Njemačka traži još Hrvata koje je Čardak odbacio

aben wrote:širenje kapitalizma povećava standard, ne smanjuje ga.

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:kako more samo krupni kapital imati koristi od širenja kapitalizma na zapad

Sa zapada na istok.

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:širenje kapitalizma povećava standard, ne smanjuje ga.

Meni to ne moraš objašnjavati. Objasni to nezadovoljnim radnicima u SAD-u koji su izgubili posao zato jer je krupni kapital radi većeg profita otvorio konkurentske pogone u zemljama trećeg svijeta i posebno na istoku. Na kraju su baš oni najrevnije glasali za Trumpa zbog obećanog povratka radnih mjesta u SAD, dakle ne samo iz protesta kao što su to učinili Talijani svojim političkim elitama.

melkior wrote:
Slažem se s postom. Međutim, ono što je oduvijek bio generator razvoja Zapada nije obožavanje kolektivizma u bilo kojem obliku, već individualna kreativnost, hrabrost pobune protiv ustaljenih obrazaca razmišljanja i djelovanja, često i uz osobnu žrtvu protiv institucija sistema, vlasti, religije, tradicije (mentaliteta bolje da propadne selo nego običaji) i kritička svijest uz osjećaj osobne odgovornosti. Tu kolektivizam ne može puno ponuditi, naprotiv, tek pobuna protiv kolektivizma može stvoriti novu ili dodanu vrijednost, pa i za sam kolektiv.
Vrlina naše zapadne kolektivne svijesti što u temeljima ipak ima obožavanje antičkih junaka, grčkih heroja i titana, a ne države ili zajednice kao takve, kao vrijednosti po sebi.

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

melkior wrote:
Daj mi objasni što će ti zrelost dok imaš kurvi, viagre, kontracepcijsku pilulu i čitavu industriju zabave za sve uzraste? Propovijedanje takve zrelosti slično je demenciji nekog ostarjelog pripadnika klera koji je izgubio vezu sa životom. Što se pak samih rezultata tiče, cjeloživotno školovanje i otvoreno tržište rada u stvari čitavu priču o karijeri i rezultatima postavlja na tanki led, a budućnost čini nesigurnom za sve. Doduše, to pokazuje koliko su i efekti visoke kulture kao što je zapadna, ograničeni, jer na nju utječu tehnologija i ekonomija čije trendove postaje sve teže pratiti, a kamoli im se prilagođavati.

Eto ga na!
Pa valjda zato jer te konzumiranje usluga kurvi, viagre i ostalih pogodnosti industrije zabave neće približiti onome što kao ljudsko biće jesi i neće ti pomoći u nekoj maksimalnoj aktualizaciji vlastitih potencija nego te prije odbaciti još dalje od nje?
Nije ti taj odgovor pao na pamet?
Na to nas je naučila dosadašnja praksa takvog načina života još od vremena Jacka Kerouaca ako ne i ranije pa preko svih prerano preminulih rock zvijezda kojima je glavni životni cilj bio goriti svijeću na oba kraja i umrijeti mlad kako bi bio lijep leš (ali ne zadugo) pa sve do današnje prevladavajuće infantilizacije cijele zapdne kulture.
Ali dobro, to je na ktraju krajeva stvar slobodnog izbora pa tko što voli neka izvoli, samo je problem da se tu ne razumije kako će svatko na kraju i snositi posljedice vlastitih izbora prije svega zbog spomenute infantilizacije.
Tehnologija je ionako proizvod uma odnosno kulture i pogoduje širenju i jednog i drugog tako da ja ni tu ne vidim neki poseban problem.

aben wrote:

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:širenje kapitalizma povećava standard, ne smanjuje ga.

Meni to ne moraš objašnjavati. Objasni to nezadovoljnim radnicima u SAD-u koji su izgubili posao zato jer je krupni kapital radi većeg profita otvorio konkurentske pogone u zemljama trećeg svijeta i posebno na istoku. Na kraju su baš oni najrevnije glasali za Trumpa zbog obećanog povratka radnih mjesta u SAD, dakle ne samo iz protesta kao što su to učinili Talijani svojim političkim elitama.

to je bar lako za objosniti, 

pa oni uopće nisu izgubili poso jer je krupni kapital preseli tvornice, nego jer nisu hotili kupovati skupe proizvode, tj hotili su da poroizvodi ke proizvodu budu jeftiniji. i krupni kapital in je to omogući, as directed.

melkior wrote:


Ok, priznajem i sam da sam pao pod njegov otrovni utjecaj     
Gas do daske, vjetar u kosi mmm... 

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

melkior wrote:
Slažem se s postom. Međutim, ono što je oduvijek bio generator razvoja Zapada nije obožavanje kolektivizma u bilo kojem obliku, već individualna kreativnost, hrabrost pobune protiv ustaljenih obrazaca razmišljanja i djelovanja, često i uz osobnu žrtvu protiv institucija sistema, vlasti, religije, tradicije (mentaliteta bolje da propadne selo nego običaji) i kritička svijest uz osjećaj osobne odgovornosti. Tu kolektivizam ne može puno ponuditi, naprotiv, tek pobuna protiv kolektivizma može stvoriti novu ili dodanu vrijednost, pa i za sam kolektiv.
Vrlina naše zapadne kolektivne svijesti što u temeljima ipak ima obožavanje antičkih junaka, grčkih heroja i titana, a ne države ili zajednice kao takve, kao vrijednosti po sebi.

Točno. Ali sve to ukopljeno u jednu konzistetnu kulturu sa odgovarajućom etikom, a kultura je kako to manje više svi znamo prije svega kolektivni fenomen, a ima i onih koju ju smatraju i kolektivističkom izmišljotinom. :p :D
Ja zapravo o tome govorim, a ne o nekakvoj navodnoj potrebi obožavanja zajednice odnosno države kao vrijednost po sebi.

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:širenje kapitalizma povećava standard, ne smanjuje ga.

Meni to ne moraš objašnjavati. Objasni to nezadovoljnim radnicima u SAD-u koji su izgubili posao zato jer je krupni kapital radi većeg profita otvorio konkurentske pogone u zemljama trećeg svijeta i posebno na istoku. Na kraju su baš oni najrevnije glasali za Trumpa zbog obećanog povratka radnih mjesta u SAD, dakle ne samo iz protesta kao što su to učinili Talijani svojim političkim elitama.

to je bar lako za objosniti, 

pa oni uopće nisu izgubili poso jer je krupni kapital preseli tvornice, nego jer nisu hotili kupovati skupe proizvode, tj hotili su da poroizvodi ke proizvodu budu jeftiniji. i krupni kapital in je to omogući, as directed.

Pristali bi oni i na to da im je predočeno kao izbor, ali nije.
A pogledaj samo ovu krizu oko namjeravanih novih carina na uvoz automobila iz Europe. Oni su osjetno skuplji od američkih, a ipak su američke kompanije preselile veliki broj svojih pogona u primjerice Meksiko (pogledaj samo na