Victor Crowley. A deformed mass murderer who haunts men and women in New Orleans. It's from a horror comedy called "Hatchet" and "Hatchet II." Check it out.Aaron wrote:What the hell is your av?
http://images2.static-bluray.com/review ... _1080p.jpg
Victor Crowley. A deformed mass murderer who haunts men and women in New Orleans. It's from a horror comedy called "Hatchet" and "Hatchet II." Check it out.Aaron wrote:What the hell is your av?
heyInstant Sunrise wrote:whatup
Comparative advantage is generally used by pinheads to be fuckers, as this example shows- first of all, if you wait until your economy is in ruins to engage in any development, that would seem unnecessarily cruel. Secondly, comparative advantage only really works when all products are of roughly the same strategic value to nations- nowadays no nation will let its food security be dependent on trade if it can help it, so the rich countries subsidize farming and the poor countries that ought to be forever resource-extractors can't even export their crops. Many of them end up food importers because of how impoverished they are. And any development program is derailed by the sabotage of rich nations through the IMF, WTO, and individual pressures, because they are led by a mix of lunatics who believe in the insanity of free-market economics and megalomaniacs who want to keep large swathes of the world poor and desperate.Surlethe wrote:If the big country starts making wheat more efficiently, then the island's economy will deteriorate until it can build a factory and start making tractors to trade for wheat, or until it copies the big country's wheat-making techniques and regains a comparative advantage in wheat. The process of specializing isn't always easy, but at the end of the day every nation is wealthier when it has specialized.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says the West’s economic problems stem from the essence of the capitalist system, which is the proclivity for wealth over other matters.
The IMF is an organization set up by John Maynard Keynes and a bunch of do-gooder economists in the 1940s as part of a multipart effort to produce a better, more stable world after WWII. Along with using the US dollar, backed by the US gold reserves, as an international benchmark for currency, and the World Bank, which was to provide long-term investment money in poorer countries, the IMF would provide short-term and emergency loans (all members would contribute money to form a pool that they could borrow from and then repay). They did this relatively well for the 1950s and 60s, which were the Keynesian years, but with the rise of free-market policies in most of the world, they started attaching conditions to loan packages. They'd demand that the country privatize everything and run free-market policies that proved disastrous for native industries, in many cases causing deflation and destroying economies. Jeffrey Sachs, a former cheerleader for the IMF, describes many of their packages as prescribing "belt-tightening to people too poor to own belts." So they're basically fuckheads. Many of the people involved have their heads on straight, but the upper management has bought into free-market policies.Aaron wrote:From what Stas says, the populace was better off.
So can you explain the IMF? I just thought they were sort of an international bank.
It really can't be pointed out enough. Even if we manage to fix capitalism in the short term, it is in its nature to go right back to the bad.Aaron wrote:No shit?
i think the mistake here is assuming it is a zero-sum gameTo me it seems most perverse that we'd say "the only way to be logically consistent and ethical is for nearly all of the only species on the planet that cares about those things to die off." And yet to me, that seems like a predictable conclusion.
so do you think that surlethe got beaten up by a uaw member or is he just ideologically convinced that union opposition to nafta is racially motivated? either way fuck him for seeking further economic ruination in my part of the country. but anyways, to effortpost, one of the reasons people oppose free migration of labor is that migrant labor is generally used to drive down wages and living standards and destroy the political and economic power of labor through union-busting. this is the root of all racism in the labor movement- this knowledge that the underclasses, the immigrants and the blacks, will be used to break strikes and nascent unions because they're desperate. the short-sighted response was violence, but the farsighted, including many of the socialists and anarchists, integrated and recruited. labor generally integrated before business did, too. in fact, there are suggestions that union membership makes people more tolerant generally. in conclusion, surlethe is socially blind and deaf, defending an intolerable system, to quote helen keller.Surlethe wrote:Why not? Labor should be as free to move about the world as capital - even more so, because we're talking about people's livelihoods, not about digits on a wealthy person's brokerage account. Of course, labor in wealthy countries does its best to prevent free labor flows because the smelly foreign brown people don't deserve to pursue first-world living standards, since they're poor and lazy and anyway they just come here to steal our jobs.