Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
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 ;-)
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 ;-)
Well, apparently, you don't understand how social sciences work then ;-)
I know enough, I wouldn't say it otherwise :P
Technocracy doesn't work, it can't stand the step from theory to practice. You should know it better than anyone else, Belgium was pretty much a technocracy, ergo a huge burocratic chaos... :P
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.
hmmpfff.... Let's ignore the last point (=your opinion), which imho is nonsense. The quality has its importance, not everything from China/India/anyotherslaveworkercountry is of good quality. What's the use of a cheap t-shirt, if you can only wash it twice before it gets unweareable.... -.-
(editado)
I know enough, I wouldn't say it otherwise :P
Technocracy doesn't work, it can't stand the step from theory to practice. You should know it better than anyone else, Belgium was pretty much a technocracy, ergo a huge burocratic chaos... :P
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.
hmmpfff.... Let's ignore the last point (=your opinion), which imho is nonsense. The quality has its importance, not everything from China/India/anyotherslaveworkercountry is of good quality. What's the use of a cheap t-shirt, if you can only wash it twice before it gets unweareable.... -.-
(editado)
Let's ignore the last point (=your opinion), which imho is nonsense. The quality has its importance, not everything from China/India/anyotherslaveworkercountry is of good quality. What's the use of a cheap t-shirt, if you can only wash it twice before it gets unweareable.... -.-
And by doing so, you're making my point. Thanks ;-)
And by doing so, you're making my point. Thanks ;-)
Switzerland is protectionistic, of course. But It can't sustain Itself, Switzerland could only survive 3 months in autarcy, which is rather a short laps of time...
do you realize that you always using ad hominem argument?
like: you dont have any idea of economics, or your examples are oversymplistics or you dont know how social science works. Is tyring , if you werent so arrogant you could have the same speech but the conversation would be nicer
like: you dont have any idea of economics, or your examples are oversymplistics or you dont know how social science works. Is tyring , if you werent so arrogant you could have the same speech but the conversation would be nicer
i agree with your ideas, also about (female) models not being so skinny jejeje
Like you say, the commerce with slave wages countrys prejudice the regular guy and the one who owns a regular company ( not a multinational)
i bought a coffe machine, for making expressos, in a chinese shop, very cheap...but it broke so soon! "Cheaper things sometimes are expensiver". Next time i will spend more money on the coffe machine and i will own a cm for years instead of for 2 months and broken
Like you say, the commerce with slave wages countrys prejudice the regular guy and the one who owns a regular company ( not a multinational)
i bought a coffe machine, for making expressos, in a chinese shop, very cheap...but it broke so soon! "Cheaper things sometimes are expensiver". Next time i will spend more money on the coffe machine and i will own a cm for years instead of for 2 months and broken
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?
that's not true.
A job is something that you deserve every day.
false
It doesn't fall from the sky nor from the government.
false again, there are more gov's created works than the opposite in our countries..
When you go into this natural sequence of events and manipulate it to maintain the status quo,
that's your ideology. there's no natural law that says so...
"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.
This is quite stupid, I remember you that evolution can follow may ways,
the MAN evolution example it is one where tha best results are achieved with collaboration between individuals and the choice to have rules, with the objective to avoid conflict and competition!!
The difference between you and me and all other people is in the economic and political rules we choose to apply.
YES, that's right, and that's the point.
There are not a real truth about politics and economics.
I believe that I have argumented the rules I advocate and you just yell: "Ideology!" at me and all other people you disagree with.
Well I read again your old post I answered "ideology" and i confirm it. Look by yourself, you wrote:
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.
But I can make on hundred of examples od protection politics that shows how it is false.
Again, you and the most of people that believe "markets" as the new gods, always forget that the rules are how we make them. And we have to make them the best rules for us, not for serving some kind of ideological god.
(editado)
(editado)
that's not true.
A job is something that you deserve every day.
false
It doesn't fall from the sky nor from the government.
false again, there are more gov's created works than the opposite in our countries..
When you go into this natural sequence of events and manipulate it to maintain the status quo,
that's your ideology. there's no natural law that says so...
"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.
This is quite stupid, I remember you that evolution can follow may ways,
the MAN evolution example it is one where tha best results are achieved with collaboration between individuals and the choice to have rules, with the objective to avoid conflict and competition!!
The difference between you and me and all other people is in the economic and political rules we choose to apply.
YES, that's right, and that's the point.
There are not a real truth about politics and economics.
I believe that I have argumented the rules I advocate and you just yell: "Ideology!" at me and all other people you disagree with.
Well I read again your old post I answered "ideology" and i confirm it. Look by yourself, you wrote:
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.
But I can make on hundred of examples od protection politics that shows how it is false.
Again, you and the most of people that believe "markets" as the new gods, always forget that the rules are how we make them. And we have to make them the best rules for us, not for serving some kind of ideological god.
