The Economist's take on open vs closed - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14897504
Potemkin wrote:You mean those same pensioners who voted Thatcher into power in 1979 and kept voting for her throughout the 1980s, even after she decoupled pensions from average earnings? Those pensioners? :eh:

They got what they voted for, and even after they got it, they kept coming back for more.


I recently had to learn about the "inner workings" of our pension system, due to a popular vote on pension reform. I'm not pretending everybody did their job in that regard, but I'm pretty sure nobody would have in a purely representative system. Voting for political parties is pretty much a black box, at least when it comes to the details. I have some vague understanding of what political parties stand for, but I don't REALLY know what they did in the past 4 years, nor do I know what they will do in the next 4 years. Letting the "mob" decide might not be the way to go for every society, but the predominant representative systems surely do a bad job at educating the populace and inducing a sense of responsibility in them. In my opinion.
#14897580
quetzalcoatl wrote:Sorry, but the conflation of cultural openess with free trade is a deliberately engineered scam. Transnational capital demands "freedom" of movement in three arenas: movement of labor, movement of goods, and movement of capital. In the modern sense, this is precisely what the IMF or World Bank means when they demand liberalization of markets.

In order to hide the naked self-interest of the oligarchs, they mask these demands behind appeals to petty bourgeois moralizing.



The author is debunking the open/closed dichotomy. In its place he is suggesting the real dichotomy is haves/have nots. He goes on to explain people follow what they perceive to be their self interest. He then suggests the Western professional class will change to more protectionist beliefs as their perception of their interests changes due to increased competition.

Of course that is an accurate assessment but it is so obvious he may as well have written an article to tell us the sky is blue.

So what predictions can we draw from this assessment? Surely it is that the world is moving toward protectionism. We see plenty of it in China and India. Trade can only suffer. But the world does need trade. Global society is only as complex as it is due to regional interdependence. A reduction in trade will have dire consequences for standards of living. For those on the margins, that means not enough to eat.

I see trouble on the horizon. Here’s a previous epoch than was simpler to today’s world. Do you think it is valid to draw comparisons?

[youtube]bRcu-ysocX4[/youtube]
#14897587
Potemkin wrote:You mean those same pensioners who voted Thatcher into power in 1979 and kept voting for her throughout the 1980s, even after she decoupled pensions from average earnings? Those pensioners? :eh:

They got what they voted for, and even after they got it, they kept coming back for more.



Of course they did, BUT, I would suggest that those pensioners in the "TWO BOTTOM INCOME QUINTILES" did NOT do so.

After all, throughout their adult lives, those that had always supported the TORIES are the type that employed & screwed those they employ by paying low wages.
#14897590
[quote="foxdemon"]The author is debunking the open/closed dichotomy. In its place he is suggesting the real dichotomy is haves/have nots. He goes on to explain people follow what they perceive to be their self interest. He then suggests the Western professional class will change to more protectionist beliefs as their perception of their interests changes due to increased competition.

"So what predictions can we draw from this assessment? Surely it is that the world is moving toward protectionism. We see plenty of it in China and India. Trade can only suffer. But the world does need trade. Global society is only as complex as it is due to regional interdependence. A reduction in trade will have dire consequences for standards of living. For those on the margins, that means not enough to eat".

"A reduction in trade will have dire consequences for standards of living. For those on the margins, that means not enough to eat".


This is true, a 'closed' economy will lead society into one that serves the narrow interest of those in business & their political cohorts in whatever ideological divide they are on.

Although 'open' trade is desirable, what we should never accept from any country or trading bloc, is that to exercise 'open' trade, that we should also accept 'free movement' of people from those nations or bloc's.

Looking at the above from a political point of view, the TORIES will always accept 'oligarchs' worth £ BILLIONS, whilst at the same time locking out the economic 'underclass', 'Labour' on the other hand, will always accept the type that the TORIES would reject.
This is related to the narrow interest of these two parties, one is about the 'money' interest, the other is about subverting the indigenous population, particularly against those that Labour have lost support from in recent times, by being in favour
of immigrants of the groups that the TORY interest rejects.

It's clear that Labour are a BIGOTED Party, spiteful to & hateful of it's traditional class of supporters, from whom created the Labour Party.
#14897603
@Nonsense those are good points but still we are talking about the tees rather than the forest. @AFAIK article is inviting us to step back and take a broader view. So let’s cut to the chase and look at the forest.

