Global stock markets have had their worst week - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15077821
Rancid wrote:The high tech and high paying jobs are still in much demand even now (hell this virus is causing a surge in cloud computing, which is where I work). Especially since we can still work through the virus, the pay is still coming in.

Yeah, we had a meeting today about hiring people. 5G rollout, edge clouds, etc. are not going to stop because of this. If anything, demand will be even higher as companies that aren't prepared for a remote workforce are at a significant competitive disadvantage to those who can make that shift immediately.

B0ycey wrote:If Capitalism is unable to maintain the supply lines for the nations populous survival, it is up to governments to execute measures to maintain them.

International capitalism is unable to. Nationalist capitalism works, but it is loyal to the nation state that underwrites it. Look at the companies who banked heavily on selling into China who are on their last legs. A long standing company like Ford Motor is trading at $4 a share. The United States does not have to continue with GATT/WTO. We can always pull out of that.
#15077929
late wrote:If we are going to bring back the medieval way of doing things, should we have barbers doing surgery?

GATT was ratified in 1994. Are you suggesting that the medieval period existed until 1994? (It's just a rhetorical question, because your rhetorical question illustrates a degree of absurdity that underscores why people don't take you seriously)

Unthinking Majority wrote:This will be the buying opportunity of a lifetime in the markets. Better than 2008.

I'm about half in now. My portfolio is down about 2%. Things are turning. I have some positions where I've already doubled my money.
#15077934
blackjack21 wrote:

GATT was ratified in 1994. Are you suggesting that the medieval period existed until 1994? (It's just a rhetorical question, because your rhetorical question illustrates a degree of absurdity that underscores why people don't take you seriously)



International trade is what created capitalism.

Barriers to trade played a significant role in creating WW1.

What you are suggesting is batshit crazy..

But I will admit that the medieval comment was a rhetorical flourish to make a point.
#15077935
Ironically the medieval period was open borders (for real open borders too) pretty much universally. Border control is rather expensive personnel wise and requires extensive identity tracking. Even today border control usually only extends to mass transit interchanges like airports, railway lines, high capacity ports and highways. None of which were things (excepting ports) that existed a thousand years ago. There was not enough surplus wealth to squander on border control unless it was against invading armies in wartime. Civilians were beneath the metaphorical radar.
#15077943
late wrote:International trade is what created capitalism.

Well, that's painting with a broad brush. The effort to reduce risk inspired fractional ownership and insurance. Double-ledger, double-entry bookeeping made it feasible to create large organizations. The Westphalian system wasn't even solidly in place at that time. Similarly, I could say that the desire to avoid excessive taxation led to the discovery of North and South America, and the creation of the United States. It's just painting with kind of a broad brush.

late wrote:Barriers to trade played a significant role in creating WW1.

Fear of a rising Germany is a better reason. Germany didn't start the war, but bore the blame for it because the French and British Empires feared Germany's superior economy.

late wrote:What you are suggesting is batshit crazy..

War leads to peace. :lol: The fact of the matter is that we have been in a period of deflation for 20 years now. If we want out of it, trade wars and shooting wars would bring that on rather quickly. Banks cannot make money in a zero interest rate environment.

SolarCross wrote:Ironically the medieval period was open borders (for real open borders too) pretty much universally.

Italy introduced the notion of the quarantine. It meant staying on a ship for 40 days before coming into port to ensure that the sailors didn't transmit an infection into the local populace.

Wikipedia wrote:The word "quarantine" originates from quarantena, the Venetian language form, meaning "forty days".[13][6] This is due to the 40-day isolation of ships and people practiced as a measure of disease prevention related to the plague.[13] Between 1348 and 1359, the Black Death wiped out an estimated 30% of Europe's population, and a significant percentage of Asia's population.[13] Such a disaster led governments to establish measures of containment to handle recurrent epidemics.[13]
#15077944
blackjack21 wrote:Italy introduced the notion of the quarantine. It meant staying on a ship for 40 days before coming into port to ensure that the sailors didn't transmit an infection into the local populace.

