quote:Originally posted by toussaint:quote:Originally posted by Nmaginate:"MAY" your aztecz!!!quote:Some specific group may not be as well off as they could have been, but that does not mean "worse off" for zero-sum purposes.
Even within the United States, there has been a migration of investment dollars to the Southern Region and away from the Northern Region.
Could've, Would've, Should've that.
Show how there is absolutely no relation or correlation - clear, direct, complete or particle - instead of puking out the Mealy Mouth. You got a pretty straightforward example right there. Show the lack of a relationship and how "nothing tangible" was "lost" in the switch.
So, the South is growing faster economically. Does that necessarily mean the North is getting poorer? No, because there's not a fixed pie. Both regions can grow at the same time. In order for it to be zero sum, you'd have to prove that they cannot both grow at the same time. Good luck with that.quote:Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Yet, you refuse to recognize that with globalism there are in fact losers that really weren't even in the game.
First, who "isn't in the game"? Second, what losers are you talking about? People who lose their jobs?
Resources shift and people gain and lose jobs. That alone does not make it a zero-sum game. In a healthy (free) economy job turnover is vigorous and leads to better jobs, such as lower paying manufacturing jobs being replaced by higher paying service jobs. That is how an economy develops.quote:I say ask any of the 100's of thousands of US employees that lost their sources of livelihood.
Are you talking about outsourcing? That is just a part of job turnover (and a very small part of it at that). Also, it's not even part of the hypothetical I posed. I didn't say the company closed down operations in the US, because that is not a necessary component of overseas investment. So, your 100s of thousands with no livelihoods was an assumption, and a weak one at that. Most overseas investment is not closing down plants and moving them.quote:But for a Black person to support, let alone, promote a system that has systemically shut out Black folk here, and exploited Black folk abroad is ...
Good luck showing how freedom of exchange "shuts black folk out." Sure, slavery and Jim Crow shut black folks out. But that's not freedom of exchange- that's the exact opposite. Freedom of exchange is how the Black Wall Street was created, and how thriving black towns sprung out of nowhere in the late 1900s. It is how this nation became rich, and how every other rich nation became rich. It's how the rich black people in this country became rich. You're attacking the wrong culprit, Kweli.
Toussaint. What you fail to consider is that everything is relative. Lets say that an area has a million residents and normative levels of population growth. Lets now say that there is little job growth, despite a growth in population. The net effect of that is that the economic health of the region is deteriorating, despite not losing any jobs, but because they are not gaining any jobs. This is why despite job growth under the Bush administration, his tenure is considered a poor performance because job growth has not kept pace with population growth. The national economy needs to add between 130-150 thousand new jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth.
In light of this, when there are investment dollars ready to be invested, winning those investments creates losses for all others because they need the investment to keep pace with population growth dynamics. Investment promotes growth and lack of investment promotes relative, if not absolute, decline.
What you need to understand is that although the pie is always growing, the zero sum manifest most profoundly in the distribution of the pie. The only way that one can increase their percentage of the pie is for others to lose a proportional percentage. If you look at the state of Michigan as an example, its losses in jobs and people have translated in gains for the Southern USA as well as Mexico and Asia.
Take the simple economic law of supply and demand. The more you supply of anything, relative to demand, you decrease the value of what is being supplied. Lets look at an example to see how zero sum works. Say for example that there is a shortage of Engineers and hence Engineers value translate to 100k salaries. Now say many people get hip to this opportunity and get the training to become Engineers to the point that Engineers are now a dime a dozen. Given the finite demand for Engineers at a point in time, there are only so many dollars available to pay Engineers, thus the oversupply of Engineer results in people willing to work for less just to beat out the competition for jobs. In a free market for labor with wage elasticity salaries will be driven down from the 100k until an equilibrium price point is reached. Now, was their a loss to offset the gain. Yes. The loss was absorbed by those who would were or would have been earning 100k and the gain comes from the increased profits of the companies who don't have to pay as much for labor. Of course, in the real world such flexibility of wages does not exist due to REGULATION, which is an anti-free market term. However, if the free market was allowed to dominate, it would be clear that gains would be offset by losses.