Worth knowing 2 other 'men of the year' from Time Magazine

[Newb]

Originally posted by iblis73
"That's great, but what about the fact that we don't export anything except mostly bombs that blow up on contact? Our manufacturing base has eroded away"

Sorry, but this is wrong on many levels. The US does export quite a bit-airplanes,petro/chemicals,pharmacuticals(sp),autos.....well you get the picture. The innovation going on right now in our small and mid sized businesses will be turning out another slew of high tech products for the world. True we have lost a lot of manufacturing-but much of it was low end or large cyclical consumer autos. American manufacturing now required much more skill to be employed in it and turns out first rate high tech products.


As for a living/minimum wage, all the argument is for naught. Those who normally support living/min wage also support mass immigration to the US. Basic econ101-with that much labor supply you CANT have a living/min wage! Not to trudge into a pro or anti immigrant message, but if all the illegals disapeared you would see a massive spike in working class jobs.

These people work very cheap for us, most under minimum wage. I have an animation for you that shows the process of deindustrializing, and it's effects to immigration:

Free Trade Means Slave Labor:
What's Behind the Immigration Crisis
http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/ani...xico_en_lo.asf


The dollar has fallen over 60% agains the Euro and almost every single natural or physical good has skyrocketed in price. I was explained when this happens, our exports naturally take over as they are more easily obtainable. I am stating that with the very limited exports we have, it will not be enough to balance the effects of a further collapsing dollar.

[Marky]

Hi Newb,

1. As to Friedman Economics... Friedman believed that by and large, a national and global economy are self-regulating and self-correcting. And to get STARTED with why LaRouche's outlook on economics is so despicable, he and his supporters throw around words like inhumane, fascist, and "Slave Trade" when they can't prove a point. "Free trade involves bringing jobs from America to a country that can produce more cheaply? Let's call it 'inhumane'. And since the new workers will get paid less, let's call it 'slave labor'". My suggestion to you, Newb, is that if you want to continue a discussion with me, don't say "Fascism" or "Slave Trade" or "Anti-American" with the notion that somewhere, someone will ASSUME you're speaking an obvious truth. I don't buy it, and if I see it again I'm not going to waste my time talking to you (so far, I do not consider the discussion a waste, for the record).

Also, I believe that some regulations and man-made corrections on the economy (tax cuts, tax increases, anti-trust laws, etc.) should not be scoffed at, so we are in agreement that some regulation is good.

2. These are from your original "Paradoxes" that you pointed out, and my responses:

--Even with this textbook answer, we have no solution given to so many paradoxes that rise in your answers. For example, you stated that a weaker dollar will help exports, but yet, our manufacturing forces have completely collapsed--

This is because we are no longer the sole provider of manufacturing products in the market. However, we do have an opportunity to export specialized American goods that have no effective substitute in the market. However, your proof of a "Paradox" ignores two important facts: One, there are more than two countries in the world (even though I only used two in my example, for the sake of simplicity), and two, America doesn't just provide manufacturing products.

--A weaker dollar will yeild more exports, yet we have a growing trade deficit.--

Economic effects re-regulate themselves over the course of years. It's not like the dollar is suddenly lower in value, and in that instant all the people in other countries who will now buy our products purchase them, and we instantaneously produce them. In addition, if manufacturing exports are decreasing at a faster rate than other specialized imports are increasing, we'll still see years of a trading gap increase before imports overtake exports. Now, to provide a silly, regular world example of YOUR assumption, it would be like ordering something from a catalog, and being furious that, at the exact second you gave the person on the phone your credit card number, the item you're purchasing doesn't magically appear in your house.

--Things are supposed to be stable, yet housing prices have more than doubled, everything we need to live off has continuiously raised in price--

IT'S CALLED INFLATION! Furthermore, when the interest rates are lowered, demand for property will increase and the price will go up!

--most of the states (Such as bankrupt california) cannot support their own population anymore --

Bankruptcy of a state is another phrase you bring up too often, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Furthermore, this has to do with poor fiscal and monetary policy in California, coupled with a federal deficit. It has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.

3. Paul Vocker saved the U.S. economy. If you can't provide real evidence as to how horrible he was, I will GLADLY explain how excellent his decision was to raise the interest rate to 20%. As to your following points:

Real Estate Prices: As long as the interest rate is increased at a slow and steady pace, there will be no decrease in real estate values. At worst, there will be a short-term plateau.

