Njemačka traži još Hrvata koje je Čardak odbacio

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:

2. Another significant reason for rejecting the protectionist argument is that it fails to take exports into account. It is true that for every American flag or baseball glove imported into this country, some domestic jobs are lost. But what the protectionists conveniently forget is that for every job lost in a domestic industry because of competition with imports, a job can be gained in an export industry. Let us assume that the states of Vermont and Florida are selfsufficient. Both produce, among other things, maple syrup and oranges. Because of the differing climatic conditions, maple syrup is scarce and expensive in Florida, and oranges are scarce and expensive in Vermont. Vermont oranges have to be grown in greenhouses, and Florida maple syrup comes from maple trees grown in large refrigerators. What would happen if trade were suddenly begun between the two states? Vermont would of course begin to import oranges and Florida would import maple syrup. Were the ILGWU, or any other protectionist pressure group on the scene, it would quickly point out that importing maple syrup into Florida would ruin that state’s small maple syrup industry, and the importation of oranges into Vermont would ruin the orange industry there. The protectionists would ignore the fact that jobs would be gained in Florida in the orange industry, and in Vermont, in the maple syrup industry. They would focus our attention on the jobs lost due to imports and would completely ignore the jobs gained because of exports. It is, of course, true that jobs will be lost in Vermont in the orange industry and in the maple 172 Defending the Undefendable chap23importer.qxd 2/21/2008 12:29 PM Page 172 syrup industry in Florida. But it is no less true that jobs will increase in the maple syrup industry of Vermont and in the orange industry in Florida. There may well be fewer jobs available in both industries in both states since orange growing can be done with less manpower in Florida than in Vermont, and maple syrup can be manufactured more efficiently in Vermont than in Florida. But far from being a bad effect, this is one of the gains of trade! The workers freed from these industries become available for projects that could not be undertaken before. For example, if a modern system of transportation did not exist, and industry had to rely on individuals carrying 100 pound loads on their backs, hundreds and thousands of people would have to be withdrawn from other fields to fill the needs of the transport industry. Thus, many projects and industries would have to be abandoned. With modern methods, fewer workers are needed. The extra workers are thus free to move into other areas, with all the consequent benefits to society. Whether or not there will be fewer jobs in the orange and maple syrup industries in Vermont and Florida in the final analysis depends upon the way the people wish to spend their newfound income. It is only if these people decide to spend all the newfound income on extra oranges and maple syrup that the total employment in these two industries will not change after trade begins. Then the same number of workers will produce more maple syrup and oranges. More likely, though, the people will decide to spend some of their newfound income in these two goods, and the rest on other goods. In that case, employment in these two areas will decrease somewhat (although this decreased workforce may still be able to produce more than before), but employment will increase in the industries whose products are most wanted by the consumers.

https://mises.org/files/defending-undefendable2pdf/download?token=oN3MDEoz

defending the undefendable, poglavlje importer.

to moze sljakat kad su narandze I sl. u pitanju, ali ne kad su resursi koji se ne obnavljaju u pitanju. Takode unutar jedne (zajednicke) drzave to je ok. Otvorena globalna trgovina nije neopterecena problemima i bez konteksta, a taj kontekst moze podrazumjevat da trgujes I sa sutrasnjim krvolikom izmeduostalog

ne postoji rozlika izmedju država, federalnih jedinica, autonomnih pokrajina, kvartova, općina i sl. za svaku primjedbu ku nojdeš, jo morin isto reći i unutar zajedničke države.

