The Long Road to Residency

[Good Luck]

Your newspeak bullshit won't cover you. You are clearly the fascist. In nearly every meaningful way you agree with the failed fascists states of the past and even in some not so meaningful ways (hatred of Jews). You talk about brainwashing but you show all the signs of skinhead/neonazi "brainwashing." You share their desire to isolate themselves from the impure and share all their paranoid delusions.

Why is it assholes like you have to start tossing around the fascism label every time their pet drug-induced fantasies of economic utopia are challenged? You don't even fucking know what fascism is. All this tells me is you are out of legitimate arguments so you have to start in on the emo bullshit.

 

[Timshel]

DUH! You think their governments are benevolent? Many of the countries with which we have free trade make no illusion about caring one whit about their people. Others may give lip service to the people, but, like our own government, miss the benevolence mark by a few miles when it comes to practice.

And it's not like other countries need to make their products ARTIFICIALLY cheaper. They are cheaper because they do not have the relative expenses our manufacturing faces, from higher wages to meeting safety regulations, eco regulations, etc. The idea that manufacturing companies are moving outside the U.S. because of IMMIGRATION policies is laughable. Sure, cheap labor is one attraction - which they would NOT get if we relaxed immigration laws - instead of paying $2.50/hr with no taxes or bennies under the table they'd be paying $7.25/hr plus taxes and associated labor costs. But there are many other ways having to do with various types of regulations that moving manufacturing out of country makes it cheaper.

Of course, all too often the results of avoiding those regulations results in things like contaminated medicines, lead base paint on toys, or toxic paint on drinking glasses. Good show, free trade. Let's add free immigration to the mix and REALLY fuck over our grandkids.

Of course, I don't think their governments are benevolent. I don't think ours is. It just happens to be less burdensome.

The point is trade barriers will not benefit them on the whole. If they wish to harm themselves it is not in our interest to harm ourselves in response.

As you start to touch on in your last paragraph, you underestimate the value
of our laws. You don't have to pay bribes to local cops here. Your property is reasonably safe from theft and their is little chance the government or rebels will decide to chop off the factory bosses head and nationalize the plant.

As I mentioned I would not live in Mexico if offered an increase in pay and that has nothing to do with a distaste for the culture. The reasons it is preferable to live here are the same for why it preferable to do business here. It is simply more efficient to not be burdened by criminal behavior, including that of the criminals wearing government uniforms.

 

[Timshel]

Why is it assholes like you have to start tossing around the fascism label every time their pet drug-induced fantasies of economic utopia are challenged? You don't even fucking know what fascism is. All this tells me is you are out of legitimate arguments so you have to start in on the emo bullshit.

Listen, if you are going to rush to the defense of someone you should check the chronology.

nAHZi constantly and ridiculously throws around the fascist label. He did so several times in this thread. I merely responded by pointing out that he (not you) is the clear fascist. And he is. He agrees with them in every fundamental way. He throws around the charge to try to degrade its meaning and obscure its obvious application to his own views. It's nothing but newspeak propaganda and spin.

If you are adopting AssHat's every position then you are a fascist too. Otherwise, STFU.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How will they exploit it? By punishing their own consumers or subsidizing ours?

The only protections needed are for those goods of strategic interest. We can ensure that by simply requiring the use of domestic supply in the production of the weapons of war.

Tariffs hurt ourselves but they also hurt the other guys. Tit for tat is the best strategy for achieving order amongst various independent and selfish interests.

 

[Lao Tse]

Listen, if you are going to rush to the defense of someone you should check the chronology.

nAHZi constantly and ridiculously throws around the fascist label. He did so several times in this thread. I merely responded by pointing out that he (not you) is the clear fascist. And he is. He agrees with them in every fundamental way. He throws around the charge to try to degrade its meaning and obscure its obvious application to his own views. It's nothing but newspeak propaganda and spin.

If you are adopting AssHat's every position then you are a fascist too. Otherwise, STFU.

you are fascist because you believe government should primarily serve the short term business interests of corporations instead of the general well being of the entire nation. You try to destroy fundamental concepts such as "borders", or "immigration quotas". And you continually ignore the other facets which figure into trade policy, like to what extent is it wise to have such a lopsided trade deficit, or to be dependant for essentials on nations which could conceivably be hostile. Usually conservatives value independence and national security, but none of that mattes to you, because your primary interest is in destroying america with globalist idiocy.

 

[Good Luck]

Of course, I don't think their governments are benevolent. I don't think ours is. It just happens to be less burdensome.

