Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Apr 3, 2025 03:33 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I am against social safety nets

That's what I thought liar. So quit arguing for something you don't support and then blaming me for calling you on it.

I never argued for social safety nets, moron. LEARN TO READ.

You cite a source that claims social safety nets would be needed to address rising inequality. I simply asked if you think these poorer countries have such social safety nets.
And you just start telling lies (or being a illiterate moron, take your pick) instead of answering that simple question... because we all know the inconvenient answer. You obviously don't give a shit about globalization beyond how it benefits you and your politics. Selfish piece of shit.

Quote:

Quote:I'm also for an even playing field where people in those countries have something resembling the opportunities we enjoy. You apparently don't care if those poor countries have either.

Then you should be all for globalization as I already showed twice how it creates jobs for poor countries and raises the standard of living overall. How is having higher paying jobs and a steady income NOT the same as the opportunities we enjoy? Do you think capitalism doesn't work in poor countries? You're an idiot if you do.

The ONLY incentive for such globalization is to exploit cheaper labor. The minute their standard of living (wages) gets too high, companies move on to the next cheap labor source. Those "opportunities" can disappear as fast as they materialized, leaving these countries with a choice. Whether to artificially keep their wages down or risk losing the jobs. That's exactly why those jobs left America in the first place, moron.

Exploitation is not capitalism, moron. Capitalistic opportunities would be providing something that can't be made elsewhere and paying wages comparable to the market you sell in. That's free market capitalism. In the global market, you have bad actors like China openly stealing other's intellectual property... so their inventions can be made elsewhere, using relatively slave labor.

But you're all for that. Piece of shit.

Quote:I simply asked if you think these poorer countries have such social safety nets.
And you just start telling lies (or being a illiterate moron, take your pick) instead of answering that simple question... because we all know the inconvenient answer. You obviously don't give a shit about globalization beyond how it benefits you and your politics. Selfish piece of shit.

So you do or you don't want these poor countries to have social safety nets? Try being honest this time..

Quote:The ONLY incentive for such globalization is to exploit cheaper labor. The minute their standard of living (wages) gets too high, companies move on to the next cheap labor source. Those "opportunities" can disappear as fast as they materialized, leaving these countries with a choice. Whether to artificially keep their wages down or risk losing the jobs. That's exactly why those jobs left America in the first place, moron.

Actually here are the facts:

"The idea that free trade would set off a race to the bottom is a myth. In the era of globalization, wages have increased, jobs have become safer, and child labor has declined.

Companies and investors are not searching for the poorest places to do business but are investing mostly in relatively wealthy countries. When they do invest in poor countries, their main effect is to raise productivity and labor standards.

There also is no environmental race to the bottom. The richer countries are, the more they protect their environment, and trade speeds up the transition to new and greener technologies around the world....

...Using data from 114 countries, Andreas Bergh and Therese Nilsson found that increased globalization in a country, as measured by the KOF Globalisation Index, is associated with significantly faster poverty reduction.

In his book Globalization and Labor Conditions, Robert Flanagan summarizes the evidence: “Countries that adopt open trade policies have higher wages, greater workplace safety, more civil liberties (including workplace freedom of association), and less child labor.” Flanagan and Niny Khor also document this relationship in “Trade and the Quality of Employment: Asian and Non-Asian Economies,” in the OECD report Policy Priorities for International Trade and Jobs.

This would be extremely surprising if companies always scoured the globe searching for the lowest-cost country. But they don’t. If they did, 100 percent of foreign direct investment would go to the least developed countries, but in fact, no more than 2 percent of all foreign direct investment is heading in their direction. Most investment goes to relatively developed countries, and GDP per capita is the strongest influence on labor conditions. On average, richer countries have higher wages, safer jobs, shorter working hours, and stronger labor rights, such as freedom of association and less forced labor."

https://www.cato.org/publications/global...tom-or-top#

Doesn't sound like "exploitation" to me...

(Apr 3, 2025 11:43 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I simply asked if you think these poorer countries have such social safety nets.
And you just start telling lies (or being a illiterate moron, take your pick) instead of answering that simple question... because we all know the inconvenient answer. You obviously don't give a shit about globalization beyond how it benefits you and your politics. Selfish piece of shit.

So you do or you don't want these poor countries to have social safety nets? Try being honest this time..

I already explicitly told you, you illiterate moron. You even quoted it, dipshit.
But we all know this is just you continuing to avoid the simple question.
You're so predictably intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

Quote:The ONLY incentive for such globalization is to exploit cheaper labor. The minute their standard of living (wages) gets too high, companies move on to the next cheap labor source. Those "opportunities" can disappear as fast as they materialized, leaving these countries with a choice. Whether to artificially keep their wages down or risk losing the jobs. That's exactly why those jobs left America in the first place, moron.

Actually here are the facts:
...
“Countries that adopt open trade policies have higher wages, greater workplace safety, more civil liberties (including workplace freedom of association), and less child labor.”

