Protectionism

[The Rabbi]

Protectionism is the idea that Bill Gates needs to take time off from Microsoft and learn to make his own suits.

 

[loosecannon]

Like, working well the last 200 years you mean.

All fiat currencies fail. The only exceptions are those that haven't failed yet.

Economics is a social science, but dismissing all statistical analysis of past events is the province of the ideologue impervious to contrary conclusions. It is not to be taken seriously, which is why your argument is not taken seriously.

idiot, I don't dismiss past analysis of past events. I also don't try to use them as templates as you do.

I won my arguments:

>the economy is a zero sum game within any moment

>mercantilism not only has always worked, it is the most successful model today

No, the challenge is for you to understand what exactly a fact is. Making esoteric arguments amount the nature of time as a rebuttal is pretty funny.

except that the nature of time just happens to be the crux of your silly assertion that the economy is not a zero sum game. Without the promise of future wealth the economy would indeed be a zero sum game even in context of an imaginary continuum.

You just aren't smart enough to follow the ball. Whiff

Whiff
Whiff

I feel like i am pitching to the disabled

 

[loosecannon]

You just don't get it.

The economy IS a zero sum game when you view it in any given moment.

any promise of further riches and wealth not realized in the moment is just a fantasy.

every time you hear somebody who thinks they are bright mumble something stupid like "the economy is not a zero sum game" just point at them and laugh.

Because in every single moment that ever has occurred, is occurring or will occur the economy is indeed a zero sum game.

That's reality, welcome to it.



And I have annihilated your arguments. You just don't see the forest for the trees. Nobody can fix that but you.

i'd call looking at economics in slices of time a matter of not seeing the forest from the trees. we have to use trends to see how one practice or condition fairs compared to others over a span of time. the most crucial observation is the performance of an economy in terms of produce based on what factors it has available to it, and the propensity for an economy to pursue the exploitation of those factors... over time.

because of these potentials, an economic analysis cant be seen as zero-sum.

The exception occurs whenever you use the zero sum argument. It is a fallacious argument.

Enjoy the perception of a continuum all you want. Just don't use it as a rationale to assume future wealth not yet realized.

IOW don't con yourself into thinking it is real, if it isn't.

 

[loosecannon]

Oh yeah? Well you're one of them un-American Canadians who uses facts and stuff.

actually Toro is challenged to identify a fact even if it bites him. That's kind of the theme of the dialogue.

uh, no. You've brought nothing to this thread but slobber and an over-inflated ego as some anemic attempt to counter a dispassionate argument grounded in accepted data.

btw, did you ever come up with a response in that "Jews are a fake race" thread? I'm still waiting for you to show me how I'm full of shit. I have to go but i'll log in later tonight to see whatever anti-semitic frothing you manage to come up with.

I am sorry did you post something?

And BTW Bozo breath; I am not antisemitic. Jews are.

 

[kyzr]

Protectionism is the idea that Bill Gates needs to take time off from Microsoft and learn to make his own suits.

not true. Protectionism is repealing the "American Jobs Creation Act" which created tax breaks to move US factories overseas. A better idea is targeted tax breaks per new job created and person hired.

 

[rhet 2]

You just don't get it.

The economy IS a zero sum game when you view it in any given moment.

any promise of further riches and wealth not realized in the moment is just a fantasy.

every time you hear somebody who thinks they are bright mumble something stupid like "the economy is not a zero sum game" just point at them and laugh.

Because in every single moment that ever has occurred, is occurring or will occur the economy is indeed a zero sum game.

That's reality, welcome to it.



And I have annihilated your arguments. You just don't see the forest for the trees. Nobody can fix that but you.

i'd call looking at economics in slices of time a matter of not seeing the forest from the trees. we have to use trends to see how one practice or condition fairs compared to others over a span of time. the most crucial observation is the performance of an economy in terms of produce based on what factors it has available to it, and the propensity for an economy to pursue the exploitation of those factors... over time.

because of these potentials, an economic analysis cant be seen as zero-sum.

Trouble is, no man can know the future. Trends, patterns, predictions -- potentialities -- are all future events -- and the future is damned unpredictable.

