The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
People like Kid don't care about others. He thinks that that extra $4000 per Chinese worker should have been turned into an extra $12,000 for him (assuming there are 3 Chinese workers per US worker). This is all based on his zero sum view of the world.
People always say that others have a zero sum view of the world when they don't know enough about economics to say anything more intelligent. If you actually did know anything you would know how important it is to assume that economic agents are rational.
"I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."
-Adam Smith
Last edited by Kidlicious; February 1, 2017, 18:59.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Don't tell me this wage growth was thanks to unions and minimum wage laws. It sure looks like natural wage rise as the country becomes richer. It perfectly coincides with China's involvement in world trade too.
Note that this is a 7 fold increase in wages for over a billion people. This is a massive benefit that surely outweighs the loss from whatever nice union jobs were lost in the US. And US jobs were not exactly lost. US unemployment is bellow 5% right now.
China does have a sort of labor union (the largest in the world, not sure how it actually affects things though), and has regional minimum wages as well. The minimum wage is by law supposed to be at least 40% of the average wage, and has increased at a very brisk rate (> 10% per year). I don't know how much of China's wage increases can be attributed to it. There is definitely a feedback loop between their minimum wage and average wage given the 40% requirement.
Certainly wages can increase without minimum wages, but ithose on the very lowest end of the spectrum (those earning minimum wage) are almost certainly benefiting from there being a minimum wage. Also, there are lots of benefits of having affluent working class, as they increase demand for most goods and services, and do so in a way that allows economy of scale to really kick in.
The fact that certain jobs went from paying US minimum wage to China (and other) minimum wage (much lower) even though it increased transport costs and required building new infrastructure suggests that businesses are going to pay as little as they possible can for labor. Minimum wage gives a lower bound on that, the only problem is jurisdictions with lower/no minimum wage are enticing businesses to move. But as you point out, the growth of China's economy didn't actually suck many jobs away from the US. Those it did take away, it helped open up room for new higher paying jobs and we still can be ~full employment.
We know for sure that we can have economies with relatively high (compared to what the jobs pay without any minimum wage) minimum wages and still ~full employment. We do not have any examples of high standards of living across large populations in jurisdictions which do not have any worker protections.
If we look at this from another POV - what would be the alternative to free trade - protectionism?
Short term gains aside - AFAIK that tends to make businesses uncompetitive in the long run, since it takes away the incentive to constantly improve. Sure, if you apply it on such a big scale that everything is protected nobody has to ever be afraid of being in competition with outside businesses again. Might end up with a sluggish former-eastern-block type economy that had trouble to produce hitech products and was marked by general scarcity so that ppl had to queue up in lines for a lot of things.
If we look at this from another POV - what would be the alternative to free trade - protectionism?
Short term gains aside - AFAIK that tends to make businesses uncompetitive in the long run, since it takes away the incentive to constantly improve. Sure, if you apply it on such a big scale that everything is protected nobody has to ever be afraid of being in competition with outside businesses again. Might end up with a sluggish former-eastern-block type economy that had trouble to produce hitech products and was marked by general scarcity so that ppl had to queue up in lines for a lot of things.
Not if you only limit foreign competition. It's not like communism. The threat of increased competition is usually enough to keep companies constantly trying to please the consumer.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
The main problem with protectionism for the US is that we all get cheap goods from overseas. Those jobs moving to the US will mean higher prices (~20%) for most everything we buy. While there will be more jobs here, they will tend to be low paying (since they're horribly low paying overseas) or automated. We simply don't have enough workers to do all those jobs anyway.
It will benefit some who are unemployed, at the expense of everyone else. Also, it will weaken foreign economies at least in the short term, which will reduce our own exports even if they don't retaliate by raising their own tariffs. It will strengthen the dollar, which is good for expats like me, but bad for US exporters.
If they could be cheaper than imports and/or there was demand for them then they would be selling them here already.
Also note that many domestic products rely on imported supply chains. Those will be affected too.
No. They are currently exported because they make more profit exporting them. After a tariff is raised that makes it less profitable to export so producers will sell them domestically.
Yes, supply chains will be temporarily affected but in the long run the only negative is the lost benefit of comparative advantage, which actually doesn't amount to a hill if beans when we are talking about something like a 20% tariff on Mexico.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
If they could sell them domestically at competive prices they already would be doing so. They would increase production if necessary to do so. It is not a zero sum game.
If they could sell them domestically at competive prices they already would be doing so. They would increase production if necessary to do so. It is not a zero sum game.
No. You need to study microeconomics and business. You do not have an adequate understanding of how business decisions are made.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
No. They are currently exported because they make more profit exporting them. After a tariff is raised that makes it less profitable to export so producers will sell them domestically.
So Oklahoma's #1 agricultural industry is beef: Cattle and Calves: Cattle generated $3.55 billion in 2012 and accounted for 50 percent of the state’s agricultural (receipts.http://www.farmflavor.com/oklahoma/o...ture-products/)
the US exports a lot of beef to Mexico: U.S. exports of agricultural products to Mexico totaled $18 billion in 2015, our 3th largest agricultural export market. Leading categories include: corn ($2.3 billion), soybeans ($1.4 billion), dairy products ($1.3 billion), pork & pork products ($1.3 billion), and beef & beef products ($1.1 billion). (https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico)
You seem to be arguing that if Mexico slaps a 20% retaliatory tariff on imports from the US that Oklahoma farmers will just make up for lost Mexican demand by selling more beef in the US. Do you really think that Oklahoma farmers are throttling the beef supply to the US in order to divert beef to the lucrative Mexican market? I will grant that the situation isn't quite as simple with manufactured goods, but similar principles apply.
The undeserving maintain power by promoting hysteria.
So Oklahoma's #1 agricultural industry is beef: Cattle and Calves: Cattle generated $3.55 billion in 2012 and accounted for 50 percent of the state’s agricultural (receipts.http://www.farmflavor.com/oklahoma/o...ture-products/)
the US exports a lot of beef to Mexico: U.S. exports of agricultural products to Mexico totaled $18 billion in 2015, our 3th largest agricultural export market. Leading categories include: corn ($2.3 billion), soybeans ($1.4 billion), dairy products ($1.3 billion), pork & pork products ($1.3 billion), and beef & beef products ($1.1 billion). (https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico)
You seem to be arguing that if Mexico slaps a 20% retaliatory tariff on imports from the US that Oklahoma farmers will just make up for lost Mexican demand by selling more beef in the US. Do you really think that Oklahoma farmers are throttling the beef supply to the US in order to divert beef to the lucrative Mexican market? I will grant that the situation isn't quite as simple with manufactured goods, but similar principles apply.
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if Mexico imposes the tariff they will sell more beef in the US at a reduced price.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Tweet
Comment