Mr. Obama, keep those trade walls down
Axeman @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Proculation Proculation:
Let me correct: Protectionnism is bad for EVERY country's economy. 
Well, except for infant industry justifications, I'll agree.
inquiksilver @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:38 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
because if they don't we cut of their oil supply, which would wreak havoc on their economy.
Then I guess transport in Canada will come to a halt seeing as Canada relies heavily on the US for oil refinment. Too bad the enviros have made it so difficult to open new refineries at home.
Canadian_Mind @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:40 pm
short term pains for long term gains.
Though i have always thought refinery was a sector in which we were always lacking. We shoudl have enough refineries for domestic supply.
Zipperfish @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:11 pm
Axeman Axeman:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Economics is concerned with the optimal allocation of scarce resources. No one does that more efficiently than Mother Nature. With no government interference!
Mother Nature has plenty of inefficiencies. There are more extinct species than living ones. The mechanism of nature moves very slowly. Also, economics is much more than just efficient use of resources. Equity is perfectly legitimate economic goal.
Equity requires government. The point Sapio made was that econmics works best with no government. My rebuttal was that such a state already exists in the animal kingdom.
There are also probably more extinct companies than existing ones. Doesn't the culling of weaker companies or weaker species lead to fitter companies or species?
Arctic_Menace @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:18 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Axeman Axeman:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Economics is concerned with the optimal allocation of scarce resources. No one does that more efficiently than Mother Nature. With no government interference!
Mother Nature has plenty of inefficiencies. There are more extinct species than living ones. The mechanism of nature moves very slowly. Also, economics is much more than just efficient use of resources. Equity is perfectly legitimate economic goal.
Equity requires government. The point Sapio made was that econmics works best with no government. My rebuttal was that such a state already exists in the animal kingdom.
There are also probably more extinct companies than existing ones. Doesn't the culling of weaker companies or weaker species lead to fitter companies or species?
That certainly makes a certain amount of sense. It's one of the advantages of a Capitalist economy and free market.
Proculation @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:27 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Axeman Axeman:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Economics is concerned with the optimal allocation of scarce resources. No one does that more efficiently than Mother Nature. With no government interference!
Mother Nature has plenty of inefficiencies. There are more extinct species than living ones. The mechanism of nature moves very slowly. Also, economics is much more than just efficient use of resources. Equity is perfectly legitimate economic goal.
Equity requires government. The point Sapio made was that econmics works best with no government. My rebuttal was that such a state already exists in the animal kingdom.
There are also probably more extinct companies than existing ones. Doesn't the culling of weaker companies or weaker species lead to fitter companies or species?
(i had to look for the definition of "culling", thx for another english word
)That's exactly it. Creative destruction from Shumpeter.
Axeman @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:29 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Equity requires government. The point Sapio made was that econmics works best with no government. My rebuttal was that such a state already exists in the animal kingdom.
There are also probably more extinct companies than existing ones. Doesn't the culling of weaker companies or weaker species lead to fitter companies or species?
There are also probably more extinct companies than existing ones. Doesn't the culling of weaker companies or weaker species lead to fitter companies or species?
Yeah, I understood what you meant, and I agree with your general premise. I just don't think the animal kingdom is an effective metaphor for efficient economies. Economics is so much bigger than "survival of the fittest" among businesses.
Zipperfish @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:06 pm
Axeman Axeman:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Equity requires government. The point Sapio made was that econmics works best with no government. My rebuttal was that such a state already exists in the animal kingdom.
There are also probably more extinct companies than existing ones. Doesn't the culling of weaker companies or weaker species lead to fitter companies or species?
There are also probably more extinct companies than existing ones. Doesn't the culling of weaker companies or weaker species lead to fitter companies or species?
Yeah, I understood what you meant, and I agree with your general premise. I just don't think the animal kingdom is an effective metaphor for efficient economies. Economics is so much bigger than "survival of the fittest" among businesses.
I happen to agree with you. It's just there's a lot of libertarians out there who see no role for government in the economy at all. Then I point out that this would create a free market similar to Wild Kingdom. No government equlas anarchy equals the economics of survival.
Zipperfish @ Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:07 pm
Proculation Proculation:
(i had to look for the definition of "culling", thx for another english word )
That's exactly it. Creative destruction from Shumpeter.
)That's exactly it. Creative destruction from Shumpeter.
Cheers!!!