[youtube]wnqS7G3LmMo[/youtube]


I trust you have already watched the first video I posted. The take home message is that interaction between regions creates a higher level of complexity than would otherwise be possible. But, once begun, if it shuts down for whichever reason, systemic collapse follows.

Given that is what is happening today, I am confident we are heading toward difficult times.

One thing to look for in he second video is the speaker’s description of what he defines as measurable indicators of social development. When talking policy responses, perhaps those measures are what needs to be addressed?
#14897610
B0ycey wrote:It is actually more 'those pensioners that vote in high turnout' 'those pensioners'.

The triple lock is a bad policy for national fiscal finance. Pensioners also get subsidies in other areas like winter fuel allowance to free bus passes and television licenses. May, like every politician, knows this is an issue and tried to address it in the last election. The result. Despite having a massive lead in the polls and destroying Labour in the local elections only a month before, when a manifesto was published trying to restore the tax burden that pensioners have towards the national debt, she got punished by the electorate. Pensioners are not living on the breadline like the media want you to believe. Even the ones that did not save in their working lives accumulate wealth during retirement due to over inflated pensions in comparison to their spending. The exception is usually with poor health. Poor health such as care does take away savings. So in summary, you do get what you vote for.

I have had to explain this many times to people before now about the 'importance' of voting. Because the reason the youth get punished by government is basically because they don't vote whilst pensioners do.


BOYcey-

"The triple lock is a bad policy for national fiscal finance. Pensioners also get subsidies in other areas like winter fuel allowance to free bus passes and television licenses".

Nonsense-
With respect, "The triple lock is a bad policy for national fiscal finance", the issue of what is due to pensioners each year NOT by way of 'Increases', but, by way of COMPENSATION for INFLATION is a no brainer, the FACT is, pensioners, have NOT had an increase with the TORIES.

The 2.5% figure often quoted, is BELOW THE LEVEL OF ACTUAL INFLATION SINCE 2010,which is 2.9%.

The AVERAGE (manipulated)CPI from 2010-2017 has been 2.9%, that equates to the accumulated government STEALING from pensioners each year at 0.4% from increases due to inflationary effects, to date over 7 years, that is a total theft of 2.8%, which, in terms of theft is GRAND LARCENY.

That money was taken from these pensioners when in work, which was hypothecated to fund their State Pension, funded by CONTRIBUTION, It is NOT a 'Benefit', the government have a FINANCIAL OBLIGATION TO THOSE OLDER PENSIONERS LIKE MYSELF.NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN OTHER AREAS OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

For your information, bus passes, TV licences were paid for by LOWER pension 'increases' under Gordon BROWN, who then
used that money to SUBSIDISE BUS COMPANIES 'CONCESSIONARY' FARE SCHEMES TO THOSE PENSIONERS & TO THE BBC, TO FUND 'FREE' TV LICENCES TO THOSE AGE 75+.
In other words, that government appropriated pensioners money into the BBC & Bus companies.

Remember this, the above misappropriation affected ALL pensioners, BUT, NOT ALL pensioners watch TV or use Buses, those people have been subjected to THEFT BY THE STATE.

They compensate with increases by comparing the CPI in September each year ,BUT , pensioners(like everyone else)when they shop or receive bills, are paying bills at CURRENT prices at the RPI rate.

It stands to mathematical logic, that subtracting the CPI from RPI amounts to the actual devaluing of pensioners(Basic State Pension)incomes by the government & they still have to contend with over-inflation price increases.

I have often stated on here , that the rich-better off, get tax relief on their yearly payments into their own 'PRIVATE' pension schemes to the tune of £40 BILLION a year, in a ten year period of 'AUSTERITY' for everyone else, that equals £400 BILLION of TAXPAYERS money siphoned off into the pockets of those two groups.
That money should have been taxed at source on those people, if they want to build a 'private' pension pot, it should NOT be taxpayers that fund it, because, on retirement, these people go to live abroad, they then do not pay taxes from the income, the capital of which British taxpayers have funded, it's IMMORAL, particularly when state benefits & pensions are probably the lowest in Europe.

BOYcey - Pensioners are not living on the breadline like the media want you to believe. Even the ones that did not save in their working lives accumulate wealth during retirement due to over inflated pensions in comparison to their spending.


Nonsense-
Obviously, you are not a pensioner, how do you know pensioners are not on the breadline?

I worked all my life, yet my combined BSP + Additional State Pension is lower than the 'NEW' State Pension.

The 'NEW' State Pension from April for a single person is, £164.35 per week.

