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

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,

I think I have not to demonstrate such obvious things every economist in the world agree

I think you overestimate the extensiveness of that idea.

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.

There is no need to constantly repeat that every country does it. I live on the same planet as you do and this is not an argument. I know that countries do it and why but I am arguing that they are only buying time at the expense of healthy parts and/or future of their economies. And at the expense of this foreign competition. If we disregard fairness, protectionism is reasonable only in case the country is able to destroy this foreign competition with it. But this is again not fair.

Instead of using the obvious facts as false arguments, I would appreciate if you answered my question. What would you say to that foreign producer? He has every reason to feel discriminated in your country. How would you explain to him this situation? What would be your advice to him? What should he do? Should he produce only for his local market? How is that good for the global economy?

Looking from a global perspective, if Earth was one single country, protectionism resembles very much to communism. Planned economy by disregarding of market principles.

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.

It's amazing how you are able to do what you falsely accuse me of in just 2 sentences. :)

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.

Yes, you can decide which is better. It is quite clear. General level of well-being is quite measurable. One of the purposes of money is also to be an economic valuation tool. Just because you don't like the truth, it doesn't mean that it is not there. We do know exactly how much DDR was behind BRD economically at the moment the Berlin wall collapsed.

Looking from a global perspective, if Earth was one single country, protectionism resembles very much to communism. Planned economy by disregarding of market principles.

That's what I don't understand about the left side these days. They have killed international socialism and have made it national. For instance, a Belgian bus manufacturer (Vanhool) has moved a part of their production from Belgium to Macedonia (because it is cheaper to produce buses there). From an international socialist POV, one might argument that this is a good thing because Macedonia is far more poorer than Belgium is, and the Macedonian employees need that job much more to have a relative good life than a Belgian employee (because of our extensive social security). But that's not how the left side reacted on it.

Economic nationalism (aka protectionism) was never a good thing, isn't a good thing and will never be a good thing.
(editado)

I completely agree. I understand that it is not easy to throw people in the streets but to take care of this is the job for the welfare state and re-qualification programs and not for the variants of planned economy.

I understand that it is not easy to throw people in the streets but to take care of this is the job for the welfare state and re-qualification programs and not for the variants of planned economy.

Well, I disagree on that. The welfare state IS the planned part of our mixed economy (mixed in the sense that is a mix of a market economy and a planned economy).

So I agree that this should not be dealt with by the planned economy.

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?

That's why social sciences don't (ah, let's say "shall not") apply their models on the whole world (economy, society, politics etc.) and expect them to work everywhere and at all times. Sadly, some economists tend to forget that they work in social sciences.

I'm not pretending the economic models work all the time. I'm just saying they're not useless like Manhill thinks.

. If we disregard fairness, protectionism is reasonable only in case the country is able to destroy this foreign competition with it. But this is again not fair.

fair?
a moral idea used to substain an economic view.
I'm really surprised to see it in our century.
just to be undestood, fair is not a thing you can claim to know.
For you is fair not to make a "tactical foul" during a match. For me it is. Nothing to discuss here. Imho.

What would you say to that foreign producer?

they can do whatever they want.

He has every reason to feel discriminated in your country. How would you explain to him this situation?

This is a free world.

What would be your advice to him?

look at your home democracy and pretend to enlarge your internal demand

What should he do?

Sack his politicians

Should he produce only for his local market?

No, but he can't PRETEND that foregin markets rules are made for him!

How is that good for the global economy?

Because it create competition only if it benefit both sides.

Looking from a global perspective, if Earth was one single country, protectionism resembles very much to communism. Planned economy by disregarding of market principles.

But earth is not a single country (and ooking at euro I must say that this is a blessing!)

Yes, you can decide which is better. It is quite clear. General level of well-being is quite measurable.

no.
you assume that having two dollars instead of having one is a better situation.
I think this is a semplification.

Just because you don't like the truth, it doesn't mean that it is not there.

the truth is that there are two dollars, not that it is better.
(editado)

Do you even see the irony in what you say?

a moral idea used to substain an economic view.
I'm really surprised to see it in our century.

When defending the exclusion of China in world trade because they use 'slavery'.

This is a free world.

When defending protectionism.

Well, I disagree on that. The welfare state IS the planned part of our mixed economy (mixed in the sense that is a mix of a market economy and a planned economy).

For God's sake, charity is not planned economy. I see the role of welfare state as standardized charity. It's a social security. It only needs to be on an adequate level, i.e. only helping people to get back on their feet which can basically even also be considered as an investment into the economic infrastructure. I mean, the state also helps these people so that it can also have economic benefits from them in the future. But this is not the primary reason. The primary reason is social security which is actually the basic function of any state regardless of whether it's achieved by maintaining order, investing in infrastructure or helping its people when they are in dire straits such as being ill or out of a job. The key is only not doing it in a way to motivate people to stay out of a job.

Looking from a global perspective, if Earth was one single country, protectionism resembles very much to communism. Planned economy by disregarding of market principles.

I want to show you how much ideology is in you, you don't seem to aknowlegde it.
There are no REAL THINGS that we can call "market principles", nothing anyone agree on, nothing that is the same concept for every people. Try to think about it.

When defending the exclusion of China in world trade because they use 'slavery'.

I never pretended to have any moral principle in my choices, you really don't understand my ideas (you probably still think of me I'm a leftist..)

This is a free world.

When defending protectionism.

Freedom is freedom. That's not a trademark of libertarians!!!
I feel free to make the rules I desire.

For God's sake, charity is not planned economy.

Well, I don't have a god, so I can't use exactly the same sentence, but taxes and the welfare state are not charity, they are legalized theft. "The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver."

So yes, charity is not planned economy. The welfare state is. How can you not consider the welfare state to be planned economy? The government decides where the people should spent their money on. How is that not planned economy? The government deciding in what we should invest is not central planning? Seriously.

Look, you are in favor of a mixed economy. Maybe more market economy and less planned economy than we have today, but still a mixed economy.