OK but not the ones I made bold.
I've meant the wood stuff used to make plywood. However, they ship even recycled newspapers to China. But I think paper is much more dense.
Brazil has a unique product Chinese have not learnt how to make yet. Thus, shipping costs, etc. are secondary considerations. Chinese could pay for a redesigning a ship to transport those generators.
A cargo ship consumes around 80 -100 tonnes of oil products per day to propel itself through waters. If that is acceptable cost to run "global" economy, Something is really wrong with priorities and sanity of the involved.
You are wrong, China can't manufacture even 1/10th of the military gear USA can, Chinese have got no clue how to do it and they are desperate to learn.
There are countries (6 of them) with higher wages than American why wouldn't Brazil compete them out of existence first
. Whom Brazil will outcompete in the trade with the USA, Americans themselves? What the point of such a trade? From a common sense point of view, you trade with a country X, if you want something that a country X has to offer. If there is nothing you are interested in, you don't bother to trade. Locals without access to the superior and cheap Brazilian goods, manufacture their own erzatzes. So, if Americans are expensive and produce nothing of value, why would Brazil bother to trade with USA at all? Isn't that kind of stupid?This is a famous problem Adam Smith solved - it was a problem because we can observe exactly such trade happening, and both sides better off, despite its not making sense at first glance.dixon said:
I think Smith couldn't imagine that 0.1% difference in returns on investments between plants A and B will result in moving Plant A across the globe, destructions of livelyhood of thousands while extracted (by investors)0.1% would be used to run all kinds of financial casinos. He couldn't imagine that this comparative advantage thing will be extended to absurdity. He couldn't imagine transEuropian corporations having more power over "comparative advantage" than all the natural factors combined. Yeah, it's good to explain why exchange of French wine for Scott's wool is a good idea (if peasants removed from the land by sheep are not concerned). However, don't tell me that burning tens of millions of tonnes of supposedly scarce resource to deliver socks ten thousands miles away making anyone better off except investor class. I do accept an idea that growing banana in Michigan is stupid and banana supply should be left to the winners of banana "comparative" advantage. However, to give away all economy of the state on the mercy of "comparative advantage" (in modern world, it usually means - cheaper labor) that's to become a hostage of the external forces, you have no control over. In other words, to become a slave of an abstraction (and its creators) hoping to win a good slave reward.
Define efficiency? The only efficiency humans should be concerned is maximum output for a unit of energy (not labor, not money - ENERGY. That what moves and shapes nature). Since labor costs are defining in deciding what goods have a comparative advantage, what don't we maximize real world economy using abstract human concepts and social indoctrinations, at the same time we prefer not to wear dollar bills and don't stuff them in a fuel tank.
Sure it loses, first, it become a hostage of the external money grabbing forces, having 10% cheaper socks so you could save to buy some useless crap isn't worth it. Country becomes a hostage of disasters&crisis. If the sock flow will be interrupted, a sock plant will not materialize out of nowhere. Lastly, inhabitant of the state have limited career choices, their possible talants are underutilized, country loses expertise (i.e. people able to understand intricacies of sock production without extended training may extinct).
{1}If news paper can be economically shipped, surely finished plywood can be as it must be nearly an order of magnitude more valuable (by volume or by weight - take your choice) - I.e. you are supporting my point!{1}I've meant the wood stuff used to make plywood. However, they ship even recycled newspapers to China. But I think paper is much more dense.
{2}Brazil has a unique product Chinese have not learnt how to make yet. Thus, shipping costs, etc. are secondary considerations. Chinese could pay for a redesigning a ship to transport those generators.
{3}Yes, it's easy. However, because it's so called "national security" issue, Russian plants are safe from being moved to China. American military contractors can be sure that assembly plants (at least) and plants manufacturing key, classified components are in the safe zone. Even though, technically, there is no problem in moving Norfolk Navy yards to Indonesia and building ships there, it's not going to happen no matter the savings.
{4}A cargo ship consumes around 80 -100 tonnes of oil products per day to propel itself through waters. If that is acceptable cost to run "global" economy, Something is really wrong with priorities and sanity of the involved.
{5}You are wrong, China can't manufacture even 1/10th of the military gear USA can, Chinese have got no clue how to do it and they are desperate to learn.
{6}There are countries (6 of them) with higher wages than American why wouldn't Brazil compete them out of existence first
And the only thing I take from your insistence on hiding SS inside the federal budget is that you are comfortable with the idea that borrowing from SS is a legitimate way to "balance the budget".quadro said:
No need to wait until later - I will tell you now:
and many will :bawl: but what else is possible (only default :shrug ?
Probably true. (Your facts are usually correct, so I will accept your word on this.) BUT if true, it is only because you have "sliced and diced" the total US debt to find a part which is not as bad as it was.
Well, that's what these guys have been doing so far. Should they stop?quadro said:
So you are going to pay back SS with tax revenues, as promised - interesting. That means, since the economic growth has been confined to the upper 20% of the economy, taxing the rich to pay SS to the poor - the reverse of the current setup. That's good - it'll be kind of expensive, but it's more my way of doing things. And the payoff to SS is going to be a large part of the budget, along with the payoff to the Chinese, etc.quadro said:
If by that you mean including SS in the budget, we have no such agreement. That's your own little fantasy. In my world, all budgetary expenditures using SS money have to formally borrow from SS to do that, and pay interest, just like they do to the Chinese.quadro said:
It's a 12% difference even with your completely unrealistic assumptions. With realism, ie honesty, the military share of the US budget goes well over 50%.quadro said:
Not sure that Treasury is paying interest on the money it borrows from SS, but at least the Treasury's "IOU papers" do exist. The SS administration keeps them in a filing cabinet in West Virginia.
This is a very important point, one I have often made. This is a strong driver of inflation, which the FED fights with higher interest rates, which then reduce further the economic activity of the private sector.
There's no way they're going to pay the full rate on Social Security. They're going to cut benefits and raise retirement age to the point no one qualifies for benefits. That's the only way a ponzi scheme like social security can work. After all, 65 was first set as retirement age by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.
SS is a welfare system, a transfer payment - not an investment program. It's not a Ponzi scheme, then, jsut a bad welfare setup.madanth said:
Away from rich individuals, unto their corporations - what a fine way to ensure that corporations were not penalized whatsoever for redoubling and retripling their executive payouts, or their support of their stock prices.quadro said: