Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

One idea how to overcome the world crisis

georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 11:05:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem of the world economic crisis is unfair foreign trade balances between the states.If one state has negative trade foreign trade balance with other state the first state has to finance this with debt or money from investments.But when the first state has big debt and the investments are low because of the crisis this decrease the foreign trade of this country and lead to economic crisis.To solve this problem those states who has positive foreign trade balances must separate seven to ten percent from their national budget and be obliged to buy with this money merchandises from those states which has negative trade balances with them.The result of this the states who has negative foreign trade balances will receive money with which probably they will buy merchandises from the states with positive trade balances.This will multiply the foreign trade and will lead to ecinomic growth.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 4:15:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The states who have big positive trade balance in practice plunder those states who have negative trade balance.This is not fair and as a result tighten the world trade.The idea positive trade balances states to separate money from their national budgets and spend them for buying merchandise from those states who have negative balances at first sight look bad for the first states but in practice those states with negative balances will spend the money and again they will return in those states with positive balances.This cycle will repeat and will put in motion the world trade.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 7:47:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This way to spend money from the budget will increase world trade and will accelerate growth of the world economic.The other way is big world war.Otherwise the world crisis will continue many years.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 8:14:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 11:05:52 PM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
The problem of the world economic crisis is unfair foreign trade balances between the states.If one state has negative trade foreign trade balance with other state the first state has to finance this with debt or money from investments.But when the first state has big debt and the investments are low because of the crisis this decrease the foreign trade of this country and lead to economic crisis.To solve this problem those states who has positive foreign trade balances must separate seven to ten percent from their national budget and be obliged to buy with this money merchandises from those states which has negative trade balances with them.The result of this the states who has negative foreign trade balances will receive money with which probably they will buy merchandises from the states with positive trade balances.This will multiply the foreign trade and will lead to ecinomic growth.

Trade imbalances is measured in all trade, private and government. What you are advocating is that China and even poor developing nations tax their people to buy American goods, which are very expensive. Your program would hurt developing countries and help established countries like the US. It would maintain trade imbalances indefinitely not correct them.

A better way would be to reform the World Trade Organization to consider environmental and worker conditions when making rulings on trade disputes.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 8:32:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The China must solve her own problems not to create outward problems having big positive trade balance.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 8:51:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I understood this correctly, it sounds like a tariff. It seems what you are proposing is the same as a tariff. Is this true?
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:05:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tariff is one way to make China to accept the new rules.As I said if we make China buy American goods the money which American will get from that is probably to back again in China because American will buy more goods from China.The money will spin between China and America.The forein trade will grow so the economic.America and China will win from this trade.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 10:38:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The economists do not understand how the world economy will start to grow.They think that people being rational is the best for the economy but that is not true.I say that the economic growth before the crisis is owe to people irrational actions as buying properties on credit which make the baloon.We may conclude that irrational action of peoples make the economic growth.So to have economic growth we must again make people being irrational which is harder because they are more inform.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 12:17:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:05:48 AM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
Tariff is one way to make China to accept the new rules.As I said if we make China buy American goods the money which American will get from that is probably to back again in China because American will buy more goods from China.The money will spin between China and America.The forein trade will grow so the economic.America and China will win from this trade.

You can't force trade. You seem to be under the illusion that China is 'forcing' US to trade with itself. Trade is a mutually beneficial transaction. Imposing tarrif would lower the benefits for Amwrican economy as well. Their exports would fall. Their producers would suffer.

This is why economies go for multiple state trades, their trade with one county balances out their deficits with others. That is a possibility.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 1:05:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What i say is that we go to impose tariff only when China is not agree to separate money from China budget with which to buy American goods.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 6:07:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 1:05:59 PM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
What i say is that we go to impose tariff only when China is not agree to separate money from China budget with which to buy American goods.

Could you please rephrase?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:38:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 8:51:58 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
If I understood this correctly, it sounds like a tariff. It seems what you are proposing is the same as a tariff. Is this true?

I would not say he is describing a tariff.

What it really sounds like he is describing is income redistribution on an international scale.

The question then becomes "what incentive does a country running a trade surplus have to redistribute its profits to other nations?"

