• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

How long have you been contracting?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Well lets think of some real world examples. Apple makes its iPhones in China, which means that Apple can make more profit. It also means that local Americans who might have made those phones are out of a job, therefore the tax payers have to pay for those people to live.

    So Apple saves £100 in manufacturing costs which is pure profit, the state loses the taxs that would have been paid by those making those phones, and the tax payer pays £100 in benefits. So who is benefiting from this arrangement? It certainty isnt the economy or people in large, it is big corporations.

    So if you had said, economists agree that protectionism harms big corporations profits then I would agree with you. However protectionism is good for the people and good for the country.

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Robinho View Post
      It's not a fallacy of composition. I am saying that if nations acted like a large family protectionism would have the same affect as your family not trading with anyone. I am not suggesting every family within the nation should stop trading with each other and thus the nation as a whole would be worse off (though it would be anyway). It is an analogy not composition.
      You make no argument. You compare the macro with the micro, and apply the rules of the micro to the macro. But with no argument. Yes, it's an analogy. It is an analogy based on the fallacy of composition.

      Ergo, sas is right about you.
      The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

      George Frederic Watts

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

      Comment


        #43
        Americans get cheaper phones so the consumer wins.

        China has American dollars in their hands, and buys say... an Aircraft from Boeing with that money which creates jobs for Americans.

        The balance is restored and everyone is better off because they focused on producing the things they are good at producing.

        Comment


          #44
          But in the real world America has a massive trade deficit.



          The successful American businessman and investor Warren Buffett was quoted in the Associated Press (January 20, 2006) as saying "The U.S trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either the federal budget deficit or consumer debt and could lead to political turmoil... Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them."

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by speling bee View Post
            You make no argument. You compare the macro with the micro, and apply the rules of the micro to the macro. But with no argument. Yes, it's an analogy. It is an analogy based on the fallacy of composition.
            No, composition implies that i'm saying that the whole has the same properties as the parts it is composed of because it is composed of only those parts. I am saying the nation is the part in this analogy, and the globe is the whole.

            Comment


              #46
              There's thread creep, and there's thread creep. But this thread - wow.
              nomadd liked this post

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by escapeUK View Post
                But in the real world America has a massive trade deficit.



                The successful American businessman and investor Warren Buffett was quoted in the Associated Press (January 20, 2006) as saying "The U.S trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either the federal budget deficit or consumer debt and could lead to political turmoil... Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them."
                That's because central banks have sneakily been printing money which all got either sent abroad or sewn up in housing disguising domestic inflation. Of course that will go wrong sooner or later when the credibility of the dollar is brought into question.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Robinho View Post
                  No, composition implies that i'm saying that the whole has the same properties as the parts it is composed of because it is composed of only those parts.
                  Wrong again. In your case Google is your friend.
                  The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

                  George Frederic Watts

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Where's the retired - glad to be out of it option?
                    bloggoth

                    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
                    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
                      Where's the retired - glad to be out of it option?
                      Is that attached to the why on earth does Sas still visit here option?
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X