For someone like myself born in the early 1940's, it is £125.95 per week from April, even with the additional state pension related to earnings levels, I am still well below the 'NEW' State Pension.

This is important, BEFORE the TORIES came to power in 2010, anybody with total income BELOW the Tax Threshold, were NOT liable to pay taxes, including Council Taxes.

The Tax Threshold for paying Income Tax is from April, £11,800 PER ANNUM OR £227 per week.
Anyone on the 'OLD' BSP of £125.95 per week, would have an annual income of 52x that, £6,549 PER ANNUM, which is £5301 BELOW the Tax Threshold & NOW they also pay Council Tax as well.

As I have said before, it is WRONG to make 'GENERALISED' statements on particular groups of people, invariably, there are ALWAYS exceptions, in this case, millions of pensioners that do NOT fit into YOUR assertions on pensioners.

Now, I have highlighted those exceptions & as a group, we do NOT want to claim anything to which we have not paid for, we also do not do so, because we hate any 'Means Tested System', NOT because we 'cheat', but because we ONLY want what is rightly ours based upon that which we know we have paid for within the system.

On the other hand, there are, as I have stated, the RICH & BETTER OFF, who receive from the government each year, £40 BILLION as Additional Pension Contributions Relief at their Marginal Rate, the money, of which they pay into their personal pension pot is regarded as 'deferred' income, it is therefore NOT taxed at source, but is taxed on retirement, as income tax, BUT, many, many of these people, up sticks, move abroad, OUTSIDE of U.K Tax jurisdiction, thereby keeping the gains paid by the rest of us 'Taxpayers'.
Last edited by Nonsense on 18 Mar 2018 14:11, edited 1 time in total.
#14897619
The short answer @Nonsense is that all the Tories policies are flawed accept when it comes to addressing the national debt. They are nearly at the point of creating a surplus and if Labour were in power, I expect national debt would have exceeded £2tn three years ago. But there has been a price to this. Austerity. Every class of people have suffered, except pensioners. So yes, you can use NI as a principle to keep pensions at wage growth but not inflation or 2.5pc. So by keeping this policy in place, public sector workers have suffered and so have most of society but the pensioners that could easily spare extra cash have gotten even wealthier (due to low wage growth).

The irony of course is if pensioners didn't vote highly in elections, even Corbyns Labour would be scrapping the triple lock to fund public sector workers. And that is because we are living longer and pensions far exceed any other benefit in terms of cost to the public purse. After all, at some point during a recession we are likely going to have to face after Brexit, we either break this system or destroy the economy completely. And I expect Labour to be in power to make this decision in a decades time.
#14897636
B0ycey wrote:The short answer @Nonsense is that all the Tories policies are flawed accept when it comes to addressing the national debt. They are nearly at the point of creating a surplus and if Labour were in power, I expect national debt would have exceeded £2tn three years ago. But there has been a price to this. Austerity. Every class of people have suffered, except pensioners. So yes, you can use NI as a principle to keep pensions at wage growth but not inflation or 2.5pc. So by keeping this policy in place, public sector workers have suffered and so have most of society but the pensioners that could easily spare extra cash have gotten even wealthier (due to low wage growth).

The irony of course is if pensioners didn't vote highly in elections, even Corbyns Labour would be scrapping the triple lock to fund public sector workers. And that is because we are living longer and pensions far exceed any other benefit in terms of cost to the public purse. After all, at some point during a recession we are likely going to have to face after Brexit, we either break this system or destroy the economy completely. And I expect Labour to be in power to make this decision in a decades time.


BOYcey-
Every class of people have suffered, except pensioners.

You are again 'generalising', which is WRONG, see below.

I have edited my previous post, which you should read the last one or two paragraphs.

Let me explain to you, pensioners pensions are 'their' incomes, based upon their personal 'CONTRIBUTIONS' into the State 'MANAGED' pension scheme.
The BSP is the payment of the 'dividend' or 'interest' on their contributions, it is the PENSIONERS money, NOT 'TAXPAYERS' money.
YOU confuse what the government does with those contributions(generally paying pensioners their rights)with it's general financial management\mismanagement of the national economy.

It is the government that taxes, spends or 'borrows' money which has to repay it's LIABILITIES that it has brought upon itself.
Those 'Liabilities', are the repayment of(including pension increases)created by INFLATION, which further increases the national 'Liabilities', which forces the government to increase pensions & benefits from even more INFLATION-the 'vicious circle'.
In practice, the system is one in which current workers pay for current pensioners, in the expectation that the 'system' will do likewise to existing workers when they retire.
From the very beginning of the State system, the National Insurance Act(1911), any 'deficit' within the 'FUND', has to be rebalanced through higher contributions or cuts in 'benefits'(the 'old' BSP is NOT a 'Benefit', the TORIES have made the 'NEW' State Pension, a 'BENEFIT').

