The consequences of the Anglo-saxon influence on the EU future

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Doddler


My qualifications are irrelavant here.

As are irrelevant your qualifications in spelling I suppose.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Hmmm, I looked this up

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

Lithuania is ranked 22nd free-est economy. Behind Germany! I genuinely thought your government was entirely hands off.


I must be misunderstanding the rankings.

Formally we should be higher up that ranking, but I painfully admit that it's right - our corruption and labour scores are abysmal and that's where we should work at.

But Estonia is #12, and it's Baltic, so we're cool by association

[Solly]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


As are irrelevant your qualifications in spelling I suppose.

If you'd like to return to the original discussion now then.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Doddler


If you'd like to return to the original discussion now then.

You are always welcome.

As you seem not to understand that Adam Smith and Ricardo's theories have been rendered practically obsolete by the time (which was clearly demonstrated by the recent “Open skies” agreement), I have re-read the works of the following winners of the Economy prize of the Bank of Sweden (often improperly named Nobel prize of Economy) :


1969 FRISCH and TINBERGEN
1970 SAMUELSON
1971 KUZNETS
1972 HICKS and ARROW
1973 LEONTIEF
1974 HAYEK and MYRDAL
1975 KANTOROVITCH and TJALLING
1976 FRIEDMAN
1977 OHLIN
1978 SIMON
1979 SCHULTZ
1980 KLEIN
1981 TOBIN
1982 STIGLER
1983 DEBREU
1984 STONE
1985 MODIGLIANI
1986 BUCHANAN
1987 SOLOW
1988 ALLAIS
1989 HAAVELMO
1990 MARKOWITZ , MILLER and SHARPE
1991 COASE
1992 BECKER
1993 FOGEL and NORTH
1994 SELTEN, NASH and HARSANYI
1995 LUCAS
1996 MIRRLEES and VICKREY
1997 MERTON and SCHOLES
1998 SEN
1999 MUNDELL
2000 HECKMAN and MACFADDEN
2001 AKERLOF, SPENCE and STIGLITZ
2002 KAHNEMAN and SMITH
2003 ENGLE and GRANGER
2004 KYDLAND and PRESSCOTT
2005 AUMANN and SCHELLING
2006 PHELPS

And I confirm that none of them has ever written a statement that Adam Smith and Ricardo’s theories are eternal and absolute truths which cannot be adapted nor interpreted until the end of time.

Unless you have found such a statement, that I would accept gracefully, I consider this discussion closed.

[Solly]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


You are always welcome.

As you seem not to understand that Adam Smith and Ricardo's theories have been rendered practically obsolete by the time (which was clearly demonstrated by the recent “Open skies” agreement), I have re-read the works of the following winners of the Economy prize of the Bank of Sweden (often improperly named Nobel prize of Economy) :


1969 FRISCH and TINBERGEN
1970 SAMUELSON
1971 KUZNETS
1972 HICKS and ARROW
1973 LEONTIEF
1974 HAYEK and MYRDAL
1975 KANTOROVITCH and TJALLING
1976 FRIEDMAN
1977 OHLIN
1978 SIMON
1979 SCHULTZ
1980 KLEIN
1981 TOBIN
1982 STIGLER
1983 DEBREU
1984 STONE
1985 MODIGLIANI
1986 BUCHANAN
1987 SOLOW
1988 ALLAIS
1989 HAAVELMO
1990 MARKOWITZ , MILLER and SHARPE
1991 COASE
1992 BECKER
1993 FOGEL and NORTH
1994 SELTEN, NASH and HARSANYI
1995 LUCAS
1996 MIRRLEES and VICKREY
1997 MERTON and SCHOLES
1998 SEN
1999 MUNDELL
2000 HECKMAN and MACFADDEN
2001 AKERLOF, SPENCE and STIGLITZ
2002 KAHNEMAN and SMITH
2003 ENGLE and GRANGER
2004 KYDLAND and PRESSCOTT
2005 AUMANN and SCHELLING
2006 PHELPS

And I confirm that none of them has ever written a statement that Adam Smith and Ricardo’s theories are eternal and absolute truths which cannot be adapted nor interpreted until the end of time.

Unless you have found such a statement, that I would accept gracefully, I consider this discussion closed.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Ming? Case Closed.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


You are always welcome.