Just one question as illustration: what happens to all the trends, patterns, predictions -- potentialitis -- if the Yellowstone caldera blows and takes out the entire West Coast with it, creating a new Mediterranean Sea type of structure that stretches from the Great Lakes to the Pacific?

ALL predictions wipe out -- and potential wealth is reshaped -- not destroyed -- reshaped into new patterns not included in current prognostications.

Including labor. Because labor is not solid wealth -- it is potential wealth -- what a person can produce in the next hour is not subject to absolute control and therefore subject to absolute prediction based on patterns. It is hypothetical wealth predicted upon past patterns used to model future EXPECTATIONS -- but if Yellowstone erupts beneath the factory floor within that hour, the pattern is demolished and the expectation proves false. Therefore, production EXPECTATIONS based on those OLD and now obsolete patterns wipes out.

Debt is based on historical patterns -- in the expectation that those patterns will continue at the same rate in the same way into the future -- and does NOT include adjustments for a wide variation of future potential disruptions of the patterns economics use as the basis for their assumptions.

While we can monitor current developments and watch for shifts in existing patterns, and we can hypothesize about future potential developments that would force MAYBE changes in the existing patterns -- creating multiple guesses shaped as IF X, then Y predictions to account for every potential X we can think of, we cannot KNOW without doubt that the pattern will hold in tomorrow's economic conditions -- nor can we KNOW that IF X, then Y will DEFINITELY occur. We THINK -- guess based on observable and logical probabilities -- that IF X, then Y will occur -- however, the potential always remains that some factor we did NOT anticipate will create NOT an X, then Y result but something we never anticipated at all, an X, then Alpha not included in our PREDICTIONS at all.

Labor is not and never will be a constant and predictable factor in any such calculations -- humanity is NOT predictable beyond extremely generalized boundaries -- and a wise CEO remains loose and flexible, able to respond to any Alpha condition which might suddenly appear without any recognized warnings.

So, too, should economists.

And flexibility -- being FREE OF RESTRICTIONS that block and stultify response to sudden and unanticipated developments in the cause-effect scenarios written by theorists -- that is the real advantage of maximum individual and personal economic activities -- free enterprise, individual business ownership with MINIMUM outside imposed restrictions -- those immediately involved in the immediate REAL TIME development have maximum freedom to innovate and compensate/capitalize on those developments.

 

[antagon]

i'd agree that there are several labor markets. i was trying to get at that in my point 3. your broader point is taken that some labor markets are adapted to certain demands and that others are not. where free market philosophy prescribes that economies will flourish from allowing market functions such as this determine the bases of economies, i argue that country's policies should be geared to the interests of their constituents. external to free market philosophy is the fact that labor markets are not as flexible as consumption and production markets, particularly markets for 'entry-level', low efficiency, labor intensive production in which china debuted a couple decades ago. where this translates to policy, is the onus of governments to temper the flexibility of trade to that less-flexible nature of the labor market.

additionally, because i am of the opinion that the consumption basis or production basis of national economies are determined by policy, i argue that these policies must be directed at an economic balance which can exploit the factors - particularly human factors - which exist within the borders of the country, foremost. where a country fails to do so, the economy is that much less efficient, since importing goods which can be produced within the capacity of the labor market makes no sense either. developed economies supplement the consumption capability of a labor market operating under the foregone conclusion that they should relinquish production to these 'more fit' economies. the result of that is a welfare state sucking at a financial services (for example) sector which marginally utilizes the labor market... my criticism of the UK... again. where's the efficiency there, at a macroeconomic level?

I don't necessarily disagree with your first paragraph. This is why adjustment periods are often implemented in new free trade agreements so the internal markets can adjust. I'm not necessarily against support by national governments for the displaced. Taxes on those who have benefited the most to fund retraining is such an example. However, labour markets are highly adjustable over time. For example, a quarter of all job categories at the BLS did not even exist 40 years ago.

