If you make the type face much smaller looks like a Thai subtitle for a paragraph of English dialogue in a movie. Good show, man.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion
- Thread starter FluxCap
- Start date
If you make the type face much smaller looks like a Thai subtitle for a paragraph of English dialogue in a movie. Good show, man.
Just translate to German. It is one word.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Niedrigelöhnsüberschüssigfertigungskapazitätenmitgroßerdienstmitarbeiterzugang.
I regret that I have but one upvote to give. Could you pronounce it if you had to?
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Sure, no problems. You see it's all very easy, the "h" in "löhn" is silent.
Money supply- plentiful
Clean money- maybe not
Hmmmm...
Geneva Police Confiscate Euro Bills Clogging Up Toilets
Clean money- maybe not
Hmmmm...
Geneva Police Confiscate Euro Bills Clogging Up Toilets
Watch next week for another ObamaCare Repeal effort via Graham-Cassidy.
Last chance to beat the 30Sept deadline for 50 vote reconciliation path. The strategy is to transfer Medicaid funds from Blue states to Red, in order to secure red Senate votes
And this time maneuvered to avoid the worst from CBO report--
CBO won't estimate full effects of Obamacare repeal until after vote deadline
Markets may be jittery--
Last chance to beat the 30Sept deadline for 50 vote reconciliation path. The strategy is to transfer Medicaid funds from Blue states to Red, in order to secure red Senate votes
And this time maneuvered to avoid the worst from CBO report--
CBO won't estimate full effects of Obamacare repeal until after vote deadline
Markets may be jittery--
Here's a lesson for you.
Just because comparative advantage is wrong doesn't mean absolute advantage is wrong; absolute advantage is true. Learn the difference.
All the gains from trade -- and there are a lot of them -- are from absolute advantage, not from the nonexistent comparative advantage.
Ricardo was wrong. He was writing in a period when scientific standards of enquiry didn't exist. He made some interesting speculations, but he never tested them against reality, and comparative advantage turns out to be totally false.
Krugman witters on in that essay with not one piece of actual empirical evidence for comparative advantage (as always). He fails to actually pay attention to the differnce between comparative advantatage and absolute advantage, which is very very important.
Ricardo's idea isn't difficult; it's simplistic. And it's false.
-----
I'll explain this again, since Ricardo-worship seems to mean that even famous economists like Krugman get this wrong.
Absolute advantage is the idea that if China can made T-shirts faster and cheaper than the US, while the US can make microchips faster and cheaper than China, then the US should specialize in microchips while China should specialize in T-shirts and both will benefit. This is *true*.
Comparative advantage -- Ricardo's idea -- is the *false* idea that if China can make EVERYTHING faster and cheaper than the US, that China should abandon the fields in which it has the least advantage (perhaps, I don't know, let's say computer programming; that's a likely one) and let the US make those things with the US's inferior technology and lower efficiency, even though China's better at making those too. This is simply false. China, in this situation, will make *everything*. And doing so will benefit China.
To understand this you could also look at the other side -- look at Haiti. They are worse at making basically everything than every other country. They have no absolute advantages However, they always have a *comparative advantage* in something -- the field in which they are the "least worst". This doesn't help them at all; production happens in the more efficient country anyway.
In order to get a benefit from trade you actually need an absolute advantage in something, not merely "comparative advantage".
Perhaps economists get confused by this because true comparative advantage situations (like Haiti being worse at *everything*) are so rare. But every piece of supposed evidence I've seen for the theory of comparative advantage turns out to *actually* be evidence for the theory of absolute advantage, and says nothing about comparative advantage.
-----
To reference the tarriff cases... why are we complaining about the idiotic Sunviva case? Because China has an *absolute advantage* in solar panels. Its solar panels are actually cheaper. Nothing to do with comparative advantage.
On the corporate level: Warren Buffet owns a lot of businesses. Some of them, his business is the best in the field and makes huge profits. Others, it's sort of middle of the road and does OK. "Comparative advantage" would suggest that he should abandon all the weaker profitable businesses and throw all the capital only at the strongest ones. He does not do this, and it is highly beneficial for Berkshire Hathaway that he does not do this.