The TORIES are endeavouring to destroy for ideological reasons, in order to bolster the chances of getting their snouts in the pig trough of PRIVATE Insurance & Pensions groups.

Remember, todays workers expectations of a decent pension in retirement through the State system, can ONLY be maintained, 'IF' THEY POLITICALLY OPPOSE THE TORY PARTY, who, if they really supported a future State system, would raise contributions NOW, but they WONT.

The government create INFLATION through the Bank of England electronically through the issuance of 'Bonds' AKA 'Gilts', which attract foreign 'investors' or pension funds, which have to be repaid from future taxes on a currency that is constantly losing 'real' value through inflation.
#14897641
foxdemon wrote:@Nonsense those are good points but still we are talking about the tees rather than the forest. @AFAIK article is inviting us to step back and take a broader view. So let’s cut to the chase and look at the forest.

[youtube]wnqS7G3LmMo[/youtube]


I trust you have already watched the first video I posted. The take home message is that interaction between regions creates a higher level of complexity than would otherwise be possible. But, once begun, if it shuts down for whichever reason, systemic collapse follows.

Given that is what is happening today, I am confident we are heading toward difficult times.
foxdemon-

One thing to look for in he second video is the speaker’s description of what he defines as measurable indicators of social development. When talking policy responses, perhaps those measures are what needs to be addressed?


Nonsense-
Taking, what you describe as a 'broader' view, is what is lacking in many people's minds, context & perspective is everything
because it gives a more holistic way of thinking.

foxdemon-
Given that is what is happening today, I am confident we are heading toward difficult times.
Nonsense-

I agree, 'prosperity' is not shared proportionately around the world.

It's funny that 'sharing'-of pain ,appears on the surface(propaganda) to happen in times of war, once 'normal' times resume, so too do the divisions that create imbalances in wealth sharing.
#14897642
@Nonsense, I once read an article about the differences between NI and income tax and the public perceptions of them. In terms of the public purse and where the money goes, there is no difference. The amount of NI you pay makes no difference to how much pension you get as long as you fulfil your quota. So a pension, and how much you collect is determined by what the government tells you that you get. And if the government goes bankrupt, you will get fuck all.

However, it was interesting reading an Allister Campbell article once about a discussion he had with Blair about raising taxes. They found by increasing NI contributions and promising to give a percentage of it to fund the NHS, the public accepted the tax rise. If they did the same with income tax they didn't.
#14897643
@Rugoz

Free trade is certainly one of the main causes of such slow down in growth. Do you suggest another reason outside of merely pointing the difference between correlation and causation?

The article states that, while surviving high-tech firms are more likely to improve, low-tech firms are less likely to survive and reduces employment. You may state that this is a good thing, meritocratically leaving only the good, competitive firms capable of dealing with external competition but in reality all this does is throw certain firms who, through certain circumstances, cannot adapt to external competition and leaving only a niche set of firms being the only domestic market for Americans. This certainly does not diversify the economy, it does the opposite in fact.

This replacement of low-tech firms with cheaper, foreign ones is the reason for the economic malaise of the Rust Belt and the Great Plains. Even if you think protectionism isn't good policy for the West, it good policy for developing countries or the Third World. Some countries in Africa don't even have the conception of a business let alone an economy. How can those countries compete with businesses if they don't have any to begin with? The only enterprise they have are resources and a resource-based economy is often very unstable and very bloody. You cannot without any doubt assume that, irrespective of your thoughts on Africans, free trade would be beneficial to Africa.

Heck in Iran the entire point of those protests is because of the liberal economic policies of the current Iranian president. Many Iranians realized that, while they do want socially liberal policies, economically liberal policies they feel are not necessary. The current economic disparities of Iran as of right now are due to the neo-liberalism the Iranian government wants to move to. Protectionism lets people have their jobs and slowly builds up businesses to compete in the global market.
Last edited by Oxymandias on 18 Mar 2018 18:01, edited 1 time in total.
#14897667
B0ycey wrote:@Nonsense, I once read an article about the differences between NI and income tax and the public perceptions of them. In terms of the public purse and where the money goes, there is no difference. The amount of NI you pay makes no difference to how much pension you get as long as you fulfil your quota. So a pension, and how much you collect is determined by what the government tells you that you get. And if the government goes bankrupt, you will get fuck all.