As to your second paragraph, economies must continue to adapt and offer what is demanded. That doesn't mean relinquishing production to anyone. What it means is that a high-cost, low-productivity economy cannot maintain its relative standard of living indefinitely, and the productive capacity has to adapt to new markets. I don't know of any society that has continued to grow and prosper while its industries have been in terminal decline. It is true that trade does not benefit every single person on the planet. On the other hand, erecting barriers and hiding behind those walls doesn't forestall the inevitable either.

over time, of course labor markets are adaptable. some of that is entirely natural and some of it arises through policies and the degree of adjustment itself. some more ideological voices fail to even recognize the fate of an entrenched labor force when a flood of drastic changes take effect more quickly than their capacity for retraining. often times adjustment in a labor force is a matter of renewal -- out with the old by way of retirement.

the decline of industry to decreasing demand is understandable -- sometimes the job market can shift organically at the pace of waning demand. this is an entirely different issue from what i called 'relinquishing' whole sectors of the economy to ostensibly better suited economies. the zeitgeist promoting such a foregone conclusion that american industry ought capitulate to chinese manufacture capacity, and somehow for our own benefit, is rife among supporters of free market economics. what is being proposed on either side of the argument is a policy mix featuring or excluding many more components than merely crude barriers and archaic protections. its not variances in cost of living and productivity that puts shipyards in norway ahead of those in the US, it is policy. i'd accept that the crude barriers to which you refer are specifically the sort of policies which have gone wrong with our shipyards. can you see how subsidy and industrial support policy in norway is behind the resilience of such a heavy industrial sector as ship building there?

 

[Toro]

You just aren't smart enough to follow the ball. Whiff

Whiff
Whiff

I feel like i am pitching to the disabled

That would be a several steps for you.

You clearly lack a basic understanding of economics and economic history. You have resorted to rants, blusters, and ad hominem attacks. You think nationality invalidates an argument. Your arguments aren't serious and have been discredited. And given your argument in other thread

And the holocaust didn't target the Jews either.

it appears you have limited cognitive abilities and are a crackpot.

 

[Toro]

over time, of course labor markets are adaptable. some of that is entirely natural and some of it arises through policies and the degree of adjustment itself. some more ideological voices fail to even recognize the fate of an entrenched labor force when a flood of drastic changes take effect more quickly than their capacity for retraining. often times adjustment in a labor force is a matter of renewal -- out with the old by way of retirement.

the decline of industry to decreasing demand is understandable -- sometimes the job market can shift organically at the pace of waning demand. this is an entirely different issue from what i called 'relinquishing' whole sectors of the economy to ostensibly better suited economies. the zeitgeist promoting such a foregone conclusion that american industry ought capitulate to chinese manufacture capacity, and somehow for our own benefit, is rife among supporters of free market economics. what is being proposed on either side of the argument is a policy mix featuring or excluding many more components than merely crude barriers and archaic protections. its not variances in cost of living and productivity that puts shipyards in norway ahead of those in the US, it is policy. i'd accept that the crude barriers to which you refer are specifically the sort of policies which have gone wrong with our shipyards. can you see how subsidy and industrial support policy in norway is behind the resilience of such a heavy industrial sector as ship building there?

I'm not aware of the subsidies the Norwegian shipbuilding industry receives.

Many industries receive some sort of support in terms of tax incentives. I am not necessarily against this. The problem is that such policies are often infused with politics that can cause tremendous economic damage over the long run. If you've studied Japan, for example, you will find countless Bridges to Nowhere because the construction industry is enormously favoured in Japanese politics. Many, if not most of these projects over the past decade or so are uneconomic and have contributed to the malaise as well as to the running up of the national debt. Japan is an absolute disaster waiting to happen, which isn't of course solely because of these policies, but they've contributed to it. Also, the subsidies to agriculture around the world are almost criminal. They have effectuated a massive transfer of wealth to the politically powerful few (the farmers) from the many (everyone else) as well as depriving some of the poorest nations in the world from being able to compete where they have a true competitive advantage. So sometimes subsidies work but often times they do not.

 

[antagon]

Trouble is, no man can know the future. Trends, patterns, predictions -- potentialities -- are all future events -- and the future is damned unpredictable.

Just one question as illustration: what happens to all the trends, patterns, predictions -- potentialitis -- if the Yellowstone caldera blows and takes out the entire West Coast with it, creating a new Mediterranean Sea type of structure that stretches from the Great Lakes to the Pacific?

ALL predictions wipe out -- and potential wealth is reshaped -- not destroyed -- reshaped into new patterns not included in current prognostications.

