Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

meandering absurd rant of course. Globalization is freedom and capitalism among international players which intelligent support for same reason they support freedom and capitalism among domestic players.

 

I'd say that the ideological confusion continues. Take Thatcherism (which still infects British politics). That focuses on how globalisation should be about controlling worker militancy (ensuring low wages are maintained and the reproduction of profits are not threatened). I've probably mentioned it before, but the anarchists say the exact same thing through their 'race to the bottom'. Another example of agreement between the left and the right.

As a lefty I've always been pro-free trade (except for the infant industry hypothesis). I've certainly been attacked by lefties because of it. But amusingly I'm more likely to be attacked by right wingers nowadays...

 

Always in kindergarten with you. If a right winger attacks capitalism or free trade or globalization he is not a right winger.

 

Let’s take Thatcherism?? Why confuse matters when you can just say thatcher loved Reagan and both loved Friedman and all of them loved freedom and capitalism. China loves freedom and capitalism too Because it just prevented another 60 million from slowly starving to death that socialism surely would have starved

 

Upgrading infrastructure can help our economy be more economical.

 

You're in no way free of a central govt; managed by your Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class.

 

The power structure isn't interested in that, investing in society, this is about wealth extraction, concentration and redistribution out of society.

 

Constantly stating that you are a Marxist doesn’t persuade anybody to be a Marxist do you understand that?? Your comments serve no purpose whatsoever everybody here knows with the Marxist point of view is. Constantly stating that you are a Marxist doesn’t persuade anybody to be a Marxist do you understand that?? Your comment serves no purpose whatsoever everybody here knows with the Marxist pov is. Do you understand?Do you want to tell us 1678 more times that we are ruled by Wall Street?? Will you do show is that the liberal Marxist point of you is based in pure ignorance and incapable of argument.

 

they just did update the Tappanzee Bridge for $1 billion it was the most need it infrastructure in America and there has been zero economic benefit. So much for that liberal argument funny how everything in the room turns out to be stupid If it’s based in liberalism.

 

Typically right wingers share one feature: a lack of economics knowledge.

Congrats!

 

Oh look, labels again. Marx has nothing to do with how america turned out. Is this tripe what you refer to as an argument? Perhaps you 'd be happioer in your safe space.

 

We have a Congress, not Only a Senatus.

 

"can"

Equally it can make it less economical.

 

No, it can't; any upgrade would use modern materials and modern designs.

 

And?
That means it will use them cost efficiently does it?

Plenty of modern materials and modern designs are inefficient. No end of modern technologies and designs are dead ends or fail in the market place.

Think of all the design classics out there.

I'll give example. The maglev train.
Rides on magnets no rails. Only problem is magnets cost a fortune and rails are cheap.

I'll give another example. Channel Tunnel vs ship.

The Channel tunnel cost so much to build and costs so much to maintain that it will never be profitable.
The profits it earns will never service the money invested to build it.

If replacing my fridge for a low energy fridge costs £600 and saves £5 a year in electricity, this advanced new infrastructure for my home will cost me a **** load of money since I'm not going to live for the 120 years I would need to for it to pay me back.

The world if full of **** investments.

 

It is about promoting the general welfare. upgrading infrastructure may be more complicated in existing cities.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-ghost-cities-satellite-images-2017-3

no one would seriously argue, it is not about efficiency.

 

I'm not very into people "promoting my welfare".
Experience has taught me to think unkindly of them.

It might work, it might not. Roll the dice with your own money is my attitude.

 

lol. it isn't just your welfare. it is the general welfare.

 

if true why are you so afraid to present your best example? What do you learn from your fear?

 

You do respond randomly. Neat you couldn't defend the allegation mind you.

 

conservatism is 2000 years old and very very well developed!! What cant be defended????

 

HAHAHA! Conservatism isn't a political economic school of thought. It just refers to someone who says "I'm pissed about change".

 

pure old world lunacy of course. too bad there weren't more people against change in 1933 Germany.

 

I'm happy for you to dispute my comment. Can you detail a political economic school of conservative thought? Please remember economic reference!

 

Hey, spend you money how you please.
As long as it doesn't interfere with me, I am happy for you.

I won't be needing your welfare however. You keep that.