trickle up poverty

I bother to refer to economics. That ensures a logical approach, but also an openness to critique (as shown by comparison of schools of thought). A liberal approach to political economy, for example, will miss the consideration of both exchange and conflict theory in capitalism

 

really?

What is this then? Could you please reference every theory you have use? You have presented nothing to this thread but bait. With others it is a rant but you are special.

 

Come now, don't hide. If you want to critique any of my comments go ahead. I'd love to see you try and use some economics after all!

 

Seems you are hiding and dodging again. Is it time to raise the shields and warp away again?

 

Don't be so scared. If you want to critique any of my comments go ahead. I'd love to see you try and use some economics after all!

 

really?

Comparative advantage.

Can you show me the data on this please and dome studies to back this up?

Can you present some information about this and a study that shows the realized impact on the working class on both sides?

Rant?

Rant?

BS Rant.

Show us in plain English citing studies supported by data please.

While I may or may not ageee; please present some backup. A nice Cato study with data would be great or you can present the data and back it up with a logical explanation.

Show me Bobbins!!! Be prepared to defend your answers.

 

This amused me, just a smidge. Aren't you aware that comparative advantage is merely a reference to the concept of opportunity costs? The only issue is the determinant(s) of it. For example, the original Ricardo example opened up the accusation that it reflected British naval power (and therefore the notion that specialisation reflected a 'historical accident'). Since then we've moved on to the likes of Heckscher-Ohlin with an appreciation that it reflects factor proportions (i.e. the notion that labour intensive product will be produced, to a greater extend, by labour abundant country). We've had empirical attempts to dispute the approach (see, for example, the Leontief Paradox), but that largely reflects an inability to satisfactorily control for types of factor of production (i.e. when we refer to labour intensity we also have to control for human capital, given skilled labour is quite distinct from other varieties)

You've merely demonstrated that you are arguing 'without economics'. And that is why you'll fail to hit home in the validity stakes

 

I know full well what but I want to see the data showing that it is really there and if so what are the long term impacts on a larger economy when in a situation where they are the consumer with a shrinking consumer base.

It is not; nor was it ever about businesses but about the economy and that involves the consumer base and business. Show me long term outlooks that were made when this started and how they compare to the current situation. I do not want excuses and theory I want data. I want studies showing that this has actually been an economically smart move for the developed world.

 

Clearly you don't. One only needs differences in opportunity costs. One can of course also test the theory used to explain those differences. Heckscher-Ohlin, for example, is broadly supported. You're only further demonstrating that you're typing 'without knowledge'. A rather uncunning thing to attempt

 

Rant. Show me the initial projections about some of the current trade deals. You can talk theory all you want; but it is fluff. Give me some meat to tear apart. You want every one else to satisfy you; well, now it is time for you to give me the numbers. Not failed theory. The trade deals were not for the people and that is my point. The politicians were warned clearly and they ignored. What do you have? Failed theory.

 

Basic sense. That comparative advantage refers to opportunity costs is mere correct use of economics. That it enables consumption outside the production possibility frontier is mere acknowledgement of the Ricardian approach. That Heckscher-Ohlin provides an understanding of the determinants of comparative advantage is really just an application of the Edgeworth box and the isoquant. That the approach is questioned by the Leontief Paradox is but acknowledgement of the empirical evidence. That the original analysis adopts a simplistic view of factors of production, failing to take into account the consequences of human capital for making labour quite distinct, is just basic literature review knowledge. Davis and Weinstein (2001, American Economic Review), for example, found that the approach predicted trade patterns in approximately 90% of cases

I know you're out of your depth, but at least up the quality of your blag!

 

All well and good but show me the projections from 1993 based on the theory and then show me the actual.

Something like this so I can compare the theory, to the implementation: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12076/CBO_Presentation_to_NEC_2-24-11.pdf

I really would like to see what they preached to get all of these trade deals past. Also could you please present some counter arguments. I can but I want you to do it.

 

Indeed and you can't respond, despite my reference to both theory and empirical evidence. Your impotence doesn't interest me. Get back to me when you can achieve what I asked: critique one of my economic comments

 

No I can respond and have before and then you run away. You cant play a game only on theory if the theory is flawed.

You have yet to present data backing yourself up. Bubbles and the like screw them up. The theories are great in a perfect world but the famous phrase from the majority that follow your model is "OOOPs I did not consider that and those that believe like I do always say "I told you so".