Including labor. Because labor is not solid wealth -- it is potential wealth -- what a person can produce in the next hour is not subject to absolute control and therefore subject to absolute prediction based on patterns. It is hypothetical wealth predicted upon past patterns used to model future EXPECTATIONS -- but if Yellowstone erupts beneath the factory floor within that hour, the pattern is demolished and the expectation proves false. Therefore, production EXPECTATIONS based on those OLD and now obsolete patterns wipes out.

Debt is based on historical patterns -- in the expectation that those patterns will continue at the same rate in the same way into the future -- and does NOT include adjustments for a wide variation of future potential disruptions of the patterns economics use as the basis for their assumptions.

While we can monitor current developments and watch for shifts in existing patterns, and we can hypothesize about future potential developments that would force MAYBE changes in the existing patterns -- creating multiple guesses shaped as IF X, then Y predictions to account for every potential X we can think of, we cannot KNOW without doubt that the pattern will hold in tomorrow's economic conditions -- nor can we KNOW that IF X, then Y will DEFINITELY occur. We THINK -- guess based on observable and logical probabilities -- that IF X, then Y will occur -- however, the potential always remains that some factor we did NOT anticipate will create NOT an X, then Y result but something we never anticipated at all, an X, then Alpha not included in our PREDICTIONS at all.

Labor is not and never will be a constant and predictable factor in any such calculations -- humanity is NOT predictable beyond extremely generalized boundaries -- and a wise CEO remains loose and flexible, able to respond to any Alpha condition which might suddenly appear without any recognized warnings.

So, too, should economists.

And flexibility -- being FREE OF RESTRICTIONS that block and stultify response to sudden and unanticipated developments in the cause-effect scenarios written by theorists -- that is the real advantage of maximum individual and personal economic activities -- free enterprise, individual business ownership with MINIMUM outside imposed restrictions -- those immediately involved in the immediate REAL TIME development have maximum freedom to innovate and compensate/capitalize on those developments.

i see businesses as operating within and sometimes between economies. i see governments as operating economies. economies are fluid and take shape to a given set of conditions, and that is where the restrictions or policy of a government with respect to the economy comes into play -- they determine the economy's general form. flexibility is not freedom from restriction. it is the ability to conform and absorb variation without loss of integrity.

there are issues which businesses can adapt to -- microeconomics -- and there are issues which states can adapt to -- macroeconomics. despite both covering the same genre, i feel that they are quite different perspectives, often times taking the opposite reaction to the same conditions. some might argue that these two perspectives should line up, but i'll take those arguments severally on their specifics. one thing is for certain: economies like the US did not come about from the collective happenstance of the business community alone.

do you really see economic policymaking as a wild-guessing game? should this game really consider the chance that the west coast might explode?

 

[The Rabbi]

Protectionism is the idea that Bill Gates needs to take time off from Microsoft and learn to make his own suits.

not true. Protectionism is repealing the "American Jobs Creation Act" which created tax breaks to move US factories overseas. A better idea is targeted tax breaks per new job created and person hired.

Im not well verses in the act and what it does.
Targeted tax breaks end up benefitting fat cat contributors at the expense of the little guy.
How about we do away with ALL tariffs and protectionist measures?

 

[rhet 2]

Trouble is, no man can know the future. Trends, patterns, predictions -- potentialities -- are all future events -- and the future is damned unpredictable.

Just one question as illustration: what happens to all the trends, patterns, predictions -- potentialitis -- if the Yellowstone caldera blows and takes out the entire West Coast with it, creating a new Mediterranean Sea type of structure that stretches from the Great Lakes to the Pacific?

ALL predictions wipe out -- and potential wealth is reshaped -- not destroyed -- reshaped into new patterns not included in current prognostications.

Including labor. Because labor is not solid wealth -- it is potential wealth -- what a person can produce in the next hour is not subject to absolute control and therefore subject to absolute prediction based on patterns. It is hypothetical wealth predicted upon past patterns used to model future EXPECTATIONS -- but if Yellowstone erupts beneath the factory floor within that hour, the pattern is demolished and the expectation proves false. Therefore, production EXPECTATIONS based on those OLD and now obsolete patterns wipes out.