The point is trade barriers will not benefit them on the whole. If they wish to harm themselves it is not in our interest to harm ourselves in response.

As you start to touch on in your last paragraph, you underestimate the value
of our laws. You don't have to pay bribes to local cops here. Your property is reasonably safe from theft and their is little chance the government or rebels will decide to chop off the factory bosses head and nationalize the plant.

As I mentioned I would not live in Mexico if offered an increase in pay and that has nothing to do with a distaste for the culture. The reasons it is preferable to live here are the same for why it preferable to do business here. It is simply more efficient to not be burdened by criminal behavior, including that of the criminals wearing government uniforms.

There are a variety of types and levels of harm when it comes to balancing trade. No system comes with zero harm.

The problem with the "free trade" ideal is we NEVER end up with genuine free trade. Your views are simplistic in the extreme that we can literally ignore barriers to our exports while openly importing their goods.

Where your views are simplistic is in the estimate that, because imports are cheaper, it is better for us. That is not necessarily true as was pointed out (and ignored). We have certain safety regulations concerning MANY different types of products. Those safety regulations are in place for a reason. But when dealing with the products of a country without those regulations, we are putting ourselves at risk. Of note is the myriad stories over the past few years dealing with imported products, mostly from China with whom we have been opening our trade restrictions, that violate our safety restrictions. Lead paint in childrens' toys is NOT a small matter - yet that is wah we end up dealing with when committed to free trade.

The second way your vieew is simplistic is with the claim that they are "harming themselves" by placing trade restrictions on our goods. How so? are our goods so "good" that they harm themselves by buying their own? LOL Get a grip on reality, dude. The harm comes in when trade is imbalanced by one side having restrictions and the other side does not. Do you think severe trade imbalances can be sustained indefinitely? Did it occur to you that we would not be quite so dependent on cheap foreign imports if we had not exported such a large portion of our better paying jobs?

Bottom line, free trade is NOT a sustainable relationship for many reasons. That does not mean we need to completely close our borders, or impose draconian protective trade laws. But we DO need some barriers in place, first to assure the products we import follow our product safety guidelines BEFORE we have to recall them, and second to maintain a more even balance in trade so we don't end up giving away our grandchildrens' firstborn.

 

[Timshel]

There are a variety of types and levels of harm when it comes to balancing trade. No system comes with zero harm.

The problem with the "free trade" ideal is we NEVER end up with genuine free trade. Your views are simplistic in the extreme that we can literally ignore barriers to our exports while openly importing their goods.

Where your views are simplistic is in the estimate that, because imports are cheaper, it is better for us. That is not necessarily true as was pointed out (and ignored). We have certain safety regulations concerning MANY different types of products. Those safety regulations are in place for a reason. But when dealing with the products of a country without those regulations, we are putting ourselves at risk. Of note is the myriad stories over the past few years dealing with imported products, mostly from China with whom we have been opening our trade restrictions, that violate our safety restrictions. Lead paint in childrens' toys is NOT a small matter - yet that is wah we end up dealing with when committed to free trade.

The second way your vieew is simplistic is with the claim that they are "harming themselves" by placing trade restrictions on our goods. How so? are our goods so "good" that they harm themselves by buying their own? LOL Get a grip on reality, dude. The harm comes in when trade is imbalanced by one side having restrictions and the other side does not. Do you think severe trade imbalances can be sustained indefinitely? Did it occur to you that we would not be quite so dependent on cheap foreign imports if we had not exported such a large portion of our better paying jobs?

Bottom line, free trade is NOT a sustainable relationship for many reasons. That does not mean we need to completely close our borders, or impose draconian protective trade laws. But we DO need some barriers in place, first to assure the products we import follow our product safety guidelines BEFORE we have to recall them, and second to maintain a more even balance in trade so we don't end up giving away our grandchildrens' firstborn.

Free trade does not change the need for quality controls. The danger from imports is overblown and ignores the fact that domestic products sometimes fall short.

I already explained, in detail, how barriers to trade hurts the nation that enacts them. Protectionism does not work.

You have been proven wrong over and over again by history. Free trade is the only means to a sustainable relationship.

 

[Liberty]

Naaa AHZ is just a garden variety paranoid schizophrenic.

WOW!!! That says a lot.

 

[Timshel]

The second way your vieew is simplistic is with the claim that they are "harming themselves" by placing trade restrictions on our goods. How so? are our goods so "good" that they harm themselves by buying their own? LOL Get a grip on reality, dude.