"Open trade?" You mean without tariffs?
Yeah, that's why Trump is using reciprocal tariffs to get other countries to actually participate in open trade... instead of unilateral tariffs on US goods.

Quote:"Open trade?" You mean without tariffs?
Yeah, that's why Trump is using reciprocal tariffs to get other countries to actually participate in open trade... instead of unilateral tariffs on US goods.

LOL Trump for globalization and free trade now. You can't even keep track of what you're arguing for dumbass. Quit wasting my time.

Open trade is fair trade, moron. That means both parties levying equal tariffs or none at all. Since so many countries tariff US goods, reciprocal tariffs seem to be the only way to get to actual fair trade. Trump just wants the US to get a fair deal in the global market, instead of being one of the relatively few countries that doesn't have protectionist policies. It's the other countries that have been erecting barriers to free trade, not the US.

But hell, if no one's managed to teach you how to read after all these years, you're certainly beyond hope on learning anything about economics.

Quote:Trump just wants the US to get a fair deal in the global market, instead of being one of the relatively few countries that doesn't have protectionist policies.

No moron..what he really wants is to force American companies to manufacture their products here instead of outsourcing to other countries and so reverse the trend towards globalization. A basically protectionist philosophy not open to free trade at all.

"Protectionism, in economics, refers to government policies that aim to shield domestic industries from foreign competition, often through measures like tariffs, quotas, and subsidies."

And the tariffs aren't really reciprocal:

"President Donald Trump’s massive tariffs announced on dozens of nations Wednesday were pitched as “reciprocal,” matching what other countries charge the United States dollar for dollar, even taking into account non-tariff barriers like value-added taxes and other such measures.

But the actual calculation the Trump administration used is not reciprocal at all.

Matching countries’ tariffs dollar for dollar is an incredibly difficult task, involving poring over each country’s tariff schedule and matching a complex array of products, each of which has a different charge for any variants.

Instead, the Trump administration used quite a simple calculation: the country’s trade deficit divided by its exports to the United States times 1/2. That’s it.

The calculation was first suggested by journalist James Surowiecki in a post on X and backed up by Wall Street analysts. The Trump administration later confirmed that was the calculation it used.

For example, America’s trade deficit with China in 2024 was $295.4 billion, and the United States imported $439.9 billion worth of Chinese goods. That means China’s trade surplus with the United States was 67% of the value of its exports — a value the Trump administration labeled as “tariff charged to USA.”

But it was no such thing.

“While these new tariff measures have been framed as ‘reciprocal’ tariffs, it turns out the policy is actually one of surplus targeting,” noted Mike O’Rourke, chief marketing strategist at Jones Trading, in a note to investors Wednesday.

“There does not appear to have been any tariffs used in the calculation of the rate. The Trump administration is specifically targeting nations with large trade surpluses with the United States relative to their exports to the United States,” he added.

The simple calculation used by the Trump administration could have broad implications for countries America depends on for goods — and the global companies that supply them.

“Knowing how these rates were calculated highlights that they are generally going to be most severe on the nations that US companies rely heavily upon in their supply chain,” O’Rourke said. “It is hard to imagine how these tariffs would not wreak havoc upon the profit margins of major multinational corporations.”

Ronald Reagan's warning about imposing tariffs on foreign imports. My how Republicans have changed!

https://www.facebook.com/reel/649070847844273

Nancy Pelosi on Tariffs

(Apr 4, 2025 03:17 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Trump just wants the US to get a fair deal in the global market, instead of being one of the relatively few countries that doesn't have protectionist policies.

No moron..what he really wants is to force American companies to manufacture their products here instead of outsourcing to other countries and so reverse the trend towards globalization. A basically protectionist philosophy not open to free trade at all.

You have no clue, dipshit. It's not just American companies. So far it's been mostly foreign companies investing in manufacturing in the US.
But Trump has repeatedly said his motivation is the trade deficit (as Nancy Pelosi explained in SS's video above).
If other countries dropped all their tariffs on US goods, Trump would drop his retaliatory tariffs... except for punitive tariffs against the likes of China's human right violations and Russia not coming to a ceasefire deal.

Quote:"Protectionism, in economics, refers to government policies that aim to shield domestic industries from foreign competition, often through measures like tariffs, quotas, and subsidies."

Again, open trade involves both sides not having protectionist tariffs. Until you can address what other countries have done for decades, you just sound like an MSNBC suckling.

Quote:So far it's been mostly foreign companies investing in manufacturing in the US.

Tariffs are paid by the importing companies, which would be those located in the US. The purpose of tariffs?

"Tariffs in most cases are intended to protect local industries by making imports more expensive and driving consumers to domestic producers."

Quote:If other countries dropped all their tariffs on US goods, Trump would drop his retaliatory tariffs

No they won't. It's only leading to a trade war, with China, the EU, Mexico, and Canada all imposing their own tariffs on imported US goods. And that's not good for anybody.