As you seem not to understand that Adam Smith and Ricardo's theories have been rendered practically obsolete by the time (which was clearly demonstrated by the recent “Open skies” agreement), I have re-read the works of the following winners of the Economy prize of the Bank of Sweden (often improperly named Nobel prize of Economy) :


1969 FRISCH and TINBERGEN
1970 SAMUELSON
1971 KUZNETS
1972 HICKS and ARROW
1973 LEONTIEF
1974 HAYEK and MYRDAL
1975 KANTOROVITCH and TJALLING
1976 FRIEDMAN
1977 OHLIN
1978 SIMON
1979 SCHULTZ
1980 KLEIN
1981 TOBIN
1982 STIGLER
1983 DEBREU
1984 STONE
1985 MODIGLIANI
1986 BUCHANAN
1987 SOLOW
1988 ALLAIS
1989 HAAVELMO
1990 MARKOWITZ , MILLER and SHARPE
1991 COASE
1992 BECKER
1993 FOGEL and NORTH
1994 SELTEN, NASH and HARSANYI
1995 LUCAS
1996 MIRRLEES and VICKREY
1997 MERTON and SCHOLES
1998 SEN
1999 MUNDELL
2000 HECKMAN and MACFADDEN
2001 AKERLOF, SPENCE and STIGLITZ
2002 KAHNEMAN and SMITH
2003 ENGLE and GRANGER
2004 KYDLAND and PRESSCOTT
2005 AUMANN and SCHELLING
2006 PHELPS

You have RE-READ them in a day? Their complete works?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by VetLegion


You have RE-READ them in a day? Their complete works?

Very good question. I thank you to ask it.

[molly bloom]

Fini la rigolade....


Les Vacances de M. Davout

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
That is the ultimate article of your economic faith. The globalization has demonstrated that this article must be made more precise. For instance, it appears that, in the US, free trade increases business opportunities ... for China. It can also be added that the meaning of free trade for a nation owning the $, is not totally clear;

It is clear from this statement that you do not have an understanding of what you are criticizing. You need to understand, at a minimum, the difference between the current account (goods and services) and the capital account (money) in the balance of payments. The US runs a substantial current account deficit with China. China invests much of the money in US assets, which lowers US interest rates. This benefits US citizens who have mortgages, car loans, student loans, etc, as well as businesses who can now invest at lower interest rates. All of these factors create business opportunities in the US, so the basic results still hold. Smith and Ricardo are not the least bit troubled.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


You are always welcome.

As you seem not to understand that Adam Smith and Ricardo's theories have been rendered practically obsolete by the time (which was clearly demonstrated by the recent “Open skies” agreement),

How many times must you be reminded that the current open skies treaty is not free trade? It is one big unified power taking advantage of a disunited group of smaller powers in order to get an unequal treaty. It creates freer trade but is not free trade, please stop misrepresenting the truth and start dealing with reality.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
It is clear from this statement that you do not have an understanding of what you are criticizing. You need to understand, at a minimum, the difference between the current account (goods and services) and the capital account (money) in the balance of payments. The US runs a substantial current account deficit with China. China invests much of the money in US assets, which lowers US interest rates. This benefits US citizens who have mortgages, car loans, student loans, etc, as well as businesses who can now invest at lower interest rates. All of these factors create business opportunities in the US, so the basic results still hold. Smith and Ricardo are not the least bit troubled.

1. The US assets bough by the China Central Bank are Treasury bonds; China just starts an experiment to invest a limited amount of its currency reserves in other assets, and there is no guaranty that they intend to invest only in $.
2. Your demonstration would be better if, when another country has a current account negative, China was prepared to buy Treasury bonds issued by this country. This is not the case, and it cannot be. It means that the prevailing situation is due to the US dollar being the dominant reserve currency.
3. For a country in the case described in §2, the financing of the deficit of the current account would have to be made trough more costly channels, and the effects on interests rates, with all disadvantageous consequences for the consumers, would be impressive (since it is one of the major way to reduce the deficit). Again, the situation that you describe is only due to the special status of the US dollar.
4. Consequently, all the opportunities resulting from the trade deficit are due to the $.

It seems that you have been acquainted with Smith and Ricardo by mail courses and that some envelopes have been lost. I would suggest that you return to the basics of economy.

[Dinner]

I believe Smith actually works as an economist.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe Smith actually works as an economist.

I wish his boss did not read his post; his ignorance of the role of the US dollar is dramatic.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
China just starts an experiment to invest a limited amount of its currency reserves in other assets, and there is no guaranty that they intend to invest only in $.

The fact that China is investing in other assets negates points 2, 3, and 4 of your argument. Any time China invests through the capital account, the home country benefits through lower interest rates as described above. If China does not invest through the capital account, then exchange rates fall, and the home country's exports become more competitive, again conferring a benefit.

edit: regarding my "ignorance", the arguments apply to any currency, not just the US dollar. The fact that there are many US dollars out there means that the effect will be larger in our case.

Originally posted by DAVOUT
It seems that you have been acquainted with Smith and Ricardo by mail courses and that some envelopes have been lost. I would suggest that you return to the basics of economy.

I would rather argue on the basis of reason and evidence than credentials. But since you raised the issue, I have been acquainted with Smith and Ricardo through a Ph. D. in Economics and 24 years of work experience as an economist. I would again politely suggest that you understand before criticizing. There is no point in having a discussion with someone who does not understand the basics.

[Adam Smith]

dp