You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
skeptic economists
- Thread starter midniteeuropa
- Start date
Quote from orange_trad:
And for the 'free trade benefits all' crowd:
Free trade means whoever produces most efficiently produces the widget and not whoever produces the widget the cheapest relative to all its other production capabilities. In our world free trade benefits the big industrialized countries, where developing and underdeveloped countries are worse off, since their production bases are sucked out of the country.
You are wrong wrong wrong. I have already explained it. This argument has gone on for thousands of years.
We are all humans man. We all live on this world and work together.
If your argument was true, then you might as well say lets all individually make our own bread, and make our own car, build our own house, because if we didint we would not have a job.
That is exactly what you are saying, but take the few people you share that load with that live 20km away, and now consider that
there are others to help who live 1000km away.
All i can suggest is you read and learn more, because there is no economical argument for restricted trade, just as there is no economic argument for going backwards in the division of labour, which is exactly what globalisation is, it is advancing the division of labour even further.
If you got americans to make all the chinese products, they would be 3 times more expensive.
Instead america is focusing on what it does best, Scratching its arse and making irrational statements like you are. haha
Quote from Misthos:
Reread my scenario before calling the example stupid.
Do you understand what "free and clear" means? It means you HAVE NO MORTGAGE!
So you would rather lend 300K (or own that debt) on a house that is worth 200K than own a lot that is worth 50K - free and clear?
You prefer being 100K in the red than 50K up?
Think before you write.
Very good advice. Maybe you should take it. And some math class too.
If your house burns down you're at -300k-30k+50k FREE AND CLEAR in the red at -280k. Now, if you prefer that to paying mortgage that was taken out at 300k, and now you only have assets of 200k+50k=250k and have a house to live in...
Quote from deswamped:
If your argument was true, then you might as well say lets all individually make our own bread, and make our own car, build our own house, because if we didint we would not have a job.
big developed country = small developing country = redneck individual
Right. We are talking about economics, aren't we?
I was talking about small closed economy developing countries vs. big developed countries, and if you would at least be familiar with free trade ideas you would've probably picked up on the terms I used. It is quite obvious that you have no economics background.
But let's use your example of individuals: what I said was that under free trade whoever can make more widget in a day will specialize in widget-making as opposed to the guy can produce less widget, but would have an even bigger disadvantage in producing gizmos. If you still don't understand this, you should pick up a standard issue economics book...
All i can suggest is you read and learn more, because there is no economical argument for restricted trade...[/QUOTE]
...that you know of. Another excellent advice: "read and learn more". You should also take your own advice.
Instead america is focusing on what it does best, Scratching its arse and making irrational statements like you are. haha [/QUOTE]
I am America now? I've been called a lot of things in my life, but I wonder: do you mean that I am the USA or the entire continet?
Quote from orange_trad:
big developed country = small developing country = redneck individual
Right. We are talking about economics, aren't we?
I was talking about small closed economy developing countries vs. big developed countries, and if you would at least be familiar with free trade ideas you would've probably picked up on the terms I used. It is quite obvious that you have no economics background.
But let's use your example of individuals: what I said was that under free trade whoever can make more widget in a day will specialize in widget-making as opposed to the guy can produce less widget, but would have an even bigger disadvantage in producing gizmos. If you still don't understand this, you should pick up a standard issue economics book...
All i can suggest is you read and learn more, because there is no economical argument for restricted trade...
...that you know of. Another excellent advice: "read and learn more". You should also take your own advice.
Instead america is focusing on what it does best, Scratching its arse and making irrational statements like you are. haha [/QUOTE]
I am America now? I've been called a lot of things in my life, but I wonder: do you mean that I am the USA or the entire continet? [/QUOTE]
dude all i heard you say was that free trade was not good for all. Heard nothing about widgets or gizmos or whatever. But anyway I do not have a good vibe about your attitude, and obviously I am not up to your expertees in economics, so you can claim a the victory you so aspire.
Take it easy
ooh hold on you did talk about widgets... ppfff well who says the widget maker is worse off....If the widget maker was worse off for making widgets then why did he go and start making them?
I do take blame for skim reading your post... and accusing you of scratching your arse may have been impolite...and trigger happy based on my bad reading... but even if free trade did have its negatives for some, like free market has negatives for some, the postives outweigh the negatives when it comes to overall effiency. If someone was disadvantaged there is a free option for people to help that person. It comes down to the equality bs effiency debate. But I still am not convinced that the widget maker is disadvantaged.
Quote from orange_trad:
Very good advice. Maybe you should take it. And some math class too.
If your house burns down you're at -300k-30k+50k FREE AND CLEAR in the red at -280k. Now, if you prefer that to paying mortgage that was taken out at 300k, and now you only have assets of 200k+50k=250k and have a house to live in...
This is getting tiring. Once again, you misinterpret or maybe I wasn't clear.
I am not assuming I owned the house before the fire - or that I lived in it in this scenario. I just state that as an investor or economist (viewing this the way the OP was written) - I would rather own/invest in an unencumbered (debt free) fire sale lot than have (as an investor/lender) a 300K mortgage on a house valued at 200K.
The OP stated:
"why do these so called "economists" act as if the homes behind these mortgages have all burned down"
You know why? They are OVERencumbered. That means negative equity. More debt than value. The exessive debt IS like a fire. It destroys the value. Hence, it is "TOXIC"
Even if that house has friggin gold plumbing, if the mortgage is well over the market value - you are worse off.
Someone earlier in this thread understood what I meant... I'm no longer belaboring the point.
Quote from orange_trad:
And for whoever said that people should be 'aggregated' into fewer homes should spend some time in inner China, or North Korea, because that's communist economics for you, and whoever presents such ideas should be spending some quality time exposed to the consequences of such ideas...
You need to re-read what I posted. The point I was trying to make is that there is too much housing inventory. If people in large sub-divisions voluntarily all moved into one half of the the sub-division and the other half(which is foreclosed or not sold anyway) was bulldozed, the value of the people's homes would level off. This isn't about relocating people against their will, it is about re-igniting competition for existing homes.