ConfuciusSay

5 ms·

1.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Not true, the study references both low skill and high skill jobs. Not to mention there's corporate taxes and other revenues that the government receives that they wouldn't otherwise from a foreign company.
2.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
In economics, "free trade creates additional wealth for all involved" is closer to consensus among economists than is "the Earth is warming" is among climatologists. Except for, you know, the economists who penned the
3.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
The legendary Bill Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMN8REGJXaA
4.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
It doesn't, it's a misconception. You see often enough companies hiring H1-B's, have their American equivalents train them, and then fire the American workers.
5.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Ahh, you're going for that anti-advertising market, that's a good market! Very smart. A lot of people are anti-advertising right now - it's a huge market.
6.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Many proponents of free trade argue that we should be pro free trade because it benefits the poor people in places like China. The OP is referring to that argument. As for why this study didn't focus on the benefits - maybe because the
7.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Because a Californian individual and a California based company pays federal taxes which leads directly to a more stable financial situation for the country you live in, not to mention a higher likelihood of tax cuts etc. Also, what evidenc
8.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Funny, there's other products like cars throughout the years that were manufactured entirely in America and amazingly most people could afford to buy them - not just the 1%. The idea that without free trade with China only the 1% would
9.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
This paper shows how there's negative affects from free trade with China, and your conclusion is "oh it was negative with China, but all those other free trade deals were positive"? Sorry, but NAFTA was a massive job killer.
10.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Except that even the Fed now admits that HFT's only add liquidity precisely when it's least beneficial (when nobody needs it) and reduces it when it's needed. Don't buy into the HFT "adding liquidity" myth.
11.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
You have to be very careful with laws like this where a human has to sit and evaluate the societal benefit of one business over another. Tons of unintended, and potentially very negative, consequences to this. Simplifying the tax system and
12.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
The vast majority of billionaires are people whose names and actions, entrepreneurial or not, none of us know. Just because you can name a handful of successful rich businessmen over the last century, doesn't even come close to proving
13.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Remember that most of SpaceX's core technology was literally given to them by NASA, and on top of that they're getting guaranteed contracts by the government (i.e. the dreaded government funding - they don't know how to alloc
14.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
The current consensus among economists is that increasing inequality will lead to disaster for the entire economy, while decreasing inequality actually increases growth. Sure, you're right that nothing is set in stone, and you could ha
15.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Here are four - Era Dabla-Norris ; Kalpana Kochhar ; Nujin Suphaphiphat ; Frantisek Ricka ; Evridiki Tsounta. They work at a little organization called the International Monetary Fund, and they conclude: "We find that increasing the in
16.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
You mean tea-bagging your passed out co-worker at the Christmas party is not appropriate?
17.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
It does, but how much of that comes down to lobbying. I wonder who was pressuring Obama to not approve Keystone, and who also happens to own a ton of railways that transport oil?
18.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Well, here's the NY Fed explaining why they think it's bad: http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/10/the-liq...
19.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
The SEC has been very recently and selectively cracking down on excessive order cancelling though, so it's not clear that it's not illegal and is "just being smart with their orders".
20.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
For what? LOL Even Ben Bernanke says we should have jailed banking executives after 2008. In case you're not being purposefully obtuse, you can watch about how the reams of evidence of criminal behavior (you know, of actual written-dow
21.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
When one compares it to other crimes that not only go unpunished, but rewarded, this particular crime is comparatively insignificant - thus the "more or less". I trust in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, you were speaking out e
22.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Unless you're a banker, in which case you don't spend any time in jail, and you're given trillions in bailouts funded by the taxpayer.
23.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
You're 100% right. There are some costs to the company to clean up after what happened. However, I think people are correctly wondering why we live in a society where a more or less victimless crime will result in years in prison, whil
24.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Sure, he's responsible. But he deserves a month in jail, at most.
25.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
The Economist will be following up this exposé with another one next month showing how people use seat belts in cars so they avoid injuries.
26.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
No, I'm not saying there's no way to achieve social mobility. I'm saying that it's just very unlikely. There's always exceptions you can hold up as examples. Also, the idea that everyone living in the "third wo
27.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
For what it's worth, you're in roughly the top 30% of earners globally. Whether that constitutes "a lot of money" depends on your definition, but we often forget just how little most people on this planet live on so I wa
28.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Yeah, agreed - the main point of income inequality is missed. Beyond the employee who makes 100x less than the CEO, it's also the people who have little to no hope of even getting a job at such a company, because they weren't luck
29.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Yeah, there's a very fine line between the two, and very little attention was given to that in the article. Is "being defensive" the new "bad culture fit"?
30.
by ConfuciusSay 11y ago
QE1 worked, in that it saved us from a depression. But the jury's still out on whether that was just a can kicking exercise to be reckoned with at a future date. The other QE's by any measure, have been a failures, at least when c

More ›