This is essentially an unjustifiable handout to countries running a trade deficit.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 9:20:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 10:38:20 AM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
The economists do not understand how the world economy will start to grow.They think that people being rational is the best for the economy but that is not true.I say that the economic growth before the crisis is owe to people irrational actions as buying properties on credit which make the baloon.We may conclude that irrational action of peoples make the economic growth.So to have economic growth we must again make people being irrational which is harder because they are more inform.

Hmmm...

You are working from the premise that countries have every incentive to work with a cooperative model vs a competitive model.

Basic economics would say that in a world with scarcity, supply, and demand, the individual actors that provide this supply and demand would compete against each other, not cooperate.

Basic political theory (especially realism) would say that in a world with multiple actors, states would not know the true intentions of other states. With imperfect information, the strategy is to play defensively.

Think of the game of RISK. If one of the players had a "surplus" of game pieces, would they be obligated to "give" some of these game pieces to other players that were running a "deficit"? No, they would run those other players out of business. Trade is just another type of weapon.

The reality is that wherever there is a border, there is a massive troop buildup. This is because of "competition", not "cooperation". A "massive troop buildup" in in the realm of international trade would be things like protectionist policies off-setting mercantilist tendencies, which are predatory, not cooperative, in nature.

Apply RISK to real life, and you get North Korea and South Korea, where the US and China border each other. Or, the state of Israel, where the US borders the Middle East. Or Cuba, which still has lingering issues from when the USSR made it a border between it and the US. Or India/Pakistan. Etc. Economically, China vs the West. Russia vs. the West. OPEC vs China. OPEC vs the West.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 9:25:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 12:17:06 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:05:48 AM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
Tariff is one way to make China to accept the new rules.As I said if we make China buy American goods the money which American will get from that is probably to back again in China because American will buy more goods from China.The money will spin between China and America.The forein trade will grow so the economic.America and China will win from this trade.

You can't force trade. You seem to be under the illusion that China is 'forcing' US to trade with itself. Trade is a mutually beneficial transaction. Imposing tarrif would lower the benefits for Amwrican economy as well. Their exports would fall. Their producers would suffer.

This is why economies go for multiple state trades, their trade with one county balances out their deficits with others. That is a possibility.

On the bolded, I think in theory this is true. However, political considerations will trump economic considerations every time. To any extent that trade is politicized, trade becomes weaponized, and thus no longer represents "mutually beneficial transactions".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 3:07:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 9:25:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:17:06 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:05:48 AM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
Tariff is one way to make China to accept the new rules.As I said if we make China buy American goods the money which American will get from that is probably to back again in China because American will buy more goods from China.The money will spin between China and America.The forein trade will grow so the economic.America and China will win from this trade.

You can't force trade. You seem to be under the illusion that China is 'forcing' US to trade with itself. Trade is a mutually beneficial transaction. Imposing tarrif would lower the benefits for Amwrican economy as well. Their exports would fall. Their producers would suffer.

This is why economies go for multiple state trades, their trade with one county balances out their deficits with others. That is a possibility.

On the bolded, I think in theory this is true. However, political considerations will trump economic considerations every time. To any extent that trade is politicized, trade becomes weaponized, and thus no longer represents "mutually beneficial transactions".

I guess that depends on the way you look at 'benefits'. Especially in the global politics, based on the cartels and collusions, the 'distorting effect' of any single power is pretty dilute. You had America sanctioning Syria a while back ( Syria or Iran, I am not very sure), and China backing it up. The case is kind of similar with Pakistan. Trye, there is politicisation, but these politicasations take the geo political groups into account, and the effect is pretty much mild.

In any case, the case in consideration was China vs US, so there's no upper hand.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 12:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The state who has positive trade balance may buy not only merchandise but may buy technologies from state who has negative trade balance.Other opportunity is the first state to make investments in the second state.The principle is the money to return back in the second state.The second state probably will spend the money and they again will return in the first state.This will repeat and will lead to increase in foreign trade.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:28:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If somebody is wondering how big world war can lead to economic growth i can make some suppositons.First let assume that people in given state have 1 million savings in banks.If there is big war it is very probable they become irrational and start spend most of their savings and this will lead to economic growth.The second supposition is that state will print money with which to pay war expenses.If state print 1 million the saving of the people will devaluate in half.From that will win war industry and economic.The losers will be people.If someone guess something else may write.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 3:22:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 3:07:46 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 5/9/2013 9:25:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:17:06 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:05:48 AM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
Tariff is one way to make China to accept the new rules.As I said if we make China buy American goods the money which American will get from that is probably to back again in China because American will buy more goods from China.The money will spin between China and America.The forein trade will grow so the economic.America and China will win from this trade.