Debt is based on historical patterns -- in the expectation that those patterns will continue at the same rate in the same way into the future -- and does NOT include adjustments for a wide variation of future potential disruptions of the patterns economics use as the basis for their assumptions.

While we can monitor current developments and watch for shifts in existing patterns, and we can hypothesize about future potential developments that would force MAYBE changes in the existing patterns -- creating multiple guesses shaped as IF X, then Y predictions to account for every potential X we can think of, we cannot KNOW without doubt that the pattern will hold in tomorrow's economic conditions -- nor can we KNOW that IF X, then Y will DEFINITELY occur. We THINK -- guess based on observable and logical probabilities -- that IF X, then Y will occur -- however, the potential always remains that some factor we did NOT anticipate will create NOT an X, then Y result but something we never anticipated at all, an X, then Alpha not included in our PREDICTIONS at all.

Labor is not and never will be a constant and predictable factor in any such calculations -- humanity is NOT predictable beyond extremely generalized boundaries -- and a wise CEO remains loose and flexible, able to respond to any Alpha condition which might suddenly appear without any recognized warnings.

So, too, should economists.

And flexibility -- being FREE OF RESTRICTIONS that block and stultify response to sudden and unanticipated developments in the cause-effect scenarios written by theorists -- that is the real advantage of maximum individual and personal economic activities -- free enterprise, individual business ownership with MINIMUM outside imposed restrictions -- those immediately involved in the immediate REAL TIME development have maximum freedom to innovate and compensate/capitalize on those developments.

i see businesses as operating within and sometimes between economies. i see governments as operating economies. economies are fluid and take shape to a given set of conditions, and that is where the restrictions or policy of a government with respect to the economy comes into play -- they determine the economy's general form. flexibility is not freedom from restriction. it is the ability to conform and absorb variation without loss of integrity.

there are issues which businesses can adapt to -- microeconomics -- and there are issues which states can adapt to -- macroeconomics. despite both covering the same genre, i feel that they are quite different perspectives, often times taking the opposite reaction to the same conditions. some might argue that these two perspectives should line up, but i'll take those arguments severally on their specifics. one thing is for certain: economies like the US did not come about from the collective happenstance of the business community alone.

do you really see economic policymaking as a wild-guessing game? should this game really consider the chance that the west coast might explode?

a guessing game? yes

a "wild guessing game"? no

Given the way Yellowstone is acting in the last few months, I'd at least be creating a possible plan to deal with it if it does blow. Sort of like the DoD having muliple POSSIBLE scenarios for which they have pre-set response plans -- and actually train for those most likely, given current developments.

BALANCE is always wise. And so is being prepared -- not for every wild off the chart freaky extreme crud -- just for those which MIGHT realistically happen.

Adaptability is critical, both to the CEO and to governments.

NO reality ever fits the theories -- so leave space in the theories to adapt to stuff that DOES happen tomorrow.

For a real world example, what happened to Chi-Com economic conditions when bird flu hit their poultry production? What would happen if the dam across the Yangtze were to collapse? Massive food shortages for one thing -- and that is a direct threat to the labor resources, yes? so, economists need to anticipate the threat and know, ahead of time, where replacement food and/or labor can be found, where the funding for emergency response will come from (which includes anticipating the cost of that response), AND anticipate the funding sources and costs of replacing that dam. It IS a possiblility -- if China were to aggress against SK, I'd blow that dam in the first, priority counter-strike, to deliberately cause maximum hurt to Chi-Com infrastructure, especially their labor and food supplies. Ditto the dam across the Nile -- Egypt should be aware of the potential economic catastrophe should the IDF take it out.

What happened to US economic conditions when 9/11 hit us -- not within the patterns and theories of economists -- yet, given the earlier attack on WTC and the New Year's Eve terrorist interdicted on his way to LA airport to blow shit out of it -- perhaps that potential SHOULD HAVE been factored into possible economic scenarios, with effective response plans already in place to counter the damage effects.

Not panic -- and not WILD guessing -- realistic potentialities in order to pre-identify potential effects, both profitable and major loss potentials, and design corrective responses we HOPE will actually control or reverse negative impacts.