I'll go over it again. Anything that bars their consumers from buying the product they most desire necessarily means that the consumer will be forced to pay a higher price or settle for a less satisfactory product. Utility is not maximized. Consumers must be harmed as they are forced to subsidize the less productive domestic industry. This subsidization encourages inefficiency in the protected industry. Then there are the unproductive efforts of those who must ensure foreign imports are not smuggled in and that of the smugglers. There is no fucking way that a trade barrier can result in a net positive for the protectionist nation.

 

[Good Luck]

Free trade does not change the need for quality controls. The danger from imports is overblown and ignores the fact that domestic products sometimes fall short.

I already explained, in detail, how barriers to trade hurts the nation that enacts them. Protectionism does not work.

You have been proven wrong over and over again by history. Free trade is the only means to a sustainable relationship.

So explain to me how an ever increasing trade deficit resulting in massive debt to foreign governments (because you KNOW their PEOPLE ain't benefiting from all this free trade you keep spouting about) is GOOD for us, or them, or anyone except a bunch of despotic tyrants we'd both probably rather shoot than shake hands with? There is your theory of free trade, and then there are the genuine consequences faced by Americans on a daily basis.

in SOME instances competition provides incentive for better product, as your automotive industry tail goes. But what about CHEAP SHIT that we see these days? Is that REALLY beneficial, using free trade to promote the throw-away society we have become, choking on the refuse of the use-once crap we import in the name of cheap?

You go on about benefit to the consumer, etc., but in the end it is a load of bovine excrement. The American Consumer also happens to be the American Worker - you cannot separate the two. And the American Worker is NOT, contrary to all your high-sounding theory, benefiting from these free trade treaties we have gotten involved with, and as a consequence the consumer half of the American worker suffers, too, by being forced by circumstance to resort to lower quality imports amde by cheap labor because that is all they can afford. Take a look at some of the consequences NAFTA has had on Montana's lumber and woods industry. When manufacturers can get Canadian wood cheaper, that's what they will use, and American People lose work as a result. A small increase in manufacturing of finished wood products is more than offset by the loss of jobs in the lumber industry.

The American Consumer gets cheaper products, but the American Worker (who is the same person - a fact you gloss over) ends up NEEDING cheap foreign shit because he is now in competition with the laborers of a nation of poverty with a per-capita GDP less than 1/10 ours, and a government who has gladly arranged things to their benefit, not that of their people, and most definitely not to the benefit of OUR people. I don't know about you, but sustaining the regimes of Hu Jintao and Kim Jong via free trade isn't my idea of "beneficial" to anyone, except Hu Jintao and Kim Jong.

The incidence of domestic products falling short of safety requirements is far less than imports because there are more direct means of assuring safety requirements are met. We cannot do that in a foreign manufacturing facility, even one that is primarily U.S.-company owned. So we end up relying on the assurances of people who don't give a shit if they poison our children. You cast it off, but in case you haven't noticed, cases of unsafe products entering the U.S. and getting into our market before they are caught have been growing a a fast rate. And that phenomenon is a direct consequence of free trade agreements that, contrary to your claim, DO affect our ability to impose our safety regulations on foreign goods.

Now, understand I am not promoting simplistic protectionism like taxing imports until local manufacturing can compete with import prices. That kind of protectionism is, indeed, the type which you proclaim to stifle competitive motivations in U.S. industry. (but then again, so does the current trend of importing more and more low-quality cheap crap in the name of volume sales. We end up competing to out-cheap foreign competition, not out perform.)

I do promote trade laws in which we are far more stringent than we are currently about assuring import items conform to our safety regulations. And I also promote reasonable protections as a means of more closely balancing trade so we are not faced with continual trade deficits.

I also promote limiting free trade to economies that are more parallel to ours. Free trade with poorer economies only has the net effect of bolstering their economy at the cost of decreasing ours.

 

[Timshel]

So explain to me how an ever increasing trade deficit resulting in massive debt to foreign governments (because you KNOW their PEOPLE ain't benefiting from all this free trade you keep spouting about) is GOOD for us, or them, or anyone except a bunch of despotic tyrants we'd both probably rather shoot than shake hands with? There is your theory of free trade, and then there are the genuine consequences faced by Americans on a daily basis.

You are confusing government debt with the trade deficit.

in SOME instances competition provides incentive for better product, as your automotive industry tail goes. But what about CHEAP SHIT that we see these days? Is that REALLY beneficial, using free trade to promote the throw-away society we have become, choking on the refuse of the use-once crap we import in the name of cheap?

