SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (261137)4/9/2008 9:38:55 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 281500
 
Hypothetically speaking, if I have a trillion dollars and my population lives on a dollar a day, then I can keep 1 billion people content with no loss to standard of living years to come. But if my population is used to say $100 per day, then I will have a much harder time.

1 - Even in China, the additional wealth creation is mostly outside of the government and government industries. Its not you keeping a population happy on a dollar a day, its the population earning a dollar, or 10 dollars or whatever per day.

2 - A poorer country has less margin for error because if it gets a lot poorer you don't just have people getting less than they are used to but people suffering extreme poverty, or in your dollar a day case where they already have extreme poverty you move in to things like famine.

3 - The bilateral trade is a bigger portion of China's economy than it is of ours, so there would be more to make up for.

Furthermore, the Chinese government doesn't have to think twice about ways to create jobs and security for its people.

Make work jobs are easy to create, but useless. You need to get the money from elsewhere to pay for makework jobs. Doing so doesn't enrich or even sustain the economy. Its a negative for the economy not a positive. Anyone can do work, I could make my own makework job, but if I don't actually create anythign of value for anyone than it doesn't do anything positive for the economy, or help sustain people through hard times.



To: Sun Tzu who wrote (261137)4/10/2008 11:07:07 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Your argument seems to be

1 - Poor people survive economic disruption better than wealthy people.

combined with

2 - Socialist systems cope with dynamically changing conditions better than capitalist systems.

Those are two of the most bizarre economic ideas I've seen in a long time.