However, it was interesting reading an Allister Campbell article once about a discussion he had with Blair about raising taxes. They found by increasing NI contributions and promising to give a percentage of it to fund the NHS, the public accepted the tax rise. If they did the same with income tax they didn't.



Boyce-
The amount of NI you pay makes no difference to how much pension you get as long as you fulfil your quota.

Nonsense-
That may well be where, as you say, the public 'perception' is it's TRUE what you say, BUT only in regards to the 'NEW' State Pension, of which 35 years of contributions post 6 April 2016 are required, otherwise, if paying contributions prior to that date, a pension is calculated based upon the time before & after.

The 'difference' is in the contributions side, a person having already paid in qualifying NI contributions to the 'old' BSP+ Additional or contracted out part, will lose out when claiming the 'NEW' State Pension.

This is because, in part, as you say, "The amount of NI you pay makes no difference to how much pension you get as long as you fulfil your quota", a higher earner will still get the same State Pension as the lowest paid person who qualifies.

The rest of the 'pot' paid in vanishes into the general pensions liability 'pot'.

The only way to increase one's pension(of which a tax limit is set)pot, is through a 'private' arrangement, which is the TORY desire in policy terms.
If I were younger, I would take great heed of Nick LEESON-Barings Bank, who bankrupted that bank whilst trading it's shares as a broker in the 1980's.

When asked, "Do you invest in stocks and shares"? replied, " I have a pension fund, I look after it myself. I buy and sell shares within the fund but not on a daily basis".
"I do my trading on the internet. I WOULD NOT GIVE MY MONEY TO SOMEONE TO LOOK AFTER. It is IMPORTANT to stay in control and get to decide how your pension fund is invested".

The above are words that everyone should follow, if they wish to survive financially in old age, the 'auto-enrolment' government scheme(dreamt up by Labour)is a SCAM, that people who have to pay it will only acknowledge when they retire & receive the pittance that it will be.

In regard to income taxes, think about it, the government takes a huge amount from salaries or wages, along with national insurance, you end up receiving 'Net Pay', which, for most people is not a 'living wage'.
You then want to spend some, or most, if not all of the disposable income that remains, you then pay inflated prices in the shops, on top of that you pay a sales tax called V.A.T, at the rate of 20% part of which pays for 'Customs' that goes to the EU.

Labour increased the V.A.T rate from 15-17.5% in 2010 a month before the general election that year, it was followed by George OSBORNE raising it another 2.5%-20% when the TORIES revealed their 1st budget.
Then there are the 5% on utility companies, the auto-insurance taxes, which, when totalled up, make Labour appear to be the 'LOW' taxation Party.
In FACT, since 1973, the TORIES have INCREASED V.A.T more times than Labour have, in FACT, Labour have REDUCED V.A.T at times & Labour accused the TORIES, as the Party that. " Loves to RAISE V.A.T".

Then we have other 'stealth' taxes, such as imposed on government services 'outsourced' & charges raised to pay for them.

Things like passports, driving licences & many others besides.
#14897689
In FACT, since 1973, the TORIES have INCREASED V.A.T more times than Labour have, in FACT, Labour have REDUCED V.A.T at times & Labour accused the TORIES, as the Party that. " Loves to RAISE V.A.T".

Then we have other 'stealth' taxes, such as imposed on government services 'outsourced' & charges raised to pay for them.

Things like passports, driving licences & many others besides.

Tories love indirect taxes rather than direct taxes, because indirect taxes are regressive by their very nature. Everyone pays VAT, regardless of their income level. It's a clever way of taxing even pensioners or people on benefits. Why wouldn't Tories love VAT?
#14897736
Potemkin wrote:Tories love indirect taxes rather than direct taxes, because indirect taxes are regressive by their very nature. Everyone pays VAT, regardless of their income level. It's a clever way of taxing even pensioners or people on benefits. Why wouldn't Tories love VAT?


Exactly.
#14902575
Oxymandias wrote:Free trade is certainly one of the main causes of such slow down in growth. Do you suggest another reason outside of merely pointing the difference between correlation and causation?


a) I don't need a reason. The potential for productivity growth at a certain stage of economic development is more or less "god-given". There's no reason to believe productivity will grow at a constant rate for all eternity.
b) It could also be a measurement issue, at least partially (hints: Quality-adjusted price indices, the lack of consumer surplus in GDP).
c) The idea that the slowdown in growth was due to increased trade is very far from a mainstream position, at least I never heard of it.

