Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

A free trader sparking off trade wars? Wow, that'll work...

 

what would you suggest he do???

 

I accept your concession. And you brought up god, so yes it’s on topic and directly related to your post.

 

Automatic stabilization must stabilize something. Why not any given local economy.

 

NAFTA has shown the US, Canada and Mexico that they can compete and it is beneficial to all three countries. (Ditto the European Union which is a total market-economy of more than twice the consumers of the US!)

An example: The car-parts made in Mexico are allowing American car manufacturers to compete with foreign brands (made for the most part in the far-east). Without those car-parts at a cheaper cost the retail price of American cars would be so high that Americans would flock to the less-costly foreign made models. (Which have already a healthy percentage of the US automobile market!)

Is that what you would prefer to happen?

Well, that's what Donald Dork intends for America with his "Made ONLY In America" neanderthal trade-policy. What the guy knows about foreign-trade would fit a thimble ...

 

obviously what intelligent people want to happen is see Trump negotiate fair trade deals wherein the United States can sell to other countries as easily as other countries can sell in America. For example to set up a business in China now you have to give 51% ownership to a Chinese firm and give them control of your intellectual property. 1+1=2 Do Chinese firms face that obstacle when they sell their junk in the United States????

 

It merely refers to dampening down the business cycle. You need to get your Macro 101 right if you're ever going to stop making outlandish claims.

 

I am not making the claim; that claim is being made by "professionals". A multiplier of 2. That is unemployed labor that has fewer costs than fully employed labor.

Let's claim a multiplier of 3, for "more fully employed" labor; for a combined total of 5.

 

Let's just concentrate on educating our young in order to obtain better jobs.

Less than half get a post-secondary degree and are thus committed to a life just above or below the Poverty Threshold:

Here's the map of the US with poverty-threshold percentages noted for each state: https://www.kff.org/other/state-ind...t&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

Now you explain to me why all those "darkest states" with the highest percentages below the Poverty Threshold traditionally vote Replicant ...

 

You and making claims and they are ludicrous ones at that. To suggest slightly dampening down business cycle effects has any bearing on achieving full employment with zero poverty would be obvious drivel...

 

more efficient distribution of income can enable potential Labor, to acquire and possess, new and more marketable skills during non-prime commute hours.

 

Full employment for labor is still a form of full employment for that market sector; Capitalists risk their Capital for profit.

 

They tend to be slow to change hence they still have values from when America was great!!
Further, they are upset, even suicidal, that liberal unions taxes and regulation drove their jobs to China.

 

You say nothing here!

 

Solving simple poverty means full employment of capital resources in any given market.

We lower costs by gaining market share for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, from means tested welfare.

Unemployment compensation is always more cost effective than any form of means testing for social services.

A positive multiplier of 2.

 

Wrong. There is no reason to assume that any definition of full employment will achieve zero poverty.

Meaningless.

Nonsense! Unemployment compensation, as you've already been told, is merely an automatic stabilizer. It reduces the severity of the business cycle which, by definition, is referring to how full employment is not maintained.

You can refer to unemployment benefit's role in maintaining the physical efficiency of the unemployed. Naff all to do with solving poverty mind you...

 

It could be as close a capitally possible. Staying poor on an at-will basis really should be an Individual problem not the current, Institutional problem it is.

Persons would find it easier and more convenient to apply for unemployment compensation, than to apply for any forms of means tested welfare.

It would improve the efficiency of our economy, as a practical result and would enable the public sector to, "concentrate wealth", to solve our current public health dilemmas, in a more efficient manner as well; through that form of self-selection.

Anyone merely unemployed, only needs an income to maintain Labor readiness.

 

Still no content! Full employment does not deliver zero poverty. Unemployment benefit does not deliver zero poverty.

 

especially when many poor people are too old or too infirm to work, and when most poverty is caused by liberalism.
If liberals destroy someone's family, religion, school, and encourages them to get pregnant at 16 liberals are causing a lot poverty.

 

Reality isn't your chum! Liberal Democratic economies have lower poverty than US's Anglo Saxon capitalism

 

We have no poverty here really thanks to many liberal programs

 

Perhaps in the bubble you've created for yourself. Back to reality, we know that the US has high poverty and typically it's only the Limeys that compete

 

It would be negligible, for statistical purposes. Only the Religious may prefer poverty on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

 

Companies/countries, you are confusing the two. They are one in the same.

The reasons for competition are largely found in cost-of-production and dollar-exchange rates. There are some markets in which the US can no longer compete because the cost-of-production is too high. So companies are introducing robotic-manufacturing everywhere they can.

There is also a lower end of market-goods where the US could not compete with China from the get-go in the 1990s. We are now 3 decades later and the damage has been done.

How many times must I repeat the same factual evidence on this forum? Namely, the part of US GDP attributed to Manufacturing is barely 12%.

Wakey, wakey!!!

My Point: The American workers must be educated to a higher-level if they want to find jobs above the payscale of that of Macdonald's ...

 

MARKET OLIGOPOLIES

Capitalists do not risk their capital! Stop with the infantile bullshat!

They risk the capital of banks where they've taken out a loan. And when they fail or make gross marketing errors, they lose everything and fail or a TopManagement is shown the door and there occurs major restructuring of market-strategies.

Which means what? This: There has been an historic rush in the US to "consolidate markets". Whazzat?

It simply means that once upon a time there were multiple contenders in a market that assured comparative competition on pricing. With market consolidation - which consisted of larger companies buying out their competition - the US has created Market Oligopolies. An oligopoly is like a monopoly - but instead of just One Company dominating a market, there are Two, Three or Four.

And they all settle into a de-facto agreement that requires no overt collusion in pricing. Which would be illegal. The lead-company sets the key-price, and the other two or three simply follow with lower pricing BUT at a level that is still higher than if there was more competition.

That has happened throughout major parts of America's industry/commerce ...