Currency Valuation: I didn't ignore it, I explained the IMPORTANCE of value oscillation.

4. What's the difference between moving between states and moving between countries? You're moving a job from one location to another, the new location and it's distance from the old one is irrelevant. Your ultimate arguement is one of distribution, because you want America to get its piece of the pie before anyone else.

Now, as to your "slave labor" theory. If someone in Mexico is willing to work for $3/hour, it's because the local job down the street is only offering $2/hour. And this is where we part ways... I don't think a business should be forced to pay a certain wage or offer jobs in a certain place. We just won't agree on that.


And as to LaRouche's economics, the man is living in the past and if anyone has a policy that could destroy the U.S. economy, it's him!

1. He lives in the past because he wants to reinstitute the gold standard for the dollar, and he doesn't want the government to make loans on the assumption that inflation will allow it to pay back a dollar that is less valuable, after it's made a small return on it's investment (he calls this "too risky"). He also wants a total regulation of business policy in the name of the "little guy", even though this stagnates business growth due to reduced incentive (there's no room for "problem-solving" or "creative thinking" between producer's and consumers in LaRouche's world, where the government acts as a profilactic between the two). These are policies for small countries, not a country of 300 million people, where 3% of the world's workforce produce 20% of the world's output.

2. When LaRouche is in a "debate", it involves him screaming words like "fascist", "slave trader" and "Anti-American" (much like you do!) until the opponent gets so sick of it they have to go throw up, then he says he WON THE DEBATE! There's a reason he wasn't allowed in the Democrat Primary debates, and it's not because he would have been a shoe-in! From Lyndon's perspective, if you disagree with him, he'll insult you until you get bored and walk away, then he'll take the prize and be proud of it. That's not a method of professionals, let alone logical economists.

[Newb]

Originally posted by Marky
Hi Newb,

1. As to Friedman Economics... Friedman believed that by and large, a national and global economy are self-regulating and self-correcting. And to get STARTED with why LaRouche's outlook on economics is so despicable, he and his supporters throw around words like inhumane, fascist, and "Slave Trade" when they can't prove a point. "Free trade involves bringing jobs from America to a country that can produce more cheaply? Let's call it 'inhumane'. And since the new workers will get paid less, let's call it 'slave labor'". My suggestion to you, Newb, is that if you want to continue a discussion with me, don't say "Fascism" or "Slave Trade" or "Anti-American" with the notion that somewhere, someone will ASSUME you're speaking an obvious truth. I don't buy it, and if I see it again I'm not going to waste my time talking to you (so far, I do not consider the discussion a waste, for the record).

Let's look at the animation I linked above. How Free Trade has been used historically, and today, is purely a system of looting nations of their natural resources and work force. The whole conception of Adam Smith Free Trade is fraud. If everyone leaves the market forces alone, no one, espcially a government tries to 'intervene', then the market will regulate it self and you'll get the best price and service for your buck. Some people get rich, others get poor. hah. Too bad for them, it's the wild baby! Man Vs. Man! Darwin Economics! You're not cutthroat enough to kill your competition, then you just aren't tough enough. Like it or not, that's what it comes down to.

You show me anyone or anyones policies LaRouche has called Fascist, anti-human, nazi, whatever, and we'll discuss it. He doesn't throw around those words as insults, but as real definations of peoples behaviors or actions.


Let's set one of the ironies of Free Trade out in the open. The axiomatic assumption is that Government interference will mess up the system, since govt. is evil and corrupt. If you let private businesses set the price together, then you wont have corruption like you will with Government controlling prices. However, we face another paradox.

Our Constitutional Republic is our Government. We have a Constitution that states we have a duty to provide for the general welfare of the population. In order to defend the general welfare and promote the posteraty of this nation, we can use taxes, tarriffs, and so fourth to secure ourselves as independant economically. A private business has a bottom line wether you like it or not. To make money. What keeps them in check? The Government does. Laws and rules do. In lending, the Government passed predatory lending which made it illegal for mortgage brokers to charge over 6% in fees. The Government had to step in to defend the general welfare from predatory lenders (and since I also work in real estate, I can tell you they are mostly money hungry hustlers). If left to the private markets, you would be paying 10-12% on your refinances.