(editado)
(editado)
you dont have any idea of economics, or your examples are oversymplistics
What can I say? You try to prove your point with really, really, really simple examples. That shows us that you really don't know a lot about economics. (Which isn't an accusation, there are many subjects I don't know a lot about.) But believe me: you will not find a lot of economists who disagree with the idea that free trade increases wealth for the participating nations.
you dont know how social science works
What can I say to someone (Manhill) who claims the science I'm studying doesn't reflect reality?
What can I say? You try to prove your point with really, really, really simple examples. That shows us that you really don't know a lot about economics. (Which isn't an accusation, there are many subjects I don't know a lot about.) But believe me: you will not find a lot of economists who disagree with the idea that free trade increases wealth for the participating nations.
you dont know how social science works
What can I say to someone (Manhill) who claims the science I'm studying doesn't reflect reality?
i bought a coffe machine, for making expressos, in a chinese shop, very cheap...but it broke so soon! "Cheaper things sometimes are expensiver". Next time i will spend more money on the coffe machine and i will own a cm for years instead of for 2 months and broken
And once again, my point is proven. Thanks! (Although you probably don't realize it yourself.)
And once again, my point is proven. Thanks! (Although you probably don't realize it yourself.)
that's not true.
How is that not true if you refuse more competitive product just because it is not your own in order to protect your own jobs? Tell me, how exactly are you not limiting the freedom of this producer? What do you say to him when he says to you: "Hey, that's not fair! I made the same thing for a lower price! And you still buy it from your own producers! What's the matter with you? What do you have against me?"
false
Yes. I know it's false in practice but it's not fair. Every day I see people on jobs who think they have already deserved their job. And they make me righteously angry.
false again, there are more gov's created works than the opposite in our countries..
Oh, what a strange coincidence! In most cases these are exactly the people I just mentioned.
that's your ideology. there's no natural law that says so...
It's not my ideology. It's my opinion. I have no reason to stick to a certain ideology but apparently you have a reason for labeling other people's opinions as ideology. Why do you keep doing that? I also recognize your set of opinions in certain ideologies but I (maybe strangely and stupidly) presume that you question these ideas daily nevertheless. Maybe I am wrong.
This is quite stupid, I remember you that evolution can follow may ways,
the MAN evolution example it is one where tha best results are achieved with collaboration between individuals and the choice to have rules, with the objective to avoid conflict and competition!!
Conflict and competition are 2 very, very different things. You can see that in sports very well. People easily shake hand of their opponents who beat them fairly in game-play. There is no conflict. On the other hand, people get very mad when there is unfairness caused by manipulations of the game rules. It's completely the same in economy. We need game-play, we need reasonable and consistent rules and, most importantly, fair referees. We saw very well in communism what happens when we rely on collaboration without competition. I am always equally amazed how people can stubbornly ignore even when history proves certain ideas as totally wrong. We need competition in economy. Without it we just try to keep what we already have. We become lazy and corrupted.
Again, you and the most of people that believe "markets" as the new gods, always forget that the rules are how we make them. And we have to make them the best rules for us, not for serving some kind of ideological god.
Again, I don't consider market as omnipotent economic solution. Market is only game-play. We need reasonable and consistent rules and fair referees as well. Without them, even the market becomes corrupted.
(editado)
How is that not true if you refuse more competitive product just because it is not your own in order to protect your own jobs? Tell me, how exactly are you not limiting the freedom of this producer? What do you say to him when he says to you: "Hey, that's not fair! I made the same thing for a lower price! And you still buy it from your own producers! What's the matter with you? What do you have against me?"
false
Yes. I know it's false in practice but it's not fair. Every day I see people on jobs who think they have already deserved their job. And they make me righteously angry.
false again, there are more gov's created works than the opposite in our countries..
Oh, what a strange coincidence! In most cases these are exactly the people I just mentioned.
that's your ideology. there's no natural law that says so...
It's not my ideology. It's my opinion. I have no reason to stick to a certain ideology but apparently you have a reason for labeling other people's opinions as ideology. Why do you keep doing that? I also recognize your set of opinions in certain ideologies but I (maybe strangely and stupidly) presume that you question these ideas daily nevertheless. Maybe I am wrong.
This is quite stupid, I remember you that evolution can follow may ways,
the MAN evolution example it is one where tha best results are achieved with collaboration between individuals and the choice to have rules, with the objective to avoid conflict and competition!!
Conflict and competition are 2 very, very different things. You can see that in sports very well. People easily shake hand of their opponents who beat them fairly in game-play. There is no conflict. On the other hand, people get very mad when there is unfairness caused by manipulations of the game rules. It's completely the same in economy. We need game-play, we need reasonable and consistent rules and, most importantly, fair referees. We saw very well in communism what happens when we rely on collaboration without competition. I am always equally amazed how people can stubbornly ignore even when history proves certain ideas as totally wrong. We need competition in economy. Without it we just try to keep what we already have. We become lazy and corrupted.
Again, you and the most of people that believe "markets" as the new gods, always forget that the rules are how we make them. And we have to make them the best rules for us, not for serving some kind of ideological god.
Again, I don't consider market as omnipotent economic solution. Market is only game-play. We need reasonable and consistent rules and fair referees as well. Without them, even the market becomes corrupted.
