161–168 of 168 posts
“My Moby-Dick has been Zhongwang,” says Mr. Henderson, president of the Aluminum Extruders Council, a U.S. trade group. Without context, I would have thought that a Markov text generator was on the loose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devil's advocate, can someone provide a single historical example of a case where dumping "worked," in the sense that one country's manufacturers were able to rake in large profits after their foreign competitors went out of business due to subsidies? Because unless dumping actually succeeds at that goal, and I don't see any evidence that it does, it seems indistinguishable to American consumers from a huge t…
Rare earth metals dumping caused all US mines to close for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then back again. That's empires for you.
Of course, one could argue that those of us in the US are in fact the British Empire, the narrative slightly complicated by that civil war period of 1776-1812 of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devil's advocate, can someone provide a single historical example of a case where dumping "worked," in the sense that one country's manufacturers were able to rake in large profits after their foreign competitors went out of business due to subsidies? Because unless dumping actually succeeds at that goal, and I don't see any evidence that it does, it seems indistinguishable to American consumers from a huge t…
Rare earth metals dumping caused all US mines to close for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform What the party calls themselves is irrelevant. "communism" as anyone would define it, is not what China's economy looks like today.
Indeed. The implied point being that capitalism didn't win either, regardless of what we call ourselves. In both cases what seems to have emerged from the 20th century as the successful governing model is varying degrees of democratic socialism.
The gist of it is that capitalism and communism aren't exactly two instances of the same class, communism implies a form of government that capitalism doesn't. Likewise communism implies a precise extreme economy where capitalism is more vague.
Most of the world is mostly capitalist. The presence of extensive social welfare programs doesn't really take away from this in the way that adding a market economy and entrepreneurial opportunity takes away from communism.
“My Moby-Dick has been Zhongwang,” says Mr. Henderson, president of the Aluminum Extruders Council, a U.S. trade group. Without context, I would have thought that a Markov text generator was on the loose.
Really? Why? Mr. Henderson is simply claiming that hist situation bears some similarities to Captain Ahab's. It might or might not really be true but the statement is clear enough for anyone moderately well read in English language literature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the US has among the lowest social mobility of developed nations, this is highly unlikely today. Interestingly, Americans have more belief that their society is a meritocracy than most developed nations and so are especially unaware of the problem. I submit it is this commonly held perception rather than data that is informing you comment. Obviously in the past, when democracies were even fewer in number,…
> has among the lowest social mobility of developed nations The US also already has among the highest median income of any developed nation, and nearly the highest median disposable income. The US also has a higher median household net worth than either Germany or Sweden. That would inherently make it more difficult for the US to keep pushing the boulder up the hill. Further, in the US more people are moving up out o…
Likewise in the last 40 years, the US per capita GDP has risen close to 70% while the median income has risen less then 20%. But the problem of declining social mobility and rising inequality is not remotely unique to the US.
At least as disturbing is the resultant problem of the steady rise and now mainstreaming of politically extreme views in several western countries in (including the current presidential race obviously). I suggest the economic underpinnings of this problem are issues that we really ought to look at objectively rather than waving the flag and insisting we live in the best of all possible wolds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Farmers do! And farmers also vote. And that's the reason for why they are subsidised. Farmers have a special interest in receiving subsidies, and politicians gain far more by pandering to them than by saving a little bit of money for everyone else.
I presume you are thinking mostly of the west here. Farmers voting has little or no impact on policy. In most developed countries total employment in farming is less than 5% of the population.