|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 18, 2024 10:43:42 GMT
Don't worry, Russia will. They have a violent history. I was right . You asked. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 18, 2024 10:45:08 GMT
Protectionist barriers to enemy regimes are sensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 18, 2024 10:46:11 GMT
It doesn’t take a genius or a prophet to see that the West is going down the shitter. I’ve been saying that for years ( and on here regularly) . So don’t kid yourself about that . You seem to be fixated on China as the Worlds saviour and inspiration. On the basis that your CCP mates know everything and everyone else knows nothing . Thats why no one’s buying it . Yes but he said more than that. He put his finger on the precise problem and it is to do with protectionism in trade. He said any country who puts up protectionist barriers to global trade will destroy itself. I mean he was deadly serious, but it was not a threat. It was like the captain saying to all the ships, I've got the position of the iceberg, and sensible captains would say right your are, 30 degrees starboard and they all live to survive. The problem was some rebel captain in another ship figured he was lying. Watch this space and you might see something dramatic happen as a consequence. It might happen if Trump gets into office, but there again it will probably happen if the other ones does as well. 100 % tariffs could be suicidal. I’m sorry. Are you saying that China has no protectionist policies ? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 18, 2024 10:46:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 18, 2024 10:58:24 GMT
Yes but he said more than that. He put his finger on the precise problem and it is to do with protectionism in trade. He said any country who puts up protectionist barriers to global trade will destroy itself. I mean he was deadly serious, but it was not a threat. It was like the captain saying to all the ships, I've got the position of the iceberg, and sensible captains would say right your are, 30 degrees starboard and they all live to survive. The problem was some rebel captain in another ship figured he was lying. Watch this space and you might see something dramatic happen as a consequence. It might happen if Trump gets into office, but there again it will probably happen if the other ones does as well. 100 % tariffs could be suicidal. I’m sorry. Are you saying that China has no protectionist policies ? When Mao was in charge it was pretty damn protectionist. There were subsidies for everything, much like the soviet economy. Ever since the mid 70s the plan has been a gradual opening up, and it continues today, although these steps are never reported in the Western media, like changes in the financial rules on stock holdings and all sorts of technical stuff. The country continues to evolve in this way, although of late there have been some retaliatory sanctions, like China sanctioned the Aussies. Some of these sanctions have now been lifted as the Aussies fessed up and came to the table in a more civilised manner. So in general China only uses them as a last resort to make others do fair and free trade. The one in Australia that really changed their mind affected their larger supplies. I thought it kind of funny in a way. China knows their neighbours well! |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 18, 2024 11:06:32 GMT
I’m sorry. Are you saying that China has no protectionist policies ? When Mao was in charge it was pretty damn protectionist. There were subsidies for everything, much like the soviet economy. Ever since the mid 70s the plan has been a gradual opening up, and it continues today, although these steps are never reported in the Western media, like changes in the financial rules on stock holdings and all sorts of technical stuff. The country continues to evolve in this way, although of late there have been some retaliatory sanctions, like China sanctioned the Aussies. Some of these sanctions have now been lifted as the Aussies fessed up and came to the table in a more civilised manner. So in general China only uses them as a last resort to make others do fair and free trade. The one in Australia that really changed their mind affected their larger supplies. I thought it kind of funny in a way. China knows their neighbours well! I’ll ask again. Are you saying that China has no protectionist policies ? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 18, 2024 11:51:18 GMT
When Mao was in charge it was pretty damn protectionist. There were subsidies for everything, much like the soviet economy. Ever since the mid 70s the plan has been a gradual opening up, and it continues today, although these steps are never reported in the Western media, like changes in the financial rules on stock holdings and all sorts of technical stuff. The country continues to evolve in this way, although of late there have been some retaliatory sanctions, like China sanctioned the Aussies. Some of these sanctions have now been lifted as the Aussies fessed up and came to the table in a more civilised manner. So in general China only uses them as a last resort to make others do fair and free trade. The one in Australia that really changed their mind affected their larger supplies. I thought it kind of funny in a way. China knows their neighbours well! I’ll ask again. Are you saying that China has no protectionist policies ? You are trying to imagine protectionism is a binary thing, either you do it or you don't. It is the completely wrong way of looking at it. This is why your question is hopeless. The effects on the economy of the country is the aggregate effect of all the different protectionist measures and degrees to which they are applied. This is why economics is more complicated than the average Joe can understand. Mathematicians call it a space. Your binary on or off space only has two points. It is an inadequate model to understand how the economy works. Another type of space is your one dimensional continuous space where we can measure it as a percentage or a real number as it is known. When we talk about protectionism though, the point can exist in a multidimensional space. Now we are getting more sophisticated and this is how I think. Each time you apply some more protectionism, you are costing yourself money overall. The corollary is anyone in a market that does something to make the market freer, and more fluid is going to make money.
I know this from experience by the way. Back in the 80s when I was a young chap, I noticed the price of TVs in the middle of London was a good 20% or cheaper than it was out in the shires, a matter of a few tens of miles made TVs cheaper or more expensive. This is an economic distortion, so as the hero of the free market I got myself a van and started to rebalance the market! One time I calculated for my time I got paid 100x the hourly rate of some of my classmates. Shame it didn't last, but the market wised up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 18, 2024 12:38:38 GMT
I’ll ask again. Are you saying that China has no protectionist policies ? You are trying to imagine protectionism is a binary thing, either you do it or you don't. It is the completely wrong way of looking at it. This is why your question is hopeless. The effects on the economy of the country is the aggregate effect of all the different protectionist measures and degrees to which they are applied. This is why economics is more complicated than the average Joe can understand. Mathematicians call it a space. Your binary on or off space only has two points. It is an inadequate model to understand how the economy works. Another type of space is your one dimensional continuous space where we can measure it as a percentage or a real number as it is known. When we talk about protectionism though, the point can exist in a multidimensional space. Now we are getting more sophisticated and this is how I think. Each time you apply some more protectionism, you are costing yourself money overall. The corollary is anyone in a market that does something to make the market freer, and more fluid is going to make money.
I know this from experience by the way. Back in the 80s when I was a young chap, I noticed the price of TVs in the middle of London was a good 20% or cheaper than it was out in the shires, a matter of a few tens of miles made TVs cheaper or more expensive. This is an economic distortion, so as the hero of the free market I got myself a van and started to rebalance the market! One time I calculated for my time I got paid 100x the hourly rate of some of my classmates. Shame it didn't last, but the market wised up.
Actually I was imagining you answering a question without loading it with verbiage and diversion. I imagined wrong . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 18, 2024 12:44:07 GMT
You are trying to imagine protectionism is a binary thing, either you do it or you don't. It is the completely wrong way of looking at it. This is why your question is hopeless. The effects on the economy of the country is the aggregate effect of all the different protectionist measures and degrees to which they are applied. This is why economics is more complicated than the average Joe can understand. Mathematicians call it a space. Your binary on or off space only has two points. It is an inadequate model to understand how the economy works. Another type of space is your one dimensional continuous space where we can measure it as a percentage or a real number as it is known. When we talk about protectionism though, the point can exist in a multidimensional space. Now we are getting more sophisticated and this is how I think. Each time you apply some more protectionism, you are costing yourself money overall. The corollary is anyone in a market that does something to make the market freer, and more fluid is going to make money.
I know this from experience by the way. Back in the 80s when I was a young chap, I noticed the price of TVs in the middle of London was a good 20% or cheaper than it was out in the shires, a matter of a few tens of miles made TVs cheaper or more expensive. This is an economic distortion, so as the hero of the free market I got myself a van and started to rebalance the market! One time I calculated for my time I got paid 100x the hourly rate of some of my classmates. Shame it didn't last, but the market wised up.
Actually I was imagining you answering a question without loading it with verbiage and diversion. I imagined wrong . So I've lost you then. Oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 18, 2024 12:45:24 GMT
Actually I was imagining you answering a question without loading it with verbiage and diversion. I imagined wrong . So I've lost you then. Oh well. No you wandered off like a grandad with dementia. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 18, 2024 14:03:51 GMT
So I've lost you then. Oh well. No you wandered off like a grandad with dementia. Yes well sometimes I really don't understand you. It seems impossible to hold a conversation because you expect people to stick rigorously to what you expect them to reply with. I've explained to you why the question was stupid. I've explained how I think about it as well and if you are too stupid to understand maths then you had better not accuse others of dementia. It is you! |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 18, 2024 14:16:22 GMT
No you wandered off like a grandad with dementia. Yes well sometimes I really don't understand you. It seems impossible to hold a conversation because you expect people to stick rigorously to what you expect them to reply with. I've explained to you why the question was stupid. I've explained how I think about it as well and if you are too stupid to understand maths then you had better not accuse others of dementia. It is you! Nope reply to not with.The question wasn’t stupid but the reply was You explained nothing but avoided everything . That is your debate technique, verbiage , avoidance and if that doesn’t work you claim that those who point it out are stupid . If you were as clever as you pretend to be you might have realised that I never accused you of suffering from dementia. Just wandering off the point . |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 18, 2024 16:08:48 GMT
Oh FFS...  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 18, 2024 16:13:33 GMT
Oh FFS... Depends on how you see it. She did join a group consisting primarily of people who are employed in unskilled or semi-skilled manual or industrial work…but did she join a social group consisting primarily of people who are employed in unskilled or semi-skilled manual or industrial work? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 18, 2024 19:43:45 GMT
“ Asked if the winter fuel allowance should be brought back, she said: “Yes, but not exactly as it was before. “I don't think millionaires should get the winter fuel allowance, but what Labour's done is taking it away from poor people or people who need it. That's wrong.” Asked if she saw it as an attack on pensioners, she said: “Yes.” Badenoch added: “I do think that there is some motivation there, ‘these aren't our voters, so we can penalise them’. But also it is Labour's foolishness. “We have a Labour government that is very clueless. That winter fuel policy has been offered to every single government, and we've said no, every single leader “And this time the officials waved it at Rachel Reeves. How about this? And she said, ‘yes’, that's a very naive thing to do. “I think one of the mistakes we made was making Reform voters think that they were not our people. They are our people. Many of the people who voted Reform were lifelong Tory voters. “One of the moments that really created that impression was when we removed the whip from Lee Anderson. I think that was a mistake.” www.gbnews.com/politics/video-winter-fuel-payment-kemiThat and more from Badenoch. |
|
