Is it correct to talk about trade "creating" and "destroying" jobs at all? Imports and exports obviously contribute to a great deal of churning in the labour market. They are responsible for a lot of "gross" job creation and destruction. But are they responsible for net job creation in a country? Economists normally think of trade as a force that reshapes the composition of employment, not its overall level. The level of employment is ultimately determined by aggregate demand, and aggregate demand is determined by whatever the central bank thinks the economy can bear, without jeopardising stable prices. Orders from China is one component of aggregate demand, to be sure. But if China shut up shop, creating a bit of economic slack in its trading partners, their central banks would simply cut ' interest' rates to compensate. Competiveness.. counts as well...
It may take little effort to understand ...but it is the correct way: trade "creating" and "destroying" jobs is NOT " the " foreign trade issue!
Largely copied from The Economist - analyzing Hu's claims.
lunes, 7 de febrero de 2011
Pope Benedict XVI third encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), July 2009
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Animists, etc.
Can a Pope - any Pope - speak to all people? He may try, but it will never work..
Religion speaks to religious people of the same faith. And few religions even try to speak to the rational human...most do to the emotional human...
Thus all analysis is biased with the self reference criteria.
Most credit Adam Smith to be the father of economics...and he was 1st a man of religion, as we know from his other writings. And he evidently did not get it all right in relationship to the equality of income distribution...
But than an other moral code build on Confucius did not get it all balanced either. And here the 3 big monotheistic religions are not part of the underlaying structure...no religion really is relevant here.
Thus I - until a rational word religion is born - think we should listen to the old wisdom: to God what is God's - to Caesar what is Cesar's. Mixing does no one good - it did not in the past nor does it now...and the future is ...future.
Can a Pope - any Pope - speak to all people? He may try, but it will never work..
Religion speaks to religious people of the same faith. And few religions even try to speak to the rational human...most do to the emotional human...
Thus all analysis is biased with the self reference criteria.
Most credit Adam Smith to be the father of economics...and he was 1st a man of religion, as we know from his other writings. And he evidently did not get it all right in relationship to the equality of income distribution...
But than an other moral code build on Confucius did not get it all balanced either. And here the 3 big monotheistic religions are not part of the underlaying structure...no religion really is relevant here.
Thus I - until a rational word religion is born - think we should listen to the old wisdom: to God what is God's - to Caesar what is Cesar's. Mixing does no one good - it did not in the past nor does it now...and the future is ...future.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
Entradas