BTW:

quoting your own post: "there are issues which businesses can adapt to -- microeconomics -- and there are issues which states can adapt to -- macroeconomics. despite both covering the same genre, i feel that they are quite different perspectives, often times taking the opposite reaction to the same conditions. some might argue that these two perspectives should line up, but i'll take those arguments severally on their specifics. one thing is for certain: economies like the US did not come about from the collective happenstance of the business community alone."

I think I comprehend what you're saying and concur fully.

 

[antagon]

The exception occurs whenever you use the zero sum argument. It is a fallacious argument.

Enjoy the perception of a continuum all you want. Just don't use it as a rationale to assume future wealth not yet realized.

IOW don't con yourself into thinking it is real, if it isn't.

you've over-invested your understanding of zero-sum in the idea of time. a transaction within a slice of time, as you would see it, imperils your strict competition paradigm. in trade, nothing exchanges hands in a zero sum environment. instead when one party pays for the offering of another, that party gives up what it perceives as being less value in exchange for more, and to a degree beyond the cost of the transaction. one party values cash, for example, the other a sack of .

this notion that human behavior or the collection of this behavior in an economy is not precisely predictable is granted. the notion that it isn't rational to predict economic reactions broadly is silly to me. you might be in the wrong debate on that basis. this is what policy is all about, cannon.

 

[loosecannon]

You just aren't smart enough to follow the ball. Whiff

Whiff
Whiff

I feel like i am pitching to the disabled

That would be a several steps for you.

You clearly lack a basic understanding of economics and economic history. You have resorted to rants, blusters, and ad hominem attacks. You think nationality invalidates an argument. Your arguments aren't serious and have been discredited. And given your argument in other thread

And the holocaust didn't target the Jews either.

it appears you have limited cognitive abilities and are a crackpot.

Oh cry me a river, dolt.

YOU lack basic understanding. And i know as much about econ as you do.

Just a few pages back you were arguing that "free markets", that didn't exist, are more responsible for the economic growth since the mercantile era than the industrial revolution, new technology, economies of scale due to 6 times as many humans, the benefits of slave labor and then cheap fossil fuels. not to mention the fact that there are 6 times as many geniuses alive today than there were 200 years ago.

When a person who claims to understand the economy makes an argument as pathetic and idiotic as that all one can do is point at him and laugh!

You did all of that while fully failing to even understand what you were arguing about.

The bottom line is you don't have a clue. And posting links isn't gonna salvage you from that predicament. You won't understand them.

 

[Big Fitz]

its been a while since i've been in manila, but i'll be damned if the minimum wage is $9/hr. i would bet it is closer to $9 per day.

What's the purchasing power of that 9 bucks a day? That's where you get into cultural differences of necessities. If you can survive on a buck fifty a day.... 9 bucks a day is great! relative value of currency inside the culture means more than the actual amount.

I talked with Indian engineers here who are on a tech visa. They stay here, work 5-10 years, send all their money home and live like paupers. Why? Because when they retire with $50-500k they live like Rajahs for the rest of their lives in India.

Relative value inside a culture.

 

[loosecannon]

The exception occurs whenever you use the zero sum argument. It is a fallacious argument.

Enjoy the perception of a continuum all you want. Just don't use it as a rationale to assume future wealth not yet realized.

IOW don't con yourself into thinking it is real, if it isn't.

you've over-invested your understanding of zero-sum in the idea of time. a transaction within a slice of time, as you would see it, imperils your strict competition paradigm. in trade, nothing exchanges hands in a zero sum environment. instead when one party pays for the offering of another, that party gives up what it perceives as being less value in exchange for more, and to a degree beyond the cost of the transaction. one party values cash, for example, the other a sack of .

this notion that human behavior or the collection of this behavior in an economy is not precisely predictable is granted. the notion that it isn't rational to predict economic reactions broadly is silly to me. you might be in the wrong debate on that basis. this is what policy is all about, cannon.

In every single example in which I have ever seen anybody use the zero sum argument to describe the economy they did it for one reason and one reason only:

To minimize the actual real world conditions present in the moment based on a hypothetical promise of increased future wealth.

That is a fallacious argument, ever and always.

Like i said earlier, and you apparently didn't grok it, I am not trying to dissuade anybody from linear thinking.

Just from using linear thinking to assume projections that have not yet been realized, and may never be.