A GREAT example of the fraud of Adam Smith Free Trade (free to loot) is Californias deregulation. We heard the exact same song and dance. The Government regulated electricity of $30-$35 MWatt/HR is too much to pay Kenneth Lay said. The state is ripping us off. Kenneth Lay wrote Californias deregulation policy which stated we will sell off our power plants to the highest energy company bidders, they will fight between themselves to sell us electricity, and since there is more competition, we will ge ta better service. The Republcan legislature of 'Prop 187' Pete Wilson passed it, but they had to wait 4 years to raise prices. 4 Years later, electricity prices went from $35 mwatt/hr to $4,900 Mwatt/HR by Enron (Kenneth Lay is the CEO of Enron and top corporate financer of Bush/Cheney 2000). The Energy cartels were found guilty by the Senate Judiciary Committee for gaming the market. The Cartels like Reliant, Duke, Dynergy, Enron, etc. worked together to rape California. Our lame duck Democratic opposition was too busy being bought out to do anything about it (except LaRouche of course, who at this point was excluded). Because of Kenneth Lays actions, people in California died of heat exhaustion. In the Friedman and Adam Smith system 'TOUGH! They weren't Strong enough to stand up, so they died. Old people don't do too much anyways, so it's not bad that they died. Now there's less people to collect on SS and Medicare.' This is *fascist*, like it or not, you are dwelling into Roman and Nazi economics. People being killed for a financeer is *not* something to take light hearted.

This type of 'free trade' comes to the exact same end as it did in Rome. Roman armies would invade the nearby lands, turn the population into slaves, and loot their resources. If you look at the resource cartel grabs, they do this exact same thing. They lend money to a nation with certain stipulations which allows them to bankrupt the nation, and own them financially. They pay some of the people of that state a few measly pennies to do the hard work, and to suck all of the minerals and resources they can dry out of the nation.

Also, I believe that some regulations and man-made corrections on the economy (tax cuts, tax increases, anti-trust laws, etc.) should not be scoffed at, so we are in agreement that some regulation is good.

However, you look at it from a Keynesian model instead of a Hameltonian system, so even here we are at odds. Certain things should always be regulated, not just to correct the financeers who loot it and let it go out of hand, but to promote a constant growth of the physical economy to meet the needs of the growing posterity.

2. These are from your original "Paradoxes" that you pointed out, and my responses:

--Even with this textbook answer, we have no solution given to so many paradoxes that rise in your answers. For example, you stated that a weaker dollar will help exports, but yet, our manufacturing forces have completely collapsed--

This is because we are no longer the sole provider of manufacturing products in the market. However, we do have an opportunity to export specialized American goods that have no effective substitute in the market. However, your proof of a "Paradox" ignores two important facts: One, there are more than two countries in the world (even though I only used two in my example, for the sake of simplicity), and two, America doesn't just provide manufacturing products.

--A weaker dollar will yeild more exports, yet we have a growing trade deficit.--

Economic effects re-regulate themselves over the course of years. It's not like the dollar is suddenly lower in value, and in that instant all the people in other countries who will now buy our products purchase them, and we instantaneously produce them. In addition, if manufacturing exports are decreasing at a faster rate than other specialized imports are increasing, we'll still see years of a trading gap increase before imports overtake exports. Now, to provide a silly, regular world example of YOUR assumption, it would be like ordering something from a catalog, and being furious that, at the exact second you gave the person on the phone your credit card number, the item you're purchasing doesn't magically appear in your house.

The big elephant in the room is that the dollar is the largest held and traded currency in the world, and has lost over 60% of it's value since the introduction of the Euro. It has been falling faster when Bush took office. Almost every country in the world holds dollars for reserves, and they have lost alot of money. THey are also facing severe financial problems that they can't solve. There is no sign of any end of a dollar collapse, and only signs of a futher collapse, like it's been goign for the past several years. Whatever exports we have are not enough to cover a strong dollar (that this administration supposidly has as their policy), and unfortuantely, our exports are *not* covering the loss of the value of the dollar. Your analogy that I expect something to be here this instant is also void, since our exports have been collapsing repeatedly, in relation to our industrialization. The factories are shutting down, your buck isn't buying what it used to and it is collapsing, the prices of raw minerals and items such as steel, copper, wood, etc. have more than doubled in price in under a year, and it's continuing. On top of that, we are printing out trillions of new dollars, and trying to control intrest rates, none of whch is having any real effect.

