|
On January 09 2010 09:30 peidongyang wrote:
In China it's one of those examples of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. TBH, other than the media, China's policies are as about as right-wing as you can get.
That being said, the poor in China live a really, really, low quality life. That's just one of those trade-offs in being able to manufacture products as such a cheap price.
To the topic about counterfeits, and human rights, to most Han mainland Chinese, they couldn't give a crap bit more. Most people are just caught up trying to earn money and nurture a successful family. They don't have time to give a *insert bad word here* about what's happening to coal miners or Tibet people. China is very competitive and it's one of those dog eat dog worlds.
The U.S. is probably more so.
Rich getting ridiculous wealthy, while the poor is left to die.
|
On January 09 2010 12:41 Glaucus wrote:
Chinese people want plasma TVs. They want stuffed animals. They want all these things they produce. And if they had them they would be much richer. But they can't afford them currently because of the yuan-dollar relation.
Someone else talked about jobs. People claim that if the west stopped consuming Chinese people would all go unemployed and that would be bad.
I'm just saying that having 100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal.
People seem to think huge US consumption drives the global economy. The fact is it drags down the global economy. Chinese production, and production from other low wage countries, drive the global economy. But Chinese people aren't benefiting from this. The people in the US and in the west are the ones with all the consumer goods. They are enjoying them and they are to be wealthy. Yet they are dragging down the economy.
ok i stopped at "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal"
how is this even suppose to logically work out?
my brain is about to invert itself and explode
clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll
|
On January 09 2010 12:41 Glaucus wrote:
Chinese people want plasma TVs. They want stuffed animals. They want all these things they produce. And if they had them they would be much richer. But they can't afford them currently because of the yuan-dollar relation.
Someone else talked about jobs. People claim that if the west stopped consuming Chinese people would all go unemployed and that would be bad.
I'm just saying that having 100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal.
People seem to think huge US consumption drives the global economy. The fact is it drags down the global economy. Chinese production, and production from other low wage countries, drive the global economy. But Chinese people aren't benefiting from this. The people in the US and in the west are the ones with all the consumer goods. They are enjoying them and they are to be wealthy. Yet they are dragging down the economy. And how did they pay for them? By loaning money from China...
HAHAHAHAHA
+ Show Spoiler +Did I read this correctly, or did I get trolled? HARD?
|
On January 09 2010 12:46 blue_arrow wrote:
ok i stopped at "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal"
how is this even suppose to logically work out?
my brain is about to invert itself and explode
clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll
If I have a job and I earn 3000 euro a month how is that better than not having a job and earning 3000 euro a month as well? Is that so hard to see?
|
On January 09 2010 12:50 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 12:46 blue_arrow wrote:
ok i stopped at "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal"
how is this even suppose to logically work out?
my brain is about to invert itself and explode
clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll If I have a job and I earn 3000 euro a month how is that better than not having a job and earning 3000 euro a month as well?
Just wtf?
Which government is going to pay you 3000 euro a month for doing nothing? I'm moving there tomorrow, seriously.
|
|
|
On January 09 2010 12:50 Cambium wrote:
Just wtf?
Which government is going to pay you 3000 euro a month for doing nothing? I'm moving there tomorrow, seriously.
No. That's not the point. I never said you are going to have more by not working.
And yes there are governments that pay people money for doing stuff that is as productive as doing nothing. If those people did literally nothing just as much capital would be generated. And then they would be free to create actual capital and gain more purchasing power.
Anyway, I won't say anything more since no one actually reads what I write while being immature and claiming I am trolling. This is not productive.
|
On January 09 2010 12:50 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 12:46 blue_arrow wrote:
ok i stopped at "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal"
how is this even suppose to logically work out?
my brain is about to invert itself and explode
clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll If I have a job and I earn 3000 euro a month how is that better than not having a job and earning 3000 euro a month as well? Is that so hard to see?
If everybody did this your 3000 euro will be worth ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING. Look dude, if you wanna live and consume, someone's going to have to take the shit. If everyone does nothing, nothing gets made, and you're money is USELESSS.
|
you do realize that 100% unemployment means that nobody has a job right? and that 0% unemployment means everybody is employed right? what you mean is 100% employment, and nobody measures employment rates by saying X% employment, because it's redundant as the people who have jobs usually vastly outnumber those without.
i can't believe i actually explained something as basic as this to anybody.
|
On January 09 2010 12:59 peidongyang wrote:
If everybody did this your 3000 euro will be worth ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING. Look dude, if you wanna live and consume, someone's going to have to take the shit. If everyone does nothing, nothing gets made, and you're money is USELESSS.
