41–50 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine the amount of damage something like NAFTA has done to the american working class - multiply that with 200 years. Citation needed. This is still a controversial issue in policy, and anyone certain of any one side has no idea what they're talking about. There is evidence it net hurt jobs. There is evidence it net gained jobs for the US.
What about robots replacing jobs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36376966
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll add that America is the most protectionist country according to Credit Suisse: http://www.businessinsider.in/The-country-that-imposes-the-m... (Couldn't find link to original report) Worked out well for America. Protectionist laws are a legitimate tool for social and economic progress.
Your links cites a report that itself gets its numbers from the "Global Trade Alert," which is an org that aggregates a variety of trade-related actions published by the governments of each country. Only a fraction of these are actually related to governments being protectionist. A huge number of these "actions" appear to be petitions by companies inside a country for trade investigations against other companies or n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about robots replacing jobs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36376966
Irrelevant to my point?
Before people get out their pitchforks. These laws in India are a direct result of 200 years of British 'free' trade. Imagine the amount of damage something like NAFTA has done to the american working class - multiply that with 200 years. While america was in its infancy - before it industrialized - it too used protectionism as a way to allow its local industries to grow, how is it bad if India is trying to do the sa…
s/pions/peons
s/gaurds/guards
Before people get out their pitchforks. These laws in India are a direct result of 200 years of British 'free' trade. Imagine the amount of damage something like NAFTA has done to the american working class - multiply that with 200 years. While america was in its infancy - before it industrialized - it too used protectionism as a way to allow its local industries to grow, how is it bad if India is trying to do the sa…
I'll add that America is the most protectionist country according to Credit Suisse: http://www.businessinsider.in/The-country-that-imposes-the-m... (Couldn't find link to original report) Worked out well for America. Protectionist laws are a legitimate tool for social and economic progress.
As in, Country A takes 2 actions that affects $1 in trade. Country B decides in 1 action that no imports are allowed. And so it concludes Country A is clearly more restrictive.
Does that conclusion seem correct to you? Don't you think you need more information than just that?
I'm totally in support of this policy. Controlling companies and making sure they understand clearly that they exist only at the pleasure and the whim of the government is the only way to bring our world back from the corporatist brink.
Worked out well for the Soviet Bloc
Before people get out their pitchforks. These laws in India are a direct result of 200 years of British 'free' trade. Imagine the amount of damage something like NAFTA has done to the american working class - multiply that with 200 years. While america was in its infancy - before it industrialized - it too used protectionism as a way to allow its local industries to grow, how is it bad if India is trying to do the sa…
What does "loan under water" mean in this context? In a collateralized loan context (car or house), "under water" means that the borrower owes more than the market value of the collateral.
Before people get out their pitchforks. These laws in India are a direct result of 200 years of British 'free' trade. Imagine the amount of damage something like NAFTA has done to the american working class - multiply that with 200 years. While america was in its infancy - before it industrialized - it too used protectionism as a way to allow its local industries to grow, how is it bad if India is trying to do the sa…
> Imagine the amount of damage something like NAFTA has done to the american working class - multiply that with 200 years. Citation needed. This is still a controversial issue in policy, and anyone certain of any one side has no idea what they're talking about. There is evidence it net hurt jobs. There is evidence it net gained jobs for the US.
Of course it was just another attack on the middle class. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/are-unio...
PS: I don't 100% agree with this, but it's a viewpoint I rarely see on HN and fits the discussion.