People buy the things they do for myriad reasons. Are you suggesting the government should pick winners and losers in the market and protect consumers from their desire for "CHEAP SHIT?"

You go on about benefit to the consumer, etc., but in the end it is a load of bovine excrement. The American Consumer also happens to be the American Worker - you cannot separate the two. And the American Worker is NOT, contrary to all your high-sounding theory, benefiting from these free trade treaties we have gotten involved with, and as a consequence the consumer half of the American worker suffers, too, by being forced by circumstance to resort to lower quality imports amde by cheap labor because that is all they can afford. Take a look at some of the consequences NAFTA has had on Montana's lumber and woods industry. When manufacturers can get Canadian wood cheaper, that's what they will use, and American People lose work as a result. A small increase in manufacturing of finished wood products is more than offset by the loss of jobs in the lumber industry.

The American Consumer gets cheaper products, but the American Worker (who is the same person - a fact you gloss over) ends up NEEDING cheap foreign shit because he is now in competition with the laborers of a nation of poverty with a per-capita GDP less than 1/10 ours, and a government who has gladly arranged things to their benefit, not that of their people, and most definitely not to the benefit of OUR people. I don't know about you, but sustaining the regimes of Hu Jintao and Kim Jong via free trade isn't my idea of "beneficial" to anyone, except Hu Jintao and Kim Jong.

I never gloss over the fact that we fill both roles as seller and consumer. That's why protectionism does not work. The cost to consumers and for enforcement is far greater than the benefit to labor/capital in the protected industry. Further, it rewards a negative in the domestic industry and can lead to protection of inefficiency or an inability to satisfy consumer demands.

The incidence of domestic products falling short of safety requirements is far less than imports because there are more direct means of assuring safety requirements are met. We cannot do that in a foreign manufacturing facility, even one that is primarily U.S.-company owned. So we end up relying on the assurances of people who don't give a shit if they poison our children. You cast it off, but in case you haven't noticed, cases of unsafe products entering the U.S. and getting into our market before they are caught have been growing a a fast rate. And that phenomenon is a direct consequence of free trade agreements that, contrary to your claim, DO affect our ability to impose our safety regulations on foreign goods.

Do you have any proof of that? I would guess imports would be less safe though I doubt it's very significant. But, you have not established that imports are less safe.

Now, understand I am not promoting simplistic protectionism like taxing imports until local manufacturing can compete with import prices. That kind of protectionism is, indeed, the type which you proclaim to stifle competitive motivations in U.S. industry. (but then again, so does the current trend of importing more and more low-quality cheap crap in the name of volume sales. We end up competing to out-cheap foreign competition, not out perform.)

I do promote trade laws in which we are far more stringent than we are currently about assuring import items conform to our safety regulations. And I also promote reasonable protections as a means of more closely balancing trade so we are not faced with continual trade deficits.

I also promote limiting free trade to economies that are more parallel to ours. Free trade with poorer economies only has the net effect of bolstering their economy at the cost of decreasing ours.

Frankly, I find your desire to conduct trade wars against impoverished states disgusting. That it must impoverish us is nonsense and can only be based on a zero-sum theory of trade. Zero-sum theories of trade are horseshit and have been thoroughly discredited.

Trade enriches both the buyer and seller in a typical market transaction. It would not take place if it did not. The seller seeks profit, the buyer seeks to satisfy a need or want. Freedom in the transaction ensures the greatest maximization of utility and therefore the greatest possible increase in wealth.

I don't have a problem with requiring certain safety standards be met. But it should not be a guise for what is actually a barrier to trade.

 

[Timshel]

Do you grow poorer from all transactions with someone of less means than yourself? Does Maryland grow poorer when it trades with Mississippi?

 

[Good Luck]

You are confusing government debt with the trade deficit.

No, I am not. You are trying to avoid answering.

Trade deficits mean we import more than we export. That is simple enough, is it not?

When we are not exporting enough to cover our imports, then we make up the lack in money. But money is nothing more than a symbol representing the wealth of the country that issued it. Money, be it printed on paper or numbers in a computer, is functionally a debt against the nation of issuance.

When we have a trade deficit with a socialist country, then the government of said country is who ends up controlling the debt (money) resulting from the trade deficit.

Combine the two, and my statementquestion stands, and you answer is still lacking. So I'll ask it again:

So explain to me how an ever increasing trade deficit resulting in massive debt to foreign governments (because you KNOW their PEOPLE ain't benefiting from all this free trade you keep spouting about) is GOOD for us, or them, or anyone except a bunch of despotic tyrants?

