Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My 2005 Chevrolet Trailblazer was built here, in a Moraine plant that is now closed. Shame, one of the best vehicles GM has ever had the pleasure to build, and they disco'd it.
As a nation enters into an industrialized basis, where industry and manufacturing become a significant aspect, they start manufacturing low-end products. Simpler, less complicated, less-demanding "builds". As their manufacturing base matures, they start taking on more and more higher-end, more sophisticated, more difficult "builds". Along they way, they start dropping off the manufacturing of "entry-level" products, the manufacturing of which will be handled by newly emerging manufacturing countries.
That’s not really true. The concept or theory of “Comparative Advantage” explains what nation produces what goods in a free market, over the long run. Naturally the country that can produce the goods most efficiently will eventually win the market share over the countries that produce it less efficiently. What has happened historically is that developing nations use trade protection tariffs to protect their “Infant Industry” from more efficient mature competitors. Once industries mature the tariffs are lifted to allow the goods from mature economies to compete domestically. The country that can then produce the goods more efficiently wins the comparative advantage in trade and eventually the production shifts to that location. This is the ebb and flow of free markets.
That’s not really true. The concept or theory of “Comparative Advantage” explains what nation produces what goods in a free market, over the long run. Naturally the country that can produce the goods most efficiently will eventually win the market share over the countries that produce it less efficiently. What has happened historically is that developing nations use trade protection tariffs to protect their “Infant Industry” from more efficient mature competitors. Once industries mature the tariffs are lifted to allow the goods from mature economies to compete domestically. The country that can then produce the goods more efficiently wins the comparative advantage in trade and eventually the production shifts to that location. This is the ebb and flow of free markets.
Not true in the least. Countries that can produce products efficiently will universally opt to produce high-end, high-cost, high-profit items rather than efficiently producing low-end products will little profit and lots of competition.
Not true in the least. Countries that can produce products efficiently will universally opt to produce high-end, high-cost, high-profit items rather than efficiently producing low-end products will little profit and lots of competition.
Countries/governments, unless they are Marxist, don't produce goods. The decision of what goods to produce is not made by governments in a capitalistic nation. They are made by entreprenuers in the private sector of FREE MARKETS. Individuals with capital who think they can make a profit and assume the risk. These individuals are purely looking at the ability to make a profit and are not looking at its high-end or whatever else you said. In fact, the decision has more to do with available capital for investment....not what you are talking about. The concept of the free market means that THE MARKET determines what goods a country will eventually produce. Its NOT a decison made by COUNTRIES in a capitalistic framework.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 05-20-2010 at 12:22 PM..
My 2005 Chevrolet Trailblazer was built here, in a Moraine plant that is now closed. Shame, one of the best vehicles GM has ever had the pleasure to build, and they disco'd it.
And how many of those parts were manufactured here?
Countries/governments, unless they are Marxist, don't produce goods. The decision of what goods to produce is not made by governments in a capitalistic nation. They are made by entreprenuers in the private sector of FREE MARKETS. Individuals with capital who think they can make a profit and assume the risk. These individuals are purely looking at the ability to make a profit and are not looking at its high-end or whatever else you said. In fact, the decision has more to do with available capital for investment....not what you are talking about. The concept of the free market means that THE MARKET determines what goods a country will eventually produce. Its NOT a decison made by COUNTRIES in a capitalistic framework.
Obviously, I am speaking of the economy as a whole, and its combined "domestic product".
Yes, we all know products and services are produced by companies, either corporations, LLC's or proprietorships/partnerships. Once exception being electricity which can be produced by government-run institutions like the DWP in Los Angeles City.
You seemed to be hooked on making distinctions without differences and attempting to claim economist standing therefrom.
What I said is overwhelming true. It is the history of nation after nation after they enter into their own industrialized periods, and then move up the Industry totem pole. This isn't really hard to understand if you try hard.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 05-29-2010 at 03:34 PM..
Obviously, I am speaking of the economy as a whole, and its combined "domestic product". I didn't realize this had to be made clear to you, but apparently so.
Yes, we all know products and services are produced by companies, either corporations, LLC's or proprietorships/partnerships. Once exception being electricity which can be produced by government-run institutions like the DWP in Los Angeles City.
You seemed to be hooked on making distinctions without differences and attempting to claim economist standing therefrom.
What I said is overwhelming true. It is the history of nation after nation after they enter into their own industrialized periods, and then move up the Industry totem pole. This isn't really hard to understand if you try hard.
Well I apologize if we are essentially in agreement. It just sounded like you were implying that GOVERNMENT were making decisions and not the global free market.
Its also worth noting the role of the IMF and World Bank. Preconditions of their loans often DO impose what direction economies of devoloping nations should embark upon. One of the preconditions is making public all nationalized resources and focusing economic development in the areas were they have economic comparitive advantage.....which are few besides banna production. These countries rarely ever develope as a consquencem, because the loans and preconditions are designed to promote the growth of Western Multination Corporate interest....and not that of the developing nation. I don't know if you ever read "confessions of an economic hit man".....but its a very revealing read.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