Oxymandias wrote:The article states that, while surviving high-tech firms are more likely to improve, low-tech firms are less likely to survive and reduces employment. You may state that this is a good thing, meritocratically leaving only the good, competitive firms capable of dealing with external competition but in reality all this does is throw certain firms who, through certain circumstances, cannot adapt to external competition and leaving only a niche set of firms being the only domestic market for Americans. This certainly does not diversify the economy, it does the opposite in fact.


You ignore the reallocation effect. Output and employment is reallocated from less to more productive firms.
It might lead to less diversity in the domestic economy (it likely diversifies the global economy though), but the topic was productivity growth.

Oxymandias wrote:This replacement of low-tech firms with cheaper, foreign ones is the reason for the economic malaise of the Rust Belt and the Great Plains. Even if you think protectionism isn't good policy for the West, it good policy for developing countries or the Third World. Some countries in Africa don't even have the conception of a business let alone an economy. How can those countries compete with businesses if they don't have any to begin with? The only enterprise they have are resources and a resource-based economy is often very unstable and very bloody. You cannot without any doubt assume that, irrespective of your thoughts on Africans, free trade would be beneficial to Africa.


That's a different issue.

Oxymandias wrote:Heck in Iran the entire point of those protests is because of the liberal economic policies of the current Iranian president. Many Iranians realized that, while they do want socially liberal policies, economically liberal policies they feel are not necessary. The current economic disparities of Iran as of right now are due to the neo-liberalism the Iranian government wants to move to. Protectionism lets people have their jobs and slowly builds up businesses to compete in the global market.


My intuition would be that Iran would benefit from more trade openness. FDI and technology transfer are important for developing countries and Iran has the educated workforce to absorb it. Slowly building up businesses sounds nice on paper, but it would have to be corruption-free and focused of future high productivity industries. In Iran the opposite is more likely to happen (riddled with corruption and protecting hopeless low-productivity industries).
#14902694
@Rugoz

1. The issue is that growth has overall has slowed significantly directly after neo-liberal policies were implemented and their effects beginning to be displayed the international economy. I’d argue that 2001 is when the pressure that neoliberal policies inflicted upon the economies of the world became clear. By 1990 to the 2000, growth began to to progressively lower.

This shows that there wasn’t a growth period for new-liberal policies or that protectionist policies weren’t working. So yes, you need a reason.

2. I took those factors into consideration when I gave you information regarding the growth of the global economy.

3. I don’t consider mainstream economics correct in the first place because mainstream economics is neo-liberal economics. My issue is not trade itself but rather that allowing businesses free access to your country’s markets allows for other countries more advantageous than you are to destroy your domestic economy and leave you reliant on the resources of other countries. Essentially you become a vassal, reliant on another state for resources.

The problem you ignored is that these high tech firms cannot be expected to hire everyone and even if they tried, it would not only decrease productivity making it susceptible to more productive competitors, but also waste money administrating these new employees, creating new branches, giving them more work, etc.

Furthermore low-tech industry and businesses are still necessary because they serve as the foundation for high-tech industry in the first place. We aren’t a knowledge or post-industrial economy, we are still reliant on steel, iron, metal, concrete, manufacturing, etc. If that falls apart, then there are no high-tech industries in the first place. No one is going to buy the next iPhone if there is no one to build such an iPhone.

This discussion is about the whether free trade or protectionism is good for the economy. This may be a different issue but it still ties into the overall topic and thus must be addressed.

Technology can be gained through other means outside of free trade. I don’t mean developing it yourself, I pulling a Japan and having a sort of MITI, a branch of the government which the power over imports and exports allowing technology and resources to be imported to certain sectors of the economy and industries.

Japan was more of a shithole than Iran ever was post-WW2. Most of the population was dead, infrastructure was non-existent, corruption was disgustingly high where authority figures would even exploit children along with the general population. Despite being literate, a majority of the population was uneducated, and the government was remarkably unstable. Yet 5 years later it was growing quicker than any developing country in the world and, in 5 more years, would become the world’s second largest economy.

Iran is in a much more better position than Japan ever was. Furthermore, the government despite all its flaws is remarkably good at providing assistance, funding, and resources to future potential high-growth sectors and puts a lot of effort into researching new technologies and how to implement them. The government still does this too despite the emergence of neo-liberal policies.

It's interesting how full of shit you are, @skins[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]

Again with the blatant lies. :lol: I asked you t[…]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]