Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by kazenatsu, Feb 22, 2018.
That was my point.
Comparative advantage hasn't benefitted them and has even harmed their economy.
You didn't have a point. Comparative advantage, by definition, destroys zero sum games. Trade has not reflected comparative advantage. It has reflected corporate corruption engineered by our multinationals
I would disagree with you, that is an oversimplified theory.
Presuming from many of your other posts, you agree that inequality can lead to less economic activity. Well, what effect do you think trade can have on inequality (I mean within a country) ?
Print more money.
There are less than 50% of the number of companies on our stock market today, than there were before the Bushwhackers collapse of our economy in 2007-8.
Comparative advantage is indeed simple. It's only a reference to opportunity costs. There are indeed complexities, notably learning eonomies. However, it is obvious that co.parative advantage destroys any notion of a zero sum game (making your comments vacuous)
But the question is opportunity costs for who? The one seeking to engage in the cross-national trade isn't necessarily the one who will be affected by it.
Your simple-minded comparative advantage paradigm assumes two parties. But to try to apply that, in entirety, to two big economies could involve the fallacy of composition. You're not really looking at the larger macro aspect of it.
You've already tried this red herring. Comparative advantage destroys the zero sum game needed by the fascists. Redistribution of gains is easily ensured through liberal or social democracy.
Prattle, nothing more. What does Heckscher Ohlin do? Combine factor proportions within a general equilibrium context. Your position is as follows: "Comparative advantage isn't convenient so I'm going to pretend that it doesn't hold". That's pishpoor. You haven't even tried to exaggerate the Leontief Paradox
Except those "fascists" believe taxation has a disincentive effect on economic productivity, i.e. there's an inherent cost built into your version of comparative advantage; it's not a zero sum game.
Wrong again. Look up the theory of the second best and its impact on tax analysis.
Liberals, or in this case, globalists were looking for a lever to force corporations to move into the undeveloped world, to induce development. It was the strategy all along. And because corporations are unlikely to also be patriotic, it has worked.
You're not making sense. The ultimate globalists are right wing, not liberal. Now its true that liberal economists supported free trade, but they also supported regulations to stop extreme inequalities from that trade.
More likely, you're simply myopic. I vote for my version. I fear you aren't informed enough to have the conversation.
Yet you vehemently support globalism.
Nope. I support free trade from the rich north, coupled with a trade organisation focused on delivering dynamic comparative advantage for the poor south
Separate names with a comma.