• Krugminator2's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:36 PM
    Your free market capitalism causes poverty takes are amusing and useful. I also enjoy your immigrants ruin the country takes (all the while typing and using technology that was likely developed by immigrants). Your businesses shouldn't have free association with speech codes or vaccines takes but kicking blacks off the lunch counter should be allowed takes are great. I am sure I am missing other takes but it gets hard to juggle the dog's breakfast of agrarian populism and theocracy that you and phil and RJB and sammy have.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:23 PM
    That's a point of difference. I know that I know nothing. Therefore I listen to people who spent their life to studying a topic and have a track record of being right and who have worked critiqued and debated among other people who have spent their lives studying a topic. Maybe you are Ray Dalio and worth listening to. Most likely you aren't so I'll stick to citing Milton.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:42 AM
    I already did. Green squares aren't eaten or used as decoration. They ultimately flow back to the US either in the form of investment or in purchasing products that will be exported to China. If imports made the US poorer, then the value of the dollar would drop relative to Yuan until you hit a new equilibrium where imports and exports would be in balance if you include investment. A pretty good rule of thumb in life is whatever Milton Friedman says on any topic is correct. And if you think you know better you need a really good explanation and it helps to have other smart people in the field of economics on your side. Instead the only economists against free trade are far left wing economists like James Galbraith and Joseph Stiglitz and Dean Baker. That is not good company. You are choosing between Milton Friedman and the guy who thinks Hugo Chavez was doing a great job. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21246144
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-12-2022, 04:52 AM
    Potentially a lot riding on that game. Made it less likely Jim Harbaugh will go to the NFL. Seems likely they keep the interim coach now.
    3238 replies | 155305 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 09:06 PM
    But ugh, Jeff Bezos is wealthy because of what he can buy with is wealth. Under your system he would have green squares that he could use to purchase fewer things than he can buy now. Jeff Bezos would be poorer if you had your way.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 08:00 PM
    I would consider that person wealthy but that is because I view the world rationally and look at things in absolute wealth. You can now get one Mercedes for the old price of 70 Mercedes cars. A person might lose their job screwing lug nuts in but they are now free to do something more productive. The world is wealthier because of that increased efficiency. Everyone used to be a farmer. Now 2% of people feed. The world now gets all the crops and whatever else people who used to be farmers are now able to be produced. More good produced means more wealth.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 07:51 PM
    The thread is about free trade and your assertion is free trade is making the country poorer somehow. And the response from the capitalists in this thread is people can now consume more stuff which means they are wealthier. And the reason they can is in part because goods are produced more efficiently and that is demonstrated by the idea of comparative advantage.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 07:37 PM
    He's asking what are you going to use the asset for? It only has utility if it can be spent for something, which is what this whole conversation is about. More stuff you can buy equals more wealth. The Indians had all the land they could ever want. Big open space. Lots of real estate that you would consider a bankable asset. Were they rich relative to people today? Did Squanto have a private jet or something? Did he have access to life saving medical procedures. Or did he live like a savage and die at 37? Wealth is ultimately only what you are able to consume. That's why I put the cube of gold dig with the inflationary monetary thing above. Gold isn't worth shit if you don't have stuff to consume. If you were stranded on a desert island like in Castaway, gold would have no value. Spanish Conquisidors might have gotten plenty of gold but were they wealthier than a person welfare today? The person on welfare today has the internet, iPhones, Ramen Noodles. Everything you could want. The Consquistidor had lots of gold and a lifespan of 35 years old.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 07:13 PM
    I think trade policy has made the US wealthier than it otherwise would have been. It isn't even close to debatable that the United States is much wealthier the past few decades. Real GDP has been higher than 0%. Pretty safe to say. Printing money doesn't create wealth but bad monetary policy can destroy wealth either with purposeful deflation like the Great Depression which causes unnecessary bankruptcies or inflation in the 70s which causes people to shift money away from investment toward insurance like useless cubes of gold.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 07:02 PM
    Strangely the people of the United States keep getting wealthier and wealthier all the while running a trade deficit. Life keeps getting better and better and people have more and better products and services and yet you and Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan and the preppers keep thinking the country is going to look like Detroit any day now. The country has run a trade deficit for almost the entirety of the last 220 years. Maybe someday you will be right and it will be instant poverty and a collapse dollar. Wrong for 220 years but keep the faith. Someday in the arc of history maybe you will be right.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 06:48 PM
