- Joined
- Apr 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 229
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
All agree with the obvious. So?
If so they can be improved on with more inventions and more free trade. Make sense?
the point is that medicine nevertheless made improvements in this department and others.
In a linear gaussian world, this makes sense. Unfortunately, our reality is plagued with asymmetries, multimodality, fat tails, and nonlinear responses.
drastic winner-takes-all circumstances. It might not seem like much of an issue, assuming you have little concern over inequalities per se as I suspect you do not, but it has aggregate consequences.
so???????? did someone disagree?????????
Got it so given that reality we need to consider a little communism not a stricter focus on freedom and capitalism????
you mean like in China where 800 million were instantly transported to capitalism from starvation to the middle class and 40% of the entire planet's poverty was eliminated??
I did?? Show us or admit to an act of legerdemain!. You moved from "free markets benefit our societies" to "no intervention can possibly improve upon it."
.
Raising the specter of communism is at best hyperbolic, if not a malign intent to substitute fear to reason.
In a very simple environment, more of what produced improvements will always produce further improvements. In the real world, that can lead you to shoot yourself in the foot..
markets helped pull millions of people out of dirt around the world.
TheEconomist, browsing through some old discussions, this of your comments caught my attention. A nation’s net spending is its entire net spending which includes its consumers, enterprises, and governments’ net expenditures. For whatever are individual is a nations’ annual net expenditures, trade surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their annual GDPs more than otherwise; (i.e. their global balances of trade modified their gross domestic products).... My comment also underscores a problem with this thread: you're all asking the wrong question. From a practical standpoint, the question is how to modulate trade policy. You don't have a hand on any component of GDP, except perhaps government spending (usually, with a delay).
Kushinator, a nation’s net spending is its entire net spending which includes its consumers, enterprises, and governments’ net expenditures. For whatever are individual is a nations’ annual net expenditures, trade surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their annual GDPs more than otherwise; (i.e. their global balances of trade affected their gross domestic products). Trade deficit nations spent more for products than the value of all goods and services that they produced.How many times must I repeat myself? Imports count as consumption, and are subtracted to reflect domestic production. Imports do not reduce GDP.
Kushinator, a nation’s net spending is its entire net spending which includes its consumers, enterprises, and governments’ net expenditures. For whatever are individual is a nations’ annual net expenditures, trade surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations decreased their annual GDPs more than otherwise; (i.e. their global balances of trade affected their gross domestic products). Trade deficit nations spent more for products than the value of all goods and services that they produced.
Refer to Import certificates - Wikipedia , Respectfully, Supposn
[QUOTE="Kushinator, your responses to my posts offer no contrary facts or logical arguments. Respectfully, SupposnYou're repeating the same refuted nonsense.
your responses to my posts offer no contrary facts or logical arguments. Respectfully, Supposn
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?