If you want to understand economics for real, rather than worshipping old pre-scientific names like Ricardo, *figure out why this is the case*.
Again on the corporate level: Tesla is in several different businesses. In some of them, Tesla has a huge advantage (electric car design). In some, Tesla has a very small advantage (solar panel production). Tesla has an absolute advantage in all of them. If Tesla were following the theory of comparative advantage, Tesla would abandon and outsource the lower-margin businesses. In fact, a bunch of idiot analysts want Tesla to do exactly this. Telsa is of course not doing this: they are staying in all their businesses. This is the correct move. If you want to understand economics, *understand why*.
There are huge risks and massive economic losses caused by having a monoculture with one industry; specializing in the one field where you have the greatest comparative advantage is a good way to destroy wealth, and Detroit is a nice example of it. It is *wrong*. Diversification is valuable and creates wealth.
So the actual evidence is that it is worth specializing in, and putting capital in, *all* fields where you have an absolute advantage, whether or not you have a comparative advantage.
If the other guy has the absolute advantage, of course, *then* it makes sense to trade. But if you're better at it than the other guy, it doesn't.
Last edited:
Is that Bezos' approach as well?
My first African-American experience was close enough that I finally had the courage to ask her, "do you feel inferior because others think so?" She repeated a conversation with a white child when they were both young. White kid: "you're inferior because you are black." My friend, "no, I can pick more cotton than you." She went on to say her dad fed that family with ours later in the year. Later on a similar subject she explained, "I have no room for jealous comparisons. No one can do all the things I do as well as I." That implies to me a successful corporation doesn't have to do everything better than others, just an amalgamation better than others. But that's probably what you said in different terms. No?
Edit: OT. When we were kids my sister and I picked cotton for a few hours when we lived on a cotton ranch in California in the late forties. It is dirty, nasty work, with little pay. Collectively we earned 20 cents or so and were paid in company scrip. Meanwhile, it was amazing to see how much the regular workers could pick, with their children. We called them Oakies and Arkies, then; most were probably of color.
Last edited:
Fed rate unchanged at 1-1.25%
Continue QT per pre announced plan--
members believe another rate hike later this year-
verbiage is a little more hawkish--
Maintains 2017, 2018 rate forecast--
not much to see here -
Continue QT per pre announced plan--
members believe another rate hike later this year-
verbiage is a little more hawkish--
Maintains 2017, 2018 rate forecast--
not much to see here -
Putting this in macro to avoid breaking up more immediate discussions in general
Our fearful leader certainly taking us down a road with good company
The US And Syria Are Now The Only Countries To Reject The Paris Climate Accord — HuffPost
“<
But three months after President Donald Trump announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement, Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega said he will sign onto the accord in a show of support for countries suffering from disasters caused by climate change.
>”
Our fearful leader certainly taking us down a road with good company
The US And Syria Are Now The Only Countries To Reject The Paris Climate Accord — HuffPost
“<
But three months after President Donald Trump announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement, Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega said he will sign onto the accord in a show of support for countries suffering from disasters caused by climate change.
>”
Yep, HUGE bubble in bubble calling
We've been in an "everything bubble" for a while. Which doesn't mean it is or is not a bubble.
Welcome to the Everything Boom, or Maybe the Everything Bubble
Welcome To The Everything Bubble | The Felder Report
Contra Corner » Chart Of The Day: The Everything Bubble
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/everything-bubble-joe-walters
The real test is when interest rates go up. I wonder if we'll see that anytime soon.
I lived through 2001 and 2007 here in Silicon Valley and rising interest rates is what eventually caused the pop.
Yep -- zero-ish interest rates force everyone to seek returns in other asset classes so everything is pricey. But maybe that will be the norm for the foreseeable future, since inflation is nowhere to be found. Either way, the market being overdue for a correction is my main investment concern right now. If it weren't for this, our unstable political environment and my semi-advanced age I would be tempted to go full @TrendTrader007 right now.
Similar threads