Finally some is saying something sensible. Now let's apply this to the US-China relationship.
|
On January 09 2010 12:41 Glaucus wrote:
Chinese people want plasma TVs. They want stuffed animals. They want all these things they produce. And if they had them they would be much richer. But they can't afford them currently because of the yuan-dollar relation.
this just isn't true. what does the dollar have to do with this? why do you believe that they don't have these things when just a few posts earlier you were arguing that they should keep the things that they produce? they are producing plasma tv's and stuffed animals, and there's nothing stopping them from selling them to the chinese people at the same price that they export these products to other countries.
|
lol ok guys he is a troll, he just pmed me confirming that "100% unemployment" was not a mistake:
-----------------------------------------
Original Message:
lol funny guy. Yeah if there really is 100% unemployment there would be no way to know. Haha, so funny.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message:
uhh, do you still not understand what's going on and why people are laughing at you? YOU were the one who made a mistake and said "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment" in YOUR OWN POST.
-----------------------------------------
It's not a mistake. You don't understand basic economics. Employment is irrelevant in itself. You employ people to generate wealth.
|
Lol I PM not to post here and not to have to be called a troll.
If low unemployment is so good in itself then let's employ everyone that's unemployed to carry water to the sea. Instant 0% unemployment.
Say you are in charge in a nation where everyone is employed in carrying water to the sea. How do I ever convince you to make everyone unemployed so we can free up manpower to create capital?
|
On January 09 2010 13:16 Glaucus wrote:
Lol I PM not to post here and not to have to be called a troll.
If low unemployment is so good in itself then let's employ everyone that's unemployed to carry water to the sea. Instant 0% unemployment.
Who's paying...?
The government?
Where does the government get money?
Print them?
Instant inflation...
|
On January 09 2010 13:16 Glaucus wrote:
Lol I PM not to post here and not to have to be called a troll.
If low unemployment is so good in itself then let's employ everyone that's unemployed to carry water to the sea. Instant 0% unemployment.
Say you are in charge in a nation where everyone is employed in carrying water to the sea. How do I ever convince you to make everyone unemployed so we can free up manpower to create capital?
what does this even mean and have to do with that disaster that you stated earlier? you said that it's better for nobody to have a job rather than everybody having a job. 100% unemployment = everybody is jobless. no jobs = bad. do you get it now???
lol why am i even trying
just read a textbook, im not wasting time here anymore
|
Yes, all else being equal. Like in that example.
You really think carrying water to the sea creates capital? Didn't you read my posts? Or are you just trolling?
|
On January 09 2010 13:24 Glaucus wrote:
Yes, all else being equal. Like in that example.
You really think carrying water to the sea creates capital? Didn't you read my posts? Or are you just trolling?
these reductionist arguments do nothing to help your argument. all things equal, 0% employment is pretty fucking bad too. when we are talking about a real world issue, what is the point in having an argument that boils down to semantics?
|
Don't ask me. I didn't go down this path. Somewhere along the line I just had to explain employment has no merit on it's own because there was some confusion about that. But the examples confused people and people read only half a sentence, post private messages, insult me and then when they see they made a mistake just 'call it quits'. Because he obviously never read 'all else being equal' part and thinks zero employment=zero capital.
Like I said, I gave up. Seems people that read blogs are really different from those in other parts of the forum. I am sick of all this 4chan/troll stuff.
|
On January 09 2010 13:33 Glaucus wrote:
Don't ask me. I didn't go down this path. Somewhere along the line I just had to explain employment has no merit on it's own because there was some confusion about that. But the examples confused people and people read only half a sentence, post private messages, insult me and then when they see they made a mistake just 'call it quits'. Because he obviously never read 'all else being equal' part and thinks zero unemployment=zero capital.
Like I said, I gave up. Seems people that read blogs are really different from those in other parts of the forum.
All else being equal today, now we suddenly suspend all employment, companies no longer make any money or produces any goods because no one is working.
Since companies make no money, they cannot afford to pay their employees.
Employees no longer receive any money, two cases:
1) employees run out of money, cannot afford to consume
2) goods run out, because no one is producing
I don't understand how this is better than status quo?
|
Oh god. We all got trolled so hard
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