You can't force trade. You seem to be under the illusion that China is 'forcing' US to trade with itself. Trade is a mutually beneficial transaction. Imposing tarrif would lower the benefits for Amwrican economy as well. Their exports would fall. Their producers would suffer.

This is why economies go for multiple state trades, their trade with one county balances out their deficits with others. That is a possibility.

On the bolded, I think in theory this is true. However, political considerations will trump economic considerations every time. To any extent that trade is politicized, trade becomes weaponized, and thus no longer represents "mutually beneficial transactions".

I guess that depends on the way you look at 'benefits'. Especially in the global politics, based on the cartels and collusions, the 'distorting effect' of any single power is pretty dilute. You had America sanctioning Syria a while back ( Syria or Iran, I am not very sure), and China backing it up. The case is kind of similar with Pakistan. Trye, there is politicisation, but these politicasations take the geo political groups into account, and the effect is pretty much mild.

In any case, the case in consideration was China vs US, so there's no upper hand.

I believe you are talking about Iran. China acquiesced under intense pressure from the US. It was not necessarily a voluntary action from China. The opportunity cost of overtly breaking sanctions and trading with Iran would have been much higher due to potentially lost US/China trade and other geopolitical considerations.

The concept here is that it would have benefited China more to trade with both Iran and the US, but because of US coercion, China took the lesser of two evils. I'm not certain I would call this scenario "mutually beneficial". I would go further and say that all trade is politicized to some extent, and that the extent of this politicization renders trade to be something other than mutually beneficial.

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.presstv.com...

(presstv is apparently an Iranian news outlet)

http://www.foreignaffairs.com...

(no, I did not buy this article, but it gives an excellent synopsis/background on the issue)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 3:31:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"One idea how to overcome the world crisis" What crisis, just print more money.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 6:06:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 3:22:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/11/2013 3:07:46 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 5/9/2013 9:25:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:17:06 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:05:48 AM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
I guess that depends on the way you look at 'benefits'. Especially in the global politics, based on the cartels and collusions, the 'distorting effect' of any single power is pretty dilute. You had America sanctioning Syria a while back ( Syria or Iran, I am not very sure), and China backing it up. The case is kind of similar with Pakistan. Trye, there is politicisation, but these politicasations take the geo political groups into account, and the effect is pretty much mild.

In any case, the case in consideration was China vs US, so there's no upper hand.

I believe you are talking about Iran. China acquiesced under intense pressure from the US. It was not necessarily a voluntary action from China. The opportunity cost of overtly breaking sanctions and trading with Iran would have been much higher due to potentially lost US/China trade and other geopolitical considerations.

Do you any newspiece confirming this? Because I didn't hear about it. I have pieces as late as April 2013 stating that there are Iranian exports to China.

http://freebeacon.com...

Plus, China reiterating that it is against the unilateral sanctions against Iran. http://www.presstv.com...

In fact, the Iranian oil trade is actually booming past 2012, http://rt.com...

"So far, Iran"s December crude oil sales were the highest recorded since the sanctions were first imposed. Iran exported 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd) in December, compared to less than 900,000 bpd in September. Pre-sanctions oil exports stood at 2.2 million bpd in late 2011.

EU sanctions, introduced in January 2012 and put into effect in July, aimed to curb Iran's ambitious nuclear program, which Tehran has insisted is only for peaceful purposes. The Iranian economy is heavily dependent on oil sales " the cuts in production lead to billions of dollars in lost revenue and a plunge in the value of the national currency.

Analysts believe that sales to Asia and the expansion of Iran"s tanker fleet helped the Islamic Republic circumvent the sanctions. In countries like China, India and Japan, Iranian oil constitutes more than 10 percent of the total crude supply " and demand from Asia is only growing."

The concept here is that it would have benefited China more to trade with both Iran and the US, but because of US coercion, China took the lesser of two evils. I'm not certain I would call this scenario "mutually beneficial". I would go further and say that all trade is politicized to some extent, and that the extent of this politicization renders trade to be something other than mutually beneficial.

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.presstv.com...

(presstv is apparently an Iranian news outlet)

http://www.foreignaffairs.com...