Add in the fact that we are now underwriting national debt using the same governments, and we are REALLY digging ourselves an economic grave.

 

[Good Luck]

Do you grow poorer from all transactions with someone of less means than yourself? Does Maryland grow poorer when it trades with Mississippi?

You cannot apply the standards of an individual transaction to the full of trade between two nations. It's like taking the kinetic energy of a single water molecule and extending it to describe the behavior of a rain cloud.

Your state analogy does not work either, because they are both of the same economy making any monetary debt resulting from an interstate trade deficit internal. Internal debt can functionally be ignored - it's like transferring money from my house repair budget to cover a hole in my entertainment budget.

Trade deficits between nations is entirely different. Can a business continue indefinitely to buy more merchandise than they sell?

 

[Good Luck]

Frankly, I find your desire to conduct trade wars against impoverished states disgusting. That it must impoverish us is nonsense and can only be based on a zero-sum theory of trade. Zero-sum theories of trade are horseshit and have been thoroughly discredited.

Trade enriches both the buyer and seller in a typical market transaction. It would not take place if it did not. The seller seeks profit, the buyer seeks to satisfy a need or want. Freedom in the transaction ensures the greatest maximization of utility and therefore the greatest possible increase in wealth.

I don't have a problem with requiring certain safety standards be met. But it should not be a guise for what is actually a barrier to trade.

Then explain the lack of decent paying jobs in the U.S. Explain the exportation of manufacturing since free trade agreements became the norm. Explain the vast increase in differential between the wealthy (who are the actual beneficiaries of free trade, not the people as you ignorantly claim) and the shrinking middle class. Explain the trend toward ever higher percentages of service jobs in the U.S.

Your theory is based on the benefit of individual transactions. But you cross several paradigm barriers in extending that basic principle to international trade. You cannot take the laws that describe the behavior of subatomic particles and use it after lumping a whole bunch of particles together. Likewise you cannot take the rules that describe trade between individuals and apply them blindly to international trade - especially between nations of significantly different strengths and types of economy. International trade is far more complex than just a bunch of transactions lumped together. You cannot simply say that because selling me that new carbine bolt tool benefits us both means that trade policies which result in significant, ongoing and growing trade deficits is good.

Why don't you take a quick trip us to Detroit and explain to the auto workers there how good free trade has been for them. Then cut down to the south east textile region and explain the same to them. I'll bet they won;t believe you either.

Like the Chinese government benefiting from our trade deficit, the real beneficiaries of free trade have nothing to do with the common people - it has to do with those in control of the wealth. The Chinese government controls most of their wealth, the private multinationals control most of ours. Neither give a shit about the common person, and both would prefer to enhance the power they already have over us. They already have too much power, and I will not support a system that gives them more.

 

[Timshel]

No, I am not. You are trying to avoid answering.

Trade deficits mean we import more than we export. That is simple enough, is it not?

When we are not exporting enough to cover our imports, then we make up the lack in money. But money is nothing more than a symbol representing the wealth of the country that issued it. Money, be it printed on paper or numbers in a computer, is functionally a debt against the nation of issuance.

When we have a trade deficit with a socialist country, then the government of said country is who ends up controlling the debt (money) resulting from the trade deficit.

Combine the two, and my statementquestion stands, and you answer is still lacking. So I'll ask it again:

So explain to me how an ever increasing trade deficit resulting in massive debt to foreign governments (because you KNOW their PEOPLE ain't benefiting from all this free trade you keep spouting about) is GOOD for us, or them, or anyone except a bunch of despotic tyrants?

Add in the fact that we are now underwriting national debt using the same governments, and we are REALLY digging ourselves an economic grave.

You are wrong. Money does represent a debt. When you cash your paycheck that does not mean that Wal-Mart or any company that you may do trade with owes you any assets or services. They trade with you on their own terms and at only at a price they find acceptable for the goods and services they offer.

Foreign governments do not control all of the benefits from the exporting industries. The exporting industry enjoys most of those.

What happens when we buy their goods is that they have dollars with which they may buy goods, services or assets from willing sellers. Much of it is spent on consumption items. That which is not may be used to buy stock, real property or debt equity and is represents a surplus in the capital account. But when they buy those capital items they still have to buy them from a willing seller who intends to gain from the sell. The transaction is no different than the typical market transaction and will usually increase the wealth of both buyer and seller.