    You would have less wealth but the relative wealth of countries would go unchanged. If you went to China, bought hookers and blow with US dollars it would not mean the United States is now poorer and China is now richer. At least not in any meaningful sense. The person who provided the hookers and blow didn't take worthless little green squares. They took receipts on what those green squares could buy which they will one day consume.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 06:37 PM
    If the US were getting poorer from the transaction the value of the dollar would drop relative to the Yuan and it would cost more dollars to buy the same amount goods in China. It is a neutral event. Chinese firms only take dollars if they can get something of equal or greater value in return.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 06:14 PM
    And you aren't understanding. I never said spending is what makes you wealthy. The ability to have a product to spend money on makes you wealthy. More products to consume means more wealth. I am guessing you didn't take Econ 101. And that's fine. Here the classic example from my intro notes I just dug out from 19 years ago. China and the United States can produce a given number of units of coconuts and bananas Coconuts Bananas China 40 10 United States 50 25
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 05:32 PM
    Well.. Actually you are wealthier. A dollar is only worth what you can get for it. Two packs of gum is better than one pack of gum. If I have a dollar I want to get the maximum amount of stuff possible for it. I don't care if the product is made is China or Texas. There is a whole idea accepted by every economist called comparative advantage. If a Chinese manufacturer can make something more efficiently than an American manufacturer, then they should. And that is why Chinese companies typically focus on lower end stuff and Americans produce higher end technologies that require more education. Good for China. Good for the US.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-10-2022, 05:14 PM
    Wealth isn't green squares. Wealth is the goods and services that can be consumed. The only rational reason to produce and save is to have the ability to consume. What you are able to consume is your wealth. If the world suddenly became unproductive and goods and services decreased dramatically because of an electrical grid failure or an asteroid hit wealth would be diminished. Having a stockpile of gold and green squares isn't going to prevent you from being less wealthy in that scenario. The stock of gold isn't that much higher than 200 years ago. But the quality and quantity of goods and services is significantly greater so the world is much richer. I wrote all that because I have no idea what you are trying to say so hopefully my correct take helps. Trading with China is not a wealth transfer. Trade is win-win otherwise it doesn't happen. The people of the United States are wealthier because of trade with China. If a dollar buys one pack of American made gum and one dollar buys two packs of Chinese gum. I should buy the Chinese gum. I am wealthier because I get more stuff with my dollar from trade with China.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-08-2022, 10:31 PM
    You mean like Murray Rothbard, Robert Murphy, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, Don Boudreaux.... ? Oh and here's Ron Paul on this topic.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-08-2022, 12:37 PM
    I can't believe this needs to be pointed out here but what you said is exactly backwards. The whole point of producing anything is to consume. Wealth is composed of goods and services consumed. Economic nirvana would be producing nothing and consuming everything. Imports are paid for with exports. The ideal is to export as little as possible.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    01-03-2022, 07:43 PM
    Wages haven't stagnated for American born workers. That is a statistical sleight if hand. There are more women working who tend to do lower paying work and who used to not work and more immigrants with low skills. Those numbers skew the aggravate wage data down but have no impact on what a comparable worker made in the 70s and now. For a typical worker wages have risen substantially when you take into total compensation (benefits plus dollar compensation). There are also more people who are upper middle class now. Median income in China is 27,500 yuan or $4300. Not exactly FU money.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    12-30-2021, 05:47 PM
    1. The United States is the largest oil producer in the world. 2. The United States is a net exporter of oil. The United States is energy independent 3. There is no cheap foreign Oil. It is a world market. A barrel of oil costs the same in San Antonio, Timbuktu and Beijing. No difference in horribleness between you and AOC. You are both socialists.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    12-28-2021, 08:44 PM
    Trade only takes place is both sides feel like they gain. Placing barriers to Americans trading is saying you want Americans to be worse off. You can't influence the policies of other countries but you can influence American policies. Unilaterally eliminating all barriers is the only rational policy unless you are a misanthrope. Countries don't trade. People do. If Wal-Mart wants to buy something from anyplace in the world, any barrier is infringing on a fundamental human right to do with there property as the please. Trade is how civilized people deal with each other. When goods cross borders armies don't. Free trade is the foreign policy of a free society.
    283 replies | 5775 view(s)
No More Results
About Krugminator2

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,305
Posts Per Day
1.58
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:54 PM
Join Date
08-01-2014
Referrals
0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

09-14-2021


09-09-2021


07-18-2021


03-05-2021


02-23-2021


01-01-2021


12-30-2020


11-12-2020


09-30-2020

  • 07:24 PM - Hidden
  • 07:07 PM - Hidden
  • 05:36 PM - Hidden

08-18-2020


08-17-2020


07-27-2020


06-11-2020


05-14-2020


04-10-2020


04-01-2020


03-24-2020



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 150 1231151101 ... LastLast

01-16-2022


01-11-2022


01-10-2022


01-09-2022


01-08-2022



Page 1 of 150 1231151101 ... LastLast