(no, I did not buy this article, but it gives an excellent synopsis/background on the issue)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:11:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Before I continue on with this discussion, I want to make the statement that the sanctions in question against Iran serve a punitive purpose of destroying the Iranian economy due to its non-compliance with WMD inspections. (reuters piece). It is the epitome of the weaponization of trade argument that is my core contention against your point that "trade itself is mutually beneficial transaction"

I believe you are talking about Iran. China acquiesced under intense pressure from the US. It was not necessarily a voluntary action from China. The opportunity cost of overtly breaking sanctions and trading with Iran would have been much higher due to potentially lost US/China trade and other geopolitical considerations.

Do you any newspiece confirming this? Because I didn't hear about it. I have pieces as late as April 2013 stating that there are Iranian exports to China.

My understanding of the flow of events on Iranian sanctions is that Washington has been wanting sanctions for a very long time. It was able to get a consensus except for the Chinese who need Iranian oil. (foreign affairs article). The US recognizes that there are several nations besides China that also rely on Iranian oil to a high degree, so it allows waivers to its sanctioning objective for such countries (reuters piece).

It is exceedingly difficult to get China to accept blanket sanctions for several reasons:

1) "Economic necessity"
2) "Strategic considerations"
3) "Sympathy for Iran's grievances"
(all quoted from foreign affairs)

1) I don't think you dispute this.

2) This is code for geopolitical necessity. It is in China's interests to make life as difficult as possible for the US in the Middle East, in order to prevent the US from wielding "too much influence" in the region. If the US controlled Middle Eastern oil, China would for all intents and purposes essentially have only one entity from which to buy oil.

Monopoly is bad for the sake of overall production, but there is no question that monopolistic pricing maximizes profits for the monopoly. I'm not talking about corporations here, but global political entities.

3) China has a long history of being on the receiving end of a lot of US antagonism. The most recent forms of this antagonism (to just name a few) are charges of currency manipulation, destroying the environment, human rights abuses, and creating regional instability. Therefore, it is natural that China would be more sympathetic towards nations that are also on the receiving end of US antagonism

---

Given the above, that China is actually working with the US on any matter demonstrates the importance to China of access to American markets. In order to maintain access to these markets, China will bend to US pressure on Iran. It is the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, China would continue to trade with Iran without any consideration for sanctions, and certainly not even consider the possibility of the unilateral sanctions as the US clamors for.

My statement is not necessarily that China is in full compliance with US desires on this issue but that China is bending in order to accommodate US geopolitical desires. This bending is occurring because, as you say, trade minus politics is mutually beneficial. However, my entire point is how politics can render this to be untrue, and this entire scenario is easily exhibit #A for my point. Without political considerations with the US, China would be "freely" trading with both Iran and the US, i.e. trading with relatively few restrictions.


http://freebeacon.com...

Any instances of Iran smuggling oil to China in violation of sanctions illustrate exactly how hard it is to get China to be compliant, for the three points I outlined above from foreign affairs.

Plus, China reiterating that it is against the unilateral sanctions against Iran. http://www.presstv.com...

Exactly.

In fact, the Iranian oil trade is actually booming past 2012, http://rt.com...

"So far, Iran"s December crude oil sales were the highest recorded since the sanctions were first imposed. Iran exported 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd) in December, compared to less than 900,000 bpd in September. Pre-sanctions oil exports stood at 2.2 million bpd in late 2011.

EU sanctions, introduced in January 2012 and put into effect in July, aimed to curb Iran's ambitious nuclear program, which Tehran has insisted is only for peaceful purposes. The Iranian economy is heavily dependent on oil sales " the cuts in production lead to billions of dollars in lost revenue and a plunge in the value of the national currency.

Analysts believe that sales to Asia and the expansion of Iran"s tanker fleet helped the Islamic Republic circumvent the sanctions. In countries like China, India and Japan, Iranian oil constitutes more than 10 percent of the total crude supply " and demand from Asia is only growing."

I recall that this was YOUR point, that "You had America sanctioning Syria a while back ( Syria or Iran, I am not very sure), and China backing it up. " Are you saying that you take this back? Because my entire point is that it is extremely difficult to get China to comply with this, and your articles here illustrate this succinctly.

