldn't trade with Chinese companies without them first meeting certain basic human rights criteria. But the problem with that idea is that Western World has a rather extensive list of basic human rights. So, we might have a situation of refusing to buy Chinese products because they are not working in Western standards conditions and by doing so we put them in even worse conditions.
(editado)

well i used a not to do example because im not against trade but against trade with those kind of countries. So "it doesn't work in this bad example, but it works in this good example

Any example in economy must be simple. Its called "models" You use a simple example and then extrapolate . Its impossible to have a real example with the 1000000000000000 variables there are in real economy

That's true. That's why I hate models, except female models, when they're not too thin! ;)

@Levitate: I don't know, how living is in Belgium.
But I know obviously how it is in Switzerland: pretty good, even though Switzerland practices protectionism. We have a pretty low unemployment rate, a pretty high purchasing power, a sane economic situation.

You're saying, not to use dutch standards to define slave salaries. But you're also making a mistake. The only fair indicator for slave salaries is the purchasing power. If you can barely sustain yourself and your family, you can call it slave salary. And that kinda salary is needed in the UE to be competitive with China and India (to name only 2).

Free trade works, but only for the statelessness multinational corporations. The workers and small corporations don't take any benefit, they even suffer from it.

I allready said, I hated economic models. They do not reflect the reality, how could they, they aren't complex enough.

pretty good, even though Switzerland practices protectionism

Is Switzerland so protectionist (economic speaking)? (And yeah, life is good in Belgium, of course.)

And that kinda salary is needed in the UE to be competitive with China and India (to name only 2).

Well, for starters, it's our fault we are SO noncompetitive (labor cost wise). Cut taxes and spending, and labor cost will (for instance for Belgium) be less than half of what it is today (labor cost is 2,5-3 times the net wage).

Apart from that, yes, we would still be less competitive than China and India for some things. That's economic logic. Produce that what you produce the most efficient. Some sectors (like textile) are meant to be off-shored.

I allready said, I hated economic models. They do not reflect the reality, how could they, they aren't complex enough.

Well, apparently, you don't understand how social sciences work then ;-)