Sure but the black death is as much a emergency condition as a military invasion, actually more so in the case of the Black Death. That's not situation normal though.
#15077953
blackjack21 wrote:
Well, that's painting with a broad brush. The effort to reduce risk inspired fractional ownership and insurance. Double-ledger, double-entry bookeeping made it feasible to create large organizations. The Westphalian system wasn't even solidly in place at that time. Similarly, I could say that the desire to avoid excessive taxation led to the discovery of North and South America, and the creation of the United States. It's just painting with kind of a broad brush.


Fear of a rising Germany is a better reason. Germany didn't start the war, but bore the blame for it because the French and British Empires feared Germany's superior economy.


War leads to peace. :lol: The fact of the matter is that we have been in a period of deflation for 20 years now. If we want out of it, trade wars and shooting wars would bring that on rather quickly. Banks cannot make money in a zero interest rate environment.


Italy introduced the notion of the quarantine. It meant staying on a ship for 40 days before coming into port to ensure that the sailors didn't transmit an infection into the local populace.



Seriously, where are you getting this wonderful BS? I want to see it for myself.

None of your first paragraph has a thing to do with what I said. It's just distraction. Italy needed international trade, their financial concerns developed ways to manage the high levels of risk. Capitalism and international trade are joined at the hip.

The origins of WW1 are fiendishly complicated. There were 4 or 5 powers playing a game of musical chairs. Oil played a big role. Germany paid Arabs to fight the English. Before the official start of WW1 they were already fighting. Or to put it differently, they were all afraid, they were all running scared. And acting on their fear ended their empires. The winners were 'only' severely damaged.

I was in Europe for 6 months in 1973. I noticed that the dollar was weaker when I traded in my coins at the end of my stay. This has been going on for a lot longer than you realise.

And your childish remedy (to grab and your ball and go home) is a lot worse than the disease.
#15077954
SolarCross wrote:
Sure but the black death is as much a emergency condition as a military invasion, actually more so in the case of the Black Death. That's not situation normal though.



It's estimated that the Black Death killed roughly 1/3 of the population of Europe.
#15078062
late wrote:Capitalism and international trade are joined at the hip.

Capitalism does not require international trade. Naturally, city states would be dependent on trade. Since anything outside the city walls was foreign, foreign trade was a regular matter.
#15078074
blackjack21 wrote:
Capitalism does not require international trade.



Last time anyone got that stupid, we got WW1.

The WW2 guys, like Ike and Truman, wanted international trade to try and prevent WW3.

And then there are the practical matters, good luck trying to do everything here. The dislocations would serves us up a recession all by themselves.

If you tried sanity, then you would have an argument. We have done a crap job at managing international business. We used to give tax breaks to companies moving production offshore. We look the other way when the rich avoid taxes.

But that's not suicidal, so it doesn't meet your core criteria.
#15078091
late wrote:
Last time anyone got that stupid, we got WW1.

The WW2 guys, like Ike and Truman, wanted international trade to try and prevent WW3.

And then there are the practical matters, good luck trying to do everything here. The dislocations would serves us up a recession all by themselves.

If you tried sanity, then you would have an argument. We have done a crap job at managing international business. We used to give tax breaks to companies moving production offshore. We look the other way when the rich avoid taxes.

But that's not suicidal, so it doesn't meet your core criteria.
Noted on the WW3 prevention part, but in turn the world has changed to such an extent that there are probably people who cannot be liberated with anything short of WW3. International trade means some other malicious countries use that to consolidate their influence, with the traditional rapproachment practitioners unable to stop them. China's unwillingness to become freer and Putin's rise are both good examples.
Last edited by Patrickov on 25 Mar 2020 14:28, edited 1 time in total.
#15078099
late wrote:Last time anyone got that stupid, we got WW1.

There was plenty of international trade before and during WW1.

late wrote:The WW2 guys, like Ike and Truman, wanted international trade to try and prevent WW3.

There has been international trade since time-immemorial. The idea it didn't exist until Ike or Truman is absurd.

late wrote:The dislocations would serves us up a recession all by themselves.