Are the sanctions effective? One could argue yes. China's appetite for natural resources is gargantuan, and has been growing at rates that strategic competitors like the US find alarming (keep in mind that as China's thirst for oil grows, the US addiction to oil becomes more and more expensive, right? This is basic economics, more demand = higher prices). What the RT article then demonstrates is a slowing of Chinese demand, that oil trade is "only" at pre-sanction levels, when without sanctions, more than likely such trade would be at much higher levels, especially given the exploding Chinese auto industry.

The concept here is that it would have benefited China more to trade with both Iran and the US, but because of US coercion, China took the lesser of two evils. I'm not certain I would call this scenario "mutually beneficial". I would go further and say that all trade is politicized to some extent, and that the extent of this politicization renders trade to be something other than mutually beneficial.

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.presstv.com...

(presstv is apparently an Iranian news outlet)

http://www.foreignaffairs.com...

(no, I did not buy this article, but it gives an excellent synopsis/background on the issue)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 3:39:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wrichcirw, would you be willing to debate this? Its an interesting resolution. And I can't do justice to the discussion at this point of time. Id be free after 22nd, so I can issue the challenge if you'd be up for it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 4:23:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 3:39:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
Wrichcirw, would you be willing to debate this? Its an interesting resolution. And I can't do justice to the discussion at this point of time. Id be free after 22nd, so I can issue the challenge if you'd be up for it.

I don't know what the resolution is. The topic is interesting, sure, but I'm not entirely certain what is your thesis.

On a formal debate, I am heavily gravitating towards a "no voting" standard. I welcome constructive dialogue on this topic and any other topic I find debate-worthy, and I personally believe the voting process actually discourages such dialogue.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 9:50:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
European Central Bank intends to make negative the interests of deposits on financial institution.The result will be decreasing of interests on deposits in whole Europe.That will decrease interest on mortgages.This will stimulate people to make irrational action as to buy property with mortgage or those who have deposits to spend them because of the very low interests.This will lead to economic growth but at the end the result will be lamentable.Western liberal democracy has to be reformed as making new rules in foreign trade which will make it fair for all states.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 10:33:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fair foreign trade will provide stable economic growth to all states. Otherwise is to make a mortgage baloon with cheap credits but people are more informed and this will not be easy to be done.
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2013 6:25:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let make some prediction what will happen when foreign trade became fair and mutually beneficial.The capital will deconcentrate and will move in those countries who have negative trade balance with aim to win from this foreign trade.As a result the incomes of people in this country will raise and they will buy more goods which will increase foreign trade.The incomes in all countries will equalize and this will be the first step towards the socialism because the next step to raise the incomes will be to nationalize the corporations or to decrease their profits.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2013 9:33:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:50:28 AM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
European Central Bank intends to make negative the interests of deposits on financial institution.The result will be decreasing of interests on deposits in whole Europe.That will decrease interest on mortgages.This will stimulate people to make irrational action as to buy property with mortgage or those who have deposits to spend them because of the very low interests.This will lead to economic growth but at the end the result will be lamentable.Western liberal democracy has to be reformed as making new rules in foreign trade which will make it fair for all states.

This has not happened in the US. We have ZIRP here, zero interest rate policy. Rates are as low as they can be without causing overt deflation, yet there has not been this stimulatory effect you seem to decry.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2013 9:35:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2013 6:25:20 AM, georgi_zlatev wrote:
Let make some prediction what will happen when foreign trade became fair and mutually beneficial.The capital will deconcentrate and will move in those countries who have negative trade balance with aim to win from this foreign trade.As a result the incomes of people in this country will raise and they will buy more goods which will increase foreign trade.The incomes in all countries will equalize and this will be the first step towards the socialism because the next step to raise the incomes will be to nationalize the corporations or to decrease their profits.

Incurring deficits is irrelevant to whether or not the trade is fair or beneficial.

An example - let's say that people wanted to live in Antartica, but could not grow their own food there. They establish a country there, bring a lot of wealth into that country. In order for this country to sustain its existence, this country would have to continually sustain a trade deficit by trading away its wealth for food. This is entirely fair.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
georgi_zlatev
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 5:31:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One way for economic growth is one state to print money and spend them through the budget.This way may lead to little inflation but state must do this only when people of this state have enough savings in banks which they do not want to spend or invest them.Printing money redistribute the wealth between those who have savings in banks toward recipients from the budget.