[Newb]

--Things are supposed to be stable, yet housing prices have more than doubled, everything we need to live off has continuiously raised in price--

IT'S CALLED INFLATION! Furthermore, when the interest rates are lowered, demand for property will increase and the price will go up!
[/b]

It's actually called *out of control* inflation. When was the last time housing prices doubled in 3 years? When was the last time intrest rates were as low as Greenspin made them a year ago? You seroiusly think house prices doubling in 3 years, with the dollar being printed out so cheaply and given away is simple inflation??

--most of the states (Such as bankrupt california) cannot support their own population anymore --

Bankruptcy of a state is another phrase you bring up too often, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Furthermore, this has to do with poor fiscal and monetary policy in California, coupled with a federal deficit. It has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.

Californias bankruptcy *yea, we are bankrupt, like NY in 1971* does have something to do with the value of the dollar. We are the 5th or 7th largest economy in the world, what happens to us effects the USA and the world to a degree. California didn't have poor monetary policy, we had a 6 Billion dollar surplus. It is when the energy cartels came in that we lost tens of billions of dollars. The Stock Market Crash (continuing today) had a big hit on us. Of course, you bring up a point of the federal deficit, which too is a big problem put on top of all of these.

New York itself went bankrupt in 1971, something you just claimed couldn't have happened to a state.
Volume 23, Number 2 · February 19, 1976
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8940

Felix Rohatyn, big time financeer for the Oligarchy and member of the DNC passed through a Schachtian plan that even Goering would have liked. Schacht was able to get anti-american (yup, anti constitutional) mandates passed in the state of NY. They declared certain parts of the state dead such as 'queens', 'bronx', and other parts. They cut ALL health care (hospitals, ambulances, etc), police, education, and government programs. The idea was simple. They are already dead. Either they will die, or move out. People died and people moved out, NY lost over a million people. Felix Rohatyn recently wrote that same plan needs to happen in the USA coast to coast, to get us through this next financail crisis. He is of course a enemy of the people, and wants to get as much money out as he can, but it shows you what htey are thinking.

Now, as to your "slave labor" theory. If someone in Mexico is willing to work for $3/hour, it's because the local job down the street is only offering $2/hour. And this is where we part ways... I don't think a business should be forced to pay a certain wage or offer jobs in a certain place. We just won't agree on that.

Would you also be the one whipping the black and mexcian workers who are getting paid $1 an hour on the plantation? After all, the market says that's all they are worth, so it must be true, right?

And as to LaRouche's economics, the man is living in the past and if anyone has a policy that could destroy the U.S. economy, it's him!

1. He lives in the past because he wants to reinstitute the gold standard for the dollar,

Wrong. The British Gold Standard system was used to stop growth. The idea of a Gold Standard is that if you as a bank lend money to someone, you'd better have that money in your bank. Seeing how most of the Gold in the world was in London, it was good for them. Abraham Lincoln introduced the greenback which is how we beat the British in the Civil War. LaRouche wants a Gold Reserve policy similar to FDR. The Idea is that the gold is supposed to cover leverage for the deficit you will incure the first few years of a regulated Super "TVA" to rebuild the USA and train the population in development toosl again.

and he doesn't want the government to make loans on the assumption that inflation will allow it to pay back a dollar that is less valuable, after it's made a small return on it's investment (he calls this "too risky").

He doesn't want the govt to make loans to financial institutions that rely *solely* on that. Physical Development projects have a *guaranteed* return. Science Drivers such as the Space Program got us $10 back for every dollar we put in. We got all kinds of new technologies such as Cat scans, microwaves, the PC industry, uses of velcro, heart/breath monetaring devices, i mean all kinds of great things came out. You use the technology you get back in development projects to make better industry, thus getting more money back. If you build a Super-TVA, and let your workforce invest in that, they have something solid and physical to continue getting ar eturn on when they retire. It wont be like the millions of people who lost everythign since they had it invested in fraud paper transactions.

He also wants a total regulation of business policy in the name of the "little guy", even though this stagnates business growth due to reduced incentive (there's no room for "problem-solving" or "creative thinking" between producer's and consumers in LaRouche's world, where the government acts as a profilactic between the two).

Absolutely not. If you read some of his works on the independant farmer for example, you will see how much technology development and creative freedom are some of the most important things. For example, he defined true wealth as the 'creative potential of the population' which is true. The government will regulate the enrons, the government will make sure a company like Fannie Mae and JP Morgan do not invest tens of trillions of dollars in deriviative bets which will fail. Wallstreet needs to be regulated, and it's about time. However, that is very far from regulating everything, which wont work either.