IOW taking them seriously.

 

[loosecannon]

And the holocaust didn't target the Jews either.

it appears you have limited cognitive abilities and are a crackpot.

The holocaust didn't target the jews. That is a fact.

It targeted several groups only one of which were Jews.

according to the US WWII museum there were 6 million Poles killd in the holocaust, 6 million Jews, 2 million Roma Gypsies (the same folks being deported from France today) and 4 million assorted others.

But Jews spent the last 60 years engaged in an active campaign to redefine the holocaust to refer ONLY to the horrors inflicted on the Jews.

Fuck everybody else!

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος [holókaustos]: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as The Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, Romanized HaShoah, "calamity"; Yiddish: חורבן, Romanized Churben or Hurban[3], from the Hebrew for "destruction") was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored extermination by Nazi Germany.[4] The genocide of these six million people was a genocide of two-thirds of the population of nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust.[5]

Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' systematic murder of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, people with disabilities, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish, and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents.[6] By this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims would be between 11 million and 17 million people.[7]

The Holocaust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since you obviously don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about why don't you spare yourself the humiliation and stfu?

 

[Toro]

Oh cry me a river, dolt.

YOU lack basic understanding. And i know as much about econ as you do.

Just a few pages back you were arguing that "free markets", that didn't exist, are more responsible for the economic growth since the mercantile era than the industrial revolution, new technology, economies of scale due to 6 times as many humans, the benefits of slave labor and then cheap fossil fuels. not to mention the fact that there are 6 times as many geniuses alive today than there were 200 years ago.

When a person who claims to understand the economy makes an argument as pathetic and idiotic as that all one can do is point at him and laugh!

You did all of that while fully failing to even understand what you were arguing about.

The bottom line is you don't have a clue. And posting links isn't gonna salvage you from that predicament. You won't understand them.

Nobody understands the economy completely. However, I understand the economy better than you. Perhaps your sources on economics are the same ones that conclude that the Holocaust didn't target Jews.

Promoting mercantilism. Venerating nationalism. Denigrating Jews. I wonder where THAT is heading.

 

[loosecannon]

Trouble is, no man can know the future. Trends, patterns, predictions -- potentialities -- are all future events -- and the future is damned unpredictable.




Debt is based on historical patterns -- in the expectation that those patterns will continue at the same rate in the same way into the future -- and does NOT include adjustments for a wide variation of future potential disruptions of the patterns economics use as the basis for their assumptions.

I don't now whether or not you intentionally contraposed those two points but imo that was the most interesting item raised in the entire tread.


Thanks, something to think about.

 

[Big Fitz]

The exception occurs whenever you use the zero sum argument. It is a fallacious argument.

Enjoy the perception of a continuum all you want. Just don't use it as a rationale to assume future wealth not yet realized.

IOW don't con yourself into thinking it is real, if it isn't.

you've over-invested your understanding of zero-sum in the idea of time. a transaction within a slice of time, as you would see it, imperils your strict competition paradigm. in trade, nothing exchanges hands in a zero sum environment. instead when one party pays for the offering of another, that party gives up what it perceives as being less value in exchange for more, and to a degree beyond the cost of the transaction. one party values cash, for example, the other a sack of .

this notion that human behavior or the collection of this behavior in an economy is not precisely predictable is granted. the notion that it isn't rational to predict economic reactions broadly is silly to me. you might be in the wrong debate on that basis. this is what policy is all about, cannon.

In every single example in which I have ever seen anybody use the zero sum argument to describe the economy they did it for one reason and one reason only:

To minimize the actual real world conditions present in the moment based on a hypothetical promise of increased future wealth.

That is a fallacious argument, ever and always.

Like i said earlier, and you apparently didn't grok it, I am not trying to dissuade anybody from linear thinking.

Just from using linear thinking to assume projections that have not yet been realized, and may never be.

IOW taking them seriously.

As I keep reminding some people in other threads... Linear projections NEVER turn out well. That's chaos theory for you. Predicted changes on predicted changes always render a level of uncertainty that can never be truly predicted. That's why we see hurricane path 'cones'. Worst case scenario one way or another. But it always assumes a certain base set of factors on the current and past behavior, that probably will not hold.