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:

2. Another significant reason for rejecting the protectionist argument is that it fails to take exports into account. It is true that for every American flag or baseball glove imported into this country, some domestic jobs are lost. But what the protectionists conveniently forget is that for every job lost in a domestic industry because of competition with imports, a job can be gained in an export industry. Let us assume that the states of Vermont and Florida are selfsufficient. Both produce, among other things, maple syrup and oranges. Because of the differing climatic conditions, maple syrup is scarce and expensive in Florida, and oranges are scarce and expensive in Vermont. Vermont oranges have to be grown in greenhouses, and Florida maple syrup comes from maple trees grown in large refrigerators. What would happen if trade were suddenly begun between the two states? Vermont would of course begin to import oranges and Florida would import maple syrup. Were the ILGWU, or any other protectionist pressure group on the scene, it would quickly point out that importing maple syrup into Florida would ruin that state’s small maple syrup industry, and the importation of oranges into Vermont would ruin the orange industry there. The protectionists would ignore the fact that jobs would be gained in Florida in the orange industry, and in Vermont, in the maple syrup industry. They would focus our attention on the jobs lost due to imports and would completely ignore the jobs gained because of exports. It is, of course, true that jobs will be lost in Vermont in the orange industry and in the maple 172 Defending the Undefendable chap23importer.qxd 2/21/2008 12:29 PM Page 172 syrup industry in Florida. But it is no less true that jobs will increase in the maple syrup industry of Vermont and in the orange industry in Florida. There may well be fewer jobs available in both industries in both states since orange growing can be done with less manpower in Florida than in Vermont, and maple syrup can be manufactured more efficiently in Vermont than in Florida. But far from being a bad effect, this is one of the gains of trade! The workers freed from these industries become available for projects that could not be undertaken before. For example, if a modern system of transportation did not exist, and industry had to rely on individuals carrying 100 pound loads on their backs, hundreds and thousands of people would have to be withdrawn from other fields to fill the needs of the transport industry. Thus, many projects and industries would have to be abandoned. With modern methods, fewer workers are needed. The extra workers are thus free to move into other areas, with all the consequent benefits to society. Whether or not there will be fewer jobs in the orange and maple syrup industries in Vermont and Florida in the final analysis depends upon the way the people wish to spend their newfound income. It is only if these people decide to spend all the newfound income on extra oranges and maple syrup that the total employment in these two industries will not change after trade begins. Then the same number of workers will produce more maple syrup and oranges. More likely, though, the people will decide to spend some of their newfound income in these two goods, and the rest on other goods. In that case, employment in these two areas will decrease somewhat (although this decreased workforce may still be able to produce more than before), but employment will increase in the industries whose products are most wanted by the consumers.

https://mises.org/files/defending-undefendable2pdf/download?token=oN3MDEoz

defending the undefendable, poglavlje importer.

to moze sljakat kad su narandze I sl. u pitanju, ali ne kad su resursi koji se ne obnavljaju u pitanju. Takode unutar jedne (zajednicke) drzave to je ok. Otvorena globalna trgovina nije neopterecena problemima i bez konteksta, a taj kontekst moze podrazumjevat da trgujes I sa sutrasnjim krvolikom izmeduostalog

ne postoji rozlika izmedju država, federalnih jedinica, autonomnih pokrajina, kvartova, općina i sl. za svaku primjedbu ku nojdeš, jo morin isto reći i unutar zajedničke države.

Naravno da postoji, a on je ovdje potpuno u pravu. Potpuno je sumanuto dijeliti najvažnije resurse sa nekim tko ti u dogledno vrijeme može biti smrtni neprijatelj. Pozapadnjenje Japana nakon što ih se potuklo u ratu je imalo smisla jer je ta država-nacija sada vrlo kooperativan suradnik zapada odnosno Amerike, ali kada je Kina u pitanju...
A upravo je Kina najbolji zaštitnik sjeverne Koreje koja je počela opasno ugrožavati sigurnost SAD-a.
I to zašto?
Samo zato da bi najkrupniji kapital došao do još većih profita?
Samoubojstvena taktika koja će u konačnici najskuplje koštati upravo taj najkrupniji kapital i političke elite koje su svoju sudbinu vezale uz njega.