Perhaps in China.

late wrote:We used to give tax breaks to companies moving production offshore.

Yes. That's significantly reduced now.
#15078213
blackjack21 wrote:
1) There was plenty of international trade before and during WW1.


2) There has been international trade since time-immemorial. The idea it didn't exist until Ike or Truman is absurd.


3) Perhaps in China.


4) Yes. That's significantly reduced now.



1) "The drift into a world of unilateral tariff increases was only one element in the indirect assaults on trade cooperation that occurred from the 1870s on...But most serious of all were the trade wars that broke out on several occasions...But the more general lesson was that a trade war had costs for both trading partners..."
https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472113054-ch3.pdf


“But President Herbert Hoover, desperate to ensure his own re-election and wanting to curry favor with workers who were increasingly worried about an economic slowdown, signed the bill in 1930,” says economist Lee Branstetter with Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “History tells us what happened next. Soaring American tariffs set off a global trade war, our trading partners retaliated, and global trade fell sharply, deepening the Great Depression.”

Many historians argue that the deteriorating world economy helped set the stage for World War II, a sobering thought."
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-01/us-tried-extra-high-tariffs-1930-it-was-disaster

2) You really need to learn the basics. That was ridiculous. The idea was that countries that do a lot of business together don't go to war with each other. It was a herculean effort.

3) You really don't pay attention. Trumps tariffs hurt American manufacturing, if the pipeline of raw materials and subsystems got shut down, it would make for an epic mess.

4) That was just an example, you didn't respond to the point. Which is that we need to do a better job at managing trade.
#15078228
late wrote:2) You really need to learn the basics. That was ridiculous. The idea was that countries that do a lot of business together don't go to war with each other. It was a herculean effort.

That's a lovely idea in the abstract. The opposite is the case, however. Countries that do a lot of business together do go to war with each other. Everyone was doing business with Germany, but that didn't stop the world wars.

late wrote:3) You really don't pay attention. Trumps tariffs hurt American manufacturing, if the pipeline of raw materials and subsystems got shut down, it would make for an epic mess.

If the pipeline from China got shut down for any reason, it would make an epic mess. That means the supply chain isn't diversified enough to deal with shocks from China--leaving the US vulnerable as we see in the health care supply chain right now. That's why trading for absolute advantage is a bad idea in the long run. It's bad for China too, as they have way too much capacity for their own market.

late wrote:4) That was just an example, you didn't respond to the point. Which is that we need to do a better job at managing trade.

We need to not create tax incentives to outsource. We also need to ensure a diversified supply chain. That would benefit the US, and the entire world too. Depending on China for 90% of the inputs to drugs is simply insane. This is why we do not trust the establishment anymore. They have demonstrated that they are not fit to rule.
#15078233
blackjack21 wrote:
1) That's a lovely idea in the abstract. The opposite is the case, however. Countries that do a lot of business together do go to war with each other. Everyone was doing business with Germany, but that didn't stop the world wars.


2) If the pipeline from China got shut down for any reason, it would make an epic mess. That means the supply chain isn't diversified enough to deal with shocks from China--leaving the US vulnerable as we see in the health care supply chain right now. That's why trading for absolute advantage is a bad idea in the long run. It's bad for China too, as they have way too much capacity for their own market.


3)We need to not create tax incentives to outsource. We also need to ensure a diversified supply chain. That would benefit the US, and the entire world too. Depending on China for 90% of the inputs to drugs is simply insane. This is why we do not trust the establishment anymore. They have demonstrated that they are not fit to rule.



1) You just compared a whale to a guppie and didn't notice the size difference. You don't know enough to talk about this.

2) You are pursuing an insane fantasy.

3) That's managing trade, and it's already started. But that's a long ways from abrogating thousands of treaties and agreements.
What does China really want?

World domination by one country is no longer poss[…]

Trying to end an argument based on something comp[…]

The cult of science

Sounds like that dude's models needs some serous […]

I wish I could live in Cuba, settler. 8)