2. When LaRouche is in a "debate", it involves him screaming words like "fascist", "slave trader" and "Anti-American" (much like you do!) until the opponent gets so sick of it they have to go throw up, then he says he WON THE DEBATE!

Oh yea? give me one debate where this happened (and the guy wasn't a fascist). Let's look at it on a per debate basis. I'm sure you can refrence at least one.

There's a reason he wasn't allowed in the Democrat Primary debates, and it's not because he would have been a shoe-in! From Lyndon's perspective, if you disagree with him, he'll insult you until you get bored and walk away, then he'll take the prize and be proud of it. That's not a method of professionals, let alone logical economists. [/B]

Again, not true. Felix Rohatyn, George Soros, and the 'get Bill clinton' crowd of the DLC have hated LaRouche because he will regulate their financial looting and predatory lending systems. THese people have a great way of looting other nations, and they dont want anyone standing in their looting. If you are a mafia loan shark who lends money to people, then you make them your slave pretty much, you are not going to stand by and watch someone come in and stop it.

[Marky]

Hi Newb,

1. As to free trade, this is simply a position where you and I will disagree. Ultimately, I believe this is because you're looking at it from an "international trade" perspective, and so look at the gains and losses of individual countries. I am looking at it from a "global trade" perspective, and I watch the net gain (or loss) of ALL ECONOMIES COMBINED.

As to California in general, if you believe the Friedman economics always leads to a cartel scenario, then your opinion is skewed. Furthermore, energy production should be taken from a "Natural Monopoly" perspective, in my opinion, and should have been regulated such that they received 0 economic profit or a fixed economic profit. But my perspective STILL falls under Friedman economics, because it views energy as a natural monopoly market. Refusing to regulate such a market is not any branch of economics, but sheer stupidity on the part of a legislature.

It should also be noted that, since most markets are NOT a natural monopolistic scenario, if all the firms form a cartel, a single new firm can enter the market and sell for a fairer price, and they will be undercut again by another firm entering the market. The point being, the case of Enron is far from the norm, both in business ethics AND in the rules by which new firms enter the market. You may be "throwing the baby away with the bathwater" when you bash Friedman economics, to use a poor cliche', based on the actions of a single cartel operating under peculiar circumstances.

2. When it comes to dollar devaluation, you always bring up two things that have little impact: One, that our "manufacturing base" is disintegrating, and two, that natural resources are increasing in value.

If you think that the government is able (or even SHOULD BE ABLE) to force manufacturing jobs to stay in the U.S., we will butt heads 'til kingdom come. Putting all your eggs in the manufacturing basket is a tremendous mistake, both from a practical standpoint and a data analysis standpoint. For the sake of practicality, manufacturing will no longer be the forte' of the U.S. It's not the fault of any politician, it's simply due to the fact that, over time, technology and information will normalize in a system, and the entire world is one economic system. So, over the years, technology has been exported from the U.S., as has information, and now other nations are perfectly capable of competing with us from a manufacturing standpoint. So as I said, the U.S. will NEVER AGAIN monopolize manufacturing, and it's up to America (or another nation) to set the new goal bar for the next economic era.

Furthermore, from a data analysis standpoint, when you observe net imports/exports from an EXCLUSIVELY manufacturing perspective, you are looking at two simultaneous economic shifts. One shift occurs when manufacturing jobs leave the U.S. for other countries, so the U.S. SHOULD be able to compete more on a global level. But there is the second shift, which occurs when those jobs are brought to ANOTHER COUNTRY, so while our manufacturing prices are dropping, firms are creating more product abroad with prices that will seriously undercut any price we can name (otherwise, the firm would not have outsourced!). So yes, the manufacturing portion of the trading gap will continue to widen, and as I said in my last post, we will not see a positive export surplus until our exportation of SERVICES (other than manufacturing) overshadow our manufacturing failings.


3. "You seroiusly think house prices doubling in 3 years, with the dollar being printed out so cheaply and given away is simple inflation?? "

There was a thorough explanation of the primary factor leading to an increase in house valuation (though you had asked why "prices were going up", as if that had never happened before!). For ease of reading, I'll repeat it here... The low interest rate increases the demand for houses while supply remains constant for the short-term, leading to an increase in price.

As for your statement about "out of control" inflation... Inflation has been at around .1% for over a year now, when the historical benchmark is around 3-4%!