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:

2. Another significant reason for rejecting the protectionist argument is that it fails to take exports into account. It is true that for every American flag or baseball glove imported into this country, some domestic jobs are lost. But what the protectionists conveniently forget is that for every job lost in a domestic industry because of competition with imports, a job can be gained in an export industry. Let us assume that the states of Vermont and Florida are selfsufficient. Both produce, among other things, maple syrup and oranges. Because of the differing climatic conditions, maple syrup is scarce and expensive in Florida, and oranges are scarce and expensive in Vermont. Vermont oranges have to be grown in greenhouses, and Florida maple syrup comes from maple trees grown in large refrigerators. What would happen if trade were suddenly begun between the two states? Vermont would of course begin to import oranges and Florida would import maple syrup. Were the ILGWU, or any other protectionist pressure group on the scene, it would quickly point out that importing maple syrup into Florida would ruin that state’s small maple syrup industry, and the importation of oranges into Vermont would ruin the orange industry there. The protectionists would ignore the fact that jobs would be gained in Florida in the orange industry, and in Vermont, in the maple syrup industry. They would focus our attention on the jobs lost due to imports and would completely ignore the jobs gained because of exports. It is, of course, true that jobs will be lost in Vermont in the orange industry and in the maple 172 Defending the Undefendable chap23importer.qxd 2/21/2008 12:29 PM Page 172 syrup industry in Florida. But it is no less true that jobs will increase in the maple syrup industry of Vermont and in the orange industry in Florida. There may well be fewer jobs available in both industries in both states since orange growing can be done with less manpower in Florida than in Vermont, and maple syrup can be manufactured more efficiently in Vermont than in Florida. But far from being a bad effect, this is one of the gains of trade! The workers freed from these industries become available for projects that could not be undertaken before. For example, if a modern system of transportation did not exist, and industry had to rely on individuals carrying 100 pound loads on their backs, hundreds and thousands of people would have to be withdrawn from other fields to fill the needs of the transport industry. Thus, many projects and industries would have to be abandoned. With modern methods, fewer workers are needed. The extra workers are thus free to move into other areas, with all the consequent benefits to society. Whether or not there will be fewer jobs in the orange and maple syrup industries in Vermont and Florida in the final analysis depends upon the way the people wish to spend their newfound income. It is only if these people decide to spend all the newfound income on extra oranges and maple syrup that the total employment in these two industries will not change after trade begins. Then the same number of workers will produce more maple syrup and oranges. More likely, though, the people will decide to spend some of their newfound income in these two goods, and the rest on other goods. In that case, employment in these two areas will decrease somewhat (although this decreased workforce may still be able to produce more than before), but employment will increase in the industries whose products are most wanted by the consumers.

https://mises.org/files/defending-undefendable2pdf/download?token=oN3MDEoz

defending the undefendable, poglavlje importer.

to moze sljakat kad su narandze I sl. u pitanju, ali ne kad su resursi koji se ne obnavljaju u pitanju. Takode unutar jedne (zajednicke) drzave to je ok. Otvorena globalna trgovina nije neopterecena problemima i bez konteksta, a taj kontekst moze podrazumjevat da trgujes I sa sutrasnjim krvolikom izmeduostalog

ne postoji rozlika izmedju država, federalnih jedinica, autonomnih pokrajina, kvartova, općina i sl. za svaku primjedbu ku nojdeš, jo morin isto reći i unutar zajedničke države.

Polazit od pretpostavke da je svima do miroljubive trgovine od koje svi imaju koristi je previdit povjest. Takode, cak i ako druga strana zaista ima na umu jedino trgovinu onda se to ne moze odvijat na principu ja tebi sirovine a ti meni jeftin proizvod zato sto su resursi ograniceni. Dakle za otvoreno trziste moras imat 100% garanciju sigurnosti (nemoguca misija) ili globalizam - jednu svjetsku vladu. Ja ne vjerujem da onaj drugi sto s njim trgujem iako ima korist da mi automatski dobro misli. Sto radi razlicitosti kulturoloske sto ideoloske ili religiozne itd. Npr. trguje zapad i sa naftom i ne vidim da ih nesto vole, nego naprotiv tu trgovinu nazivaju pljackom. Takode ne mozes imat globalizam bez otvorenih granica a onda ne mozes imat socijalu. Svakoj drzavi interes treba da bude da osnazi sebe, ukoliko otvorena trgovina ide vise u korist tvog eventualnog agresora onda ona jednostavno nema smisla.