 

I only bother with folk who can respond with validity. Your responses have been childish attempt to hide from content. Try responding with economics critique! Last chance:

That comparative advantage refers to opportunity costs is mere correct use of economics. That it enables consumption outside the production possibility frontier is mere acknowledgement of the Ricardian approach. That Heckscher-Ohlin provides an understanding of the determinants of comparative advantage is really just an application of the Edgeworth box and the isoquant. That the approach is questioned by the Leontief Paradox is but acknowledgement of the empirical evidence. That the original analysis adopts a simplistic view of factors of production, failing to take into account the consequences of human capital for making labour quite distinct, is just basic literature review knowledge. Davis and Weinstein (2001, American Economic Review), for example, found that the approach predicted trade patterns in approximately 90% of cases

 

Show me the numbers and a study to back up your hot air. You cant so unless you can provide me something tangible you are being the childish one. You evidently want me to look up everything so I can show you. Well pal I think you need to show me. Oh you cant you can only cry about how you can? What the hell can you do? Oh that's right you can do nothing because you have nothing.

In the case of the United States of America show me the projections based on your theories that have been correct.

Sure you can tell me why it happened and why it may happen but that is nothing I want some data; current data, on the US that proves any current theory is good for the whole of the economy.

I do not want projections and what ifs I want past outlooks compared to current data.

 

You've been given your homework. Reply to the comment:

That comparative advantage refers to opportunity costs is mere correct use of economics. That it enables consumption outside the production possibility frontier is mere acknowledgement of the Ricardian approach. That Heckscher-Ohlin provides an understanding of the determinants of comparative advantage is really just an application of the Edgeworth box and the isoquant. That the approach is questioned by the Leontief Paradox is but acknowledgement of the empirical evidence. That the original analysis adopts a simplistic view of factors of production, failing to take into account the consequences of human capital for making labour quite distinct, is just basic literature review knowledge. Davis and Weinstein (2001, American Economic Review), for example, found that the approach predicted trade patterns in approximately 90% of cases

I won't bother with your dodge comments as you're just not entertaining enough

 

ME? You have been ducking and dodging and two stepping since your first reply to me. You can float a bunch of theory and I am not arguing with the theories I am saying I want you to show me that they worked in this case where applied. That is all I ever asked. You have danced around it and I think I saw you jump as well but nowhere can you back up your BS where the current state of the US economy is concerned. Sure you could show one or two but in the end the trade model you believe in failed due to unforeseen things. "OOOPs we did not thing of that even though others in the field warned us, even though we had all of these neat and wonderful theories.

How about leaving that economic theory you follow in the class room; it is not always correct.

 

Zero attempt to reply to the post. Try again (and I'll save my keyboard if you continue with your impotence)

 

Read this and then get back to me. I do wonder why you bother. You can not debate this so you simply avoid and run away.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/scotttestimony-chinesestateownedenterprises.pdf

Economics do not work against this.

 

Try content. You are properly dull in your desperation to avoid it

 

You are a waste of my time. I will continue to harass you though until you stop bullying people with you act. You can preach your crap to others but I do not care. Applied economics is a bad predictor and I only need to look around to see it. Hell even in the business and econ and all those other social science classes it was made clear that human behavior is the unpredictable outlier.

Economic outlooks also do not work when the rules are changed in the game and questionable tactics are used to maintain certain competitive advantages.

If you simply wish to discuss economic theory we could start a thread about that but this is applied; not just theory, but theory in practice and this is where you lose. You will continue to lose on this until somebody gets their head screwed on straight.

 

Reply to the comment. This is my last comment to you on the thread unless you do.

 

Ricardian approach: So we should use the same tactics as China and horde their money to inflate its value, allow companies to put people in dormitories and treat some like animals? Get with it human rights are destroyed by many of our trade partners to maintain the competitive advantage.

I wont even go into the min wage part of it.

Heckscher-Ohlin, Leontief,

You know what is your point? to waste my time? what? None is really applicable because to gain a true advantage the playing field must be level. After that there are no excuses for the American worker. Wages are too high in many cases but that is also moot because trade as it is can not work because until the field is leveled we will remain on the short end of this.

 

Arent these scale economies being employed in the developing countries ala china also?

Why is it a bit rich? When the US was really a polluter, China wasnt both shipping jobs and buying US products.

Indeed China isnt the USs only cheap source.

Arent you relying on technical innovation to get the western world out of our holes a bit much?

After all these innovations now quickly spread everywhere.

Are these GDP growths you speak of going to the home nation worker ? Or they going more and more elsewhere?