The citizens of some nations are growing their productive capital at a higher rate then we are. But we are still growing our capital. It is the zero sum theory of trade which confuses you into believing we are losing something in these transactions that do not occur unless they are agreeable to us. We are not.

Our wealth in strictly relative temrs may be decreasing (as their wealth increases at a greater than ours), but that does not represent a real loss. Concerns over that are nothing but petty envy and extremely misguided considering the fact that we are vastly more wealthy than they are.

Once they grow us rich as us, they will start consuming more. That is true, simply due to diminishing returns of new capital investments. That is, at some point approaching optimal levels of capital investment, the return on investment for new investment starts to decline and consumption becomes more attractive.

 

[Timshel]

You cannot apply the standards of an individual transaction to the full of trade between two nations. It's like taking the kinetic energy of a single water molecule and extending it to describe the behavior of a rain cloud.

Yes, you can. But then there is the Maryland/Mississippi example if you wish to evade the first one.

Your state analogy does not work either, because they are both of the same economy making any monetary debt resulting from an interstate trade deficit internal. Internal debt can functionally be ignored - it's like transferring money from my house repair budget to cover a hole in my entertainment budget.

Trade deficits between nations is entirely different. Can a business continue indefinitely to buy more merchandise than they sell?

That is nonsense. The economy of Mississippi is no more internal to Maryland than China's economy is. You simply do not resent the gains that Mississippi may make as you do that of people in foreign nations, because you have bought into some sort jingoistic bullshit where you view foreigners as your enemy.

 

[Timshel]

Then explain the lack of decent paying jobs in the U.S. Explain the exportation of manufacturing since free trade agreements became the norm. Explain the vast increase in differential between the wealthy (who are the actual beneficiaries of free trade, not the people as you ignorantly claim) and the shrinking middle class. Explain the trend toward ever higher percentages of service jobs in the U.S.

The lack of decent paying jobs? You must be joking. Our high wages are part of what is attracting immigration. We also attract vast amounts of capital which increases our productive capacity and wages.

Your theory is based on the benefit of individual transactions. But you cross several paradigm barriers in extending that basic principle to international trade. You cannot take the laws that describe the behavior of subatomic particles and use it after lumping a whole bunch of particles together. Likewise you cannot take the rules that describe trade between individuals and apply them blindly to international trade - especially between nations of significantly different strengths and types of economy. International trade is far more complex than just a bunch of transactions lumped together. You cannot simply say that because selling me that new carbine bolt tool benefits us both means that trade policies which result in significant, ongoing and growing trade deficits is good.

Why don't you take a quick trip us to Detroit and explain to the auto workers there how good free trade has been for them. Then cut down to the south east textile region and explain the same to them. I'll bet they won;t believe you either.

Like the Chinese government benefiting from our trade deficit, the real beneficiaries of free trade have nothing to do with the common people - it has to do with those in control of the wealth. The Chinese government controls most of their wealth, the private multinationals control most of ours. Neither give a shit about the common person, and both would prefer to enhance the power they already have over us. They already have too much power, and I will not support a system that gives them more.

International trade is no more complex than a bunch of individual transactions lumped together. But, that is like saying that a computer is no more complex than a bunch of circuits lumped together. That is, the result is very complex which is why central planning fails.

Congratulations on your conversion to socialism as you do nothing here but complain that free markets are exploitative and embrace their numerous economic misconceptions and propaganda.

 

[Good Luck]

Yea, right. Conversion to socialism. Was the economy of the 1890s socialist? Grow up. Either that or grow a brain.

Proof positive that when discussing, you have nothing but hollow claims of "proof" you cannot back up, ridiculous assertions that Mississippi and Maryland's economies are external to each other in the same way China and the U.S. economies are internal to each other. Compare wages in the U.S. to poor countries in order to claim we have high wages, international trade is just a collection of transactions, etc. etc. etc.

You are a fucking idiot, studying hard to be a moron. You don't even grasp the fact that money represents the real wealth of the nation that issues the money, and if an outside agent holds that money, it is a debt on the issuing nation.

You probably think money has an intrinsic value.

Go back to your drug dreams, idiot. You haven't a foggy fucking clue what you are talking about.

 

[Good Luck]

That is nonsense. The economy of Mississippi is no more internal to Maryland than China's economy is.

Proof of sheer unadulterated ignorance. Do Maryland and Mississippi coin their own currency? OR, does the United States and China coin the same currency?

When statements like this are made, how do you expect thinking people to take you seriously?