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:



https://mises.org/files/defending-undefendable2pdf/download?token=oN3MDEoz

defending the undefendable, poglavlje importer.

to moze sljakat kad su narandze I sl. u pitanju, ali ne kad su resursi koji se ne obnavljaju u pitanju. Takode unutar jedne (zajednicke) drzave to je ok. Otvorena globalna trgovina nije neopterecena problemima i bez konteksta, a taj kontekst moze podrazumjevat da trgujes I sa sutrasnjim krvolikom izmeduostalog

ne postoji rozlika izmedju država, federalnih jedinica, autonomnih pokrajina, kvartova, općina i sl. za svaku primjedbu ku nojdeš, jo morin isto reći i unutar zajedničke države.

Polazit od pretpostavke da je svima do miroljubive trgovine od koje svi imaju koristi je previdit povjest. Takode, cak i ako druga strana zaista ima na umu jedino trgovinu onda se to ne moze odvijat na principu ja tebi sirovine a ti meni jeftin proizvod zato sto su resursi ograniceni. Dakle za otvoreno trziste moras imat 100% garanciju sigurnosti (nemoguca misija) ili globalizam - jednu svjetsku vladu. Ja ne vjerujem da onaj drugi sto s njim trgujem iako ima korist da mi automatski dobro misli. Sto radi razlicitosti kulturoloske sto ideoloske ili religiozne itd. Npr. trguje zapad i sa naftom i ne vidim da ih nesto vole, nego naprotiv tu trgovinu nazivaju pljackom. Takode ne mozes imat globalizam bez otvorenih granica a onda ne mozes imat socijalu. Svakoj drzavi interes treba da bude da osnazi sebe, ukoliko otvorena trgovina ide vise u korist tvog eventualnog agresora onda ona jednostavno nema smisla.

u svakoj trgovini svi imaju koristi, thats a given.
trgovina je nojbolji ljudski izum koji unaprijedjuje život since the beginning of the time, i to je totalno krhka pojava, naravski da je sigurnost preduvjet.

ljubav, s druge strone, ni uvjet za trgovinu. ne bi hoti da se zaplesti u is ought zavrzlame, moje stajalište je tu jasno, open borders, bez socijale, ča niža vlast - nikako svjetska vlada...

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:
to moze sljakat kad su narandze I sl. u pitanju, ali ne kad su resursi koji se ne obnavljaju u pitanju. Takode unutar jedne (zajednicke) drzave to je ok. Otvorena globalna trgovina nije neopterecena problemima i bez konteksta, a taj kontekst moze podrazumjevat da trgujes I sa sutrasnjim krvolikom izmeduostalog

ne postoji rozlika izmedju država, federalnih jedinica, autonomnih pokrajina, kvartova, općina i sl. za svaku primjedbu ku nojdeš, jo morin isto reći i unutar zajedničke države.

Polazit od pretpostavke da je svima do miroljubive trgovine od koje svi imaju koristi je previdit povjest. Takode, cak i ako druga strana zaista ima na umu jedino trgovinu onda se to ne moze odvijat na principu ja tebi sirovine a ti meni jeftin proizvod zato sto su resursi ograniceni. Dakle za otvoreno trziste moras imat 100% garanciju sigurnosti (nemoguca misija) ili globalizam - jednu svjetsku vladu. Ja ne vjerujem da onaj drugi sto s njim trgujem iako ima korist da mi automatski dobro misli. Sto radi razlicitosti kulturoloske sto ideoloske ili religiozne itd. Npr. trguje zapad i sa naftom i ne vidim da ih nesto vole, nego naprotiv tu trgovinu nazivaju pljackom. Takode ne mozes imat globalizam bez otvorenih granica a onda ne mozes imat socijalu. Svakoj drzavi interes treba da bude da osnazi sebe, ukoliko otvorena trgovina ide vise u korist tvog eventualnog agresora onda ona jednostavno nema smisla.

u svakoj trgovini svi imaju koristi, thats a given.
trgovina je nojbolji ljudski izum koji unaprijedjuje život since the beginning of the time, i to je totalno krhka pojava, naravski da je sigurnost preduvjet.

ljubav, s druge strone, ni uvjet za trgovinu. ne bi hoti da se zaplesti u is ought zavrzlame, moje stajalište je tu jasno, open borders, bez socijale, ča niža vlast - nikako svjetska vlada...

naravno da imaju korist, doduse to je I podlozno subjektivnom osjecaju da si se recimo zajebo, ali to nije bitno I ne umanjuje korist. Medutim ja ti o tome nisam prico, nego da ima ulogu I kontekst u kojem se to odvija, a I sam si napiso da je sigurnost preduvjet. E tu ti pocinje ogranicenje, ne zivimo u idealnom svijetu

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:

prckov wrote:

aben wrote:
ne postoji rozlika izmedju država, federalnih jedinica, autonomnih pokrajina, kvartova, općina i sl. za svaku primjedbu ku nojdeš, jo morin isto reći i unutar zajedničke države.

Polazit od pretpostavke da je svima do miroljubive trgovine od koje svi imaju koristi je previdit povjest. Takode, cak i ako druga strana zaista ima na umu jedino trgovinu onda se to ne moze odvijat na principu ja tebi sirovine a ti meni jeftin proizvod zato sto su resursi ograniceni. Dakle za otvoreno trziste moras imat 100% garanciju sigurnosti (nemoguca misija) ili globalizam - jednu svjetsku vladu. Ja ne vjerujem da onaj drugi sto s njim trgujem iako ima korist da mi automatski dobro misli. Sto radi razlicitosti kulturoloske sto ideoloske ili religiozne itd. Npr. trguje zapad i sa naftom i ne vidim da ih nesto vole, nego naprotiv tu trgovinu nazivaju pljackom. Takode ne mozes imat globalizam bez otvorenih granica a onda ne mozes imat socijalu. Svakoj drzavi interes treba da bude da osnazi sebe, ukoliko otvorena trgovina ide vise u korist tvog eventualnog agresora onda ona jednostavno nema smisla.

u svakoj trgovini svi imaju koristi, thats a given.
trgovina je nojbolji ljudski izum koji unaprijedjuje život since the beginning of the time, i to je totalno krhka pojava, naravski da je sigurnost preduvjet.

ljubav, s druge strone, ni uvjet za trgovinu. ne bi hoti da se zaplesti u is ought zavrzlame, moje stajalište je tu jasno, open borders, bez socijale, ča niža vlast - nikako svjetska vlada...

naravno da imaju korist, doduse to je I podlozno subjektivnom osjecaju da si se recimo zajebo, ali to nije bitno I ne umanjuje korist. Medutim ja ti o tome nisam prico, nego da ima ulogu I kontekst u kojem se to odvija, a I sam si napiso da je sigurnost preduvjet. E tu ti pocinje ogranicenje, ne zivimo u idealnom svijetu

nismo dica pa da mislimo da ne postoju ograničenja, dovoljno je spomenuti nuklearno oružje. medjutin, etatisti će ti radi ekstremnih primjerov ograničiti trgovinu toaletnog papira. 

vode je riječ o ograničavanju trgovine da bi se zaštitila domoća radnička prava i njihovi osjećaji. i to će sve  uvika biti umotano u nekakov homeland security.

aben wrote:
ajde molin te nojdimo neki drugi termin namesto krupnog kapitala, jer čin to prečitun, imun osjećaj da govorin sa soron. ne postoji krupni kapital. političke elite naravski postoju, ali o njima vode ni riječ.

ne postoji. sve ča moreš reći za sjevernu koreju u odnosu na usa, jo ću reći za slavoniju u odnosu na dalmaciju. sjeverna koreja ugrožava stabilnost svita, i slavonija ugrožava stabilnost dalmacije.