(editado)
YES, that's right, and that's the point.
There are not a real truth about politics and economics.
This is just another example how you completely misinterpret what I say. I never said nor meant that there is no real truth. I only said that we choose to apply different rules. After all, we even made such stupid economic choices like slavery or communism.
But I understand why you want to relativise truth in this sense. That's the only way you are able to stick to your own opinion in this case.
There are not a real truth about politics and economics.
This is just another example how you completely misinterpret what I say. I never said nor meant that there is no real truth. I only said that we choose to apply different rules. After all, we even made such stupid economic choices like slavery or communism.
But I understand why you want to relativise truth in this sense. That's the only way you are able to stick to your own opinion in this case.
that's not true.
How is that not true if you refuse more competitive product just because it is not your own in order to protect your own jobs? Tell me, how exactly are you not limiting the freedom of this producer? What do you say to him when he says to you: "Hey, that's not fair! I made the same thing for a lower price! And you still buy it from your own producers! What's the matter with you? What do you have against me?"
I decide to buy whatever I want on the logic I prefer.
Doing this i'm not limiting any person liberty.
So if I decide to do a rule in my country that make more profitable MY products than yours I'm not limiting any freedom. I think is the more obvious things of the world, and in facts, every country does it.
It's not my ideology. It's my opinion.
You seem right but you're wrong.
If you had an opinion you should admit that economic competition based on lowering the wage of worker ends in depression for the entire world economy
But you had another reaction, you said:
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?
the obvious answer (because it's more desiderable to! because it makes less damages and has more advantages!) didn't come to you.
That's ideology, not even think about the "other side" arguments to find out if there's something good.
Conflict and competition are 2 very, very different things.
well, I say that Darwin has nothing to to with economics.
The strategies that the animal "man" can use are a lot. The results to gain are different and so you can't even decide what is better (grow in n.? live in wealth? life longevity? peace? technology improvements?) The rest of this speech is useless, as this question is stupid.
Again, I don't consider market as omnipotent economic solution. Market is only game-play. We need reasonable and consistent rules and fair referees as well. Without them, even the market becomes corrupted.
I agree. And exscuse me if i didn't understand it.
How is that not true if you refuse more competitive product just because it is not your own in order to protect your own jobs? Tell me, how exactly are you not limiting the freedom of this producer? What do you say to him when he says to you: "Hey, that's not fair! I made the same thing for a lower price! And you still buy it from your own producers! What's the matter with you? What do you have against me?"
I decide to buy whatever I want on the logic I prefer.
Doing this i'm not limiting any person liberty.
So if I decide to do a rule in my country that make more profitable MY products than yours I'm not limiting any freedom. I think is the more obvious things of the world, and in facts, every country does it.
It's not my ideology. It's my opinion.
You seem right but you're wrong.
If you had an opinion you should admit that economic competition based on lowering the wage of worker ends in depression for the entire world economy
But you had another reaction, you said:
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?
the obvious answer (because it's more desiderable to! because it makes less damages and has more advantages!) didn't come to you.
That's ideology, not even think about the "other side" arguments to find out if there's something good.
Conflict and competition are 2 very, very different things.
well, I say that Darwin has nothing to to with economics.
The strategies that the animal "man" can use are a lot. The results to gain are different and so you can't even decide what is better (grow in n.? live in wealth? life longevity? peace? technology improvements?) The rest of this speech is useless, as this question is stupid.
Again, I don't consider market as omnipotent economic solution. Market is only game-play. We need reasonable and consistent rules and fair referees as well. Without them, even the market becomes corrupted.
I agree. And exscuse me if i didn't understand it.
If you had an opinion you should admit that economic competition based on lowering the wage of worker ends in depression for the entire world economy
So people only have an opinion if they agree with you? Communist style.
So people only have an opinion if they agree with you? Communist style.
So people only have an opinion if they agree with you? Communist style.
LOL, facts are not opinions.
LOL, facts are not opinions.
LOL, facts are not opinions.
Considering your opinions as facts and laughing with people who have different opinions. Once again, communist style.
Considering your opinions as facts and laughing with people who have different opinions. Once again, communist style.
communist style
apart from the question of opinion/facts (I think I have not to demonstrate such obvious things every economist in the world agree, excet the priest of "freedom" religion)
apart fro this..
is very interesting you use the word communism to describe someone that cheat on data and facts and try to impose his idea.
i would use unfair, uncorrect, cheater, troll and every insult that comes in my mind, but I would never ever think about and ideological insult..
I imagine that shows something! I can't say what exactly, but surely that's something strange,
apart from the question of opinion/facts (I think I have not to demonstrate such obvious things every economist in the world agree, excet the priest of "freedom" religion)
apart fro this..
is very interesting you use the word communism to describe someone that cheat on data and facts and try to impose his idea.
i would use unfair, uncorrect, cheater, troll and every insult that comes in my mind, but I would never ever think about and ideological insult..
I imagine that shows something! I can't say what exactly, but surely that's something strange,