4. Not once in the article you provided did I find a statement that New York went bankrupt, however much a depression it had fallen into. If I simply missed the paragraph, please let me know. Furthermore, let's not forget that it was in the 60's that tax cuts were passed to increase the GDP, and the government tried to regulate the economy in such a way that it would steadily keep the economy in an expansionary state, which so many people seem to think is a great idea. The results of such a quest hit in the early 70's, when the inflation rate reached 15%! The point being, on one hand you think heavy regulation of the economy will improve the well-being of all, but when the results come a decade later, you blame "business" as if it somehow fell through on a promise it had made. What happened in the 70's only reinforces my opinion that the government should not be heavy-handed in it's regulation of business.

5. "Would you also be the one whipping the black and mexcian workers who are getting paid $1 an hour on the plantation? After all, the market says that's all they are worth, so it must be true, right?"

Though I don't say this in earnest very often, such a statement is not only inflammatory but downright idiotic. The fact is, a Mexican worker can work wherever they can find work, and they can work for the highest bidder in their market, or for that matter, they can choose not to work at all. Slaves have no such choices; they work for one firm, for one price, no if's, and's or but's about it.

No matter how much you call working in Mexico for $3/hour "slave labor", the Mexicans call it "opportunity", or they work somewhere else. Keep relativity in mind. Is $100/week a lot to live on? OF COURSE IT IS, in Mexico where purchasing power parity shows us that it costs them 30$/week to live an "average" Mexican life!

Now, having said that, is your desire not to make business a slave to the government?

6. Two points about your defense of LaRouche.

"Physical Development projects have a *guaranteed* return. Science Drivers such as the Space Program got us $10 back for every dollar we put in. We got all kinds of new technologies such as Cat scans, microwaves, the PC industry, uses of velcro, heart/breath monetaring devices, i mean all kinds of great things came out. You use the technology you get back in development projects to make better industry, thus getting more money back."

None of these returns were GUARANTEED before the space program. Most people thought space travel would be a waste of time and money, much as they think modern discussions of such endeavors will be. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but today's "Speculations" may be tomorrows "Guaranteed Returns", according to your statements.

"The government will regulate the enrons, the government will make sure a company like Fannie Mae and JP Morgan do not invest tens of trillions of dollars in deriviative bets which will fail."

They'll fail? How could you POSSIBLY KNOW THAT?! How could those companies have known that before they made the investments?! For every 10 investments made, there will be one that bears fruit. To say, "We're only going to put money in the investments that will yield results. We're going to ignore investments what won't bear fruit," would be enough to make any investor laugh.

And Larouche doesn't attack people personally, he's always literal? So when he calls Cheney a BeastMan and Rumsfeld the Child of Satan, he's being quite literal? I don't care how much you may dislike either of those men, but if you say THAT about them, I'm not going to bother listening to you. And here's this, because two examples aren't enough.

http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/i...s/lhldefd.html

And if you think LaRouche was kept out of the '04 debates because he would blow the lid off the government conspiracy, I would think the screaming of racial attacks on Lieberman and Sharpton during those debates followed by calls of, "LaRouche! LaRouche in '04!" would be enough to disprove your conclusion.

I would also suggest you read his '04 campaign manual, but since I'm guessing you already have and still feel the way you do, I think this is where our conversation ends. You don't have to respond to this post. I'll read any post you make, but I'm only going to reply if something particularly interesting catches my eye. As it is I've noticed very few differences between any of your posts, but you might prove me wrong.

It's been fun!

[Newb]

I would like to take ur points 1 at a time. Let's start with the very first one.

Originally posted by Marky
Hi Newb,

1. As to free trade, this is simply a position where you and I will disagree. Ultimately, I believe this is because you're looking at it from an "international trade" perspective, and so look at the gains and losses of individual countries. I am looking at it from a "global trade" perspective, and I watch the net gain (or loss) of ALL ECONOMIES COMBINED.

You mention I look at it from a 'international trade' perspectice, while you look at the numbers of just 'ALL ECONOMIES COMBINED.'

By that you mean that instead of looking at the effects of your economic actions on a per country basis, you look at the 'bottom line' figure. Am I correct in my presumption?

edit:
To clarify, what I mean by 'bottom line' figure, is the combined world GDP.

[Newb]

Aww come on, it's been 2 days now. You can write a entire paragraph and talk about how much you support having no miminum wage and call it 'humane', yet you can't take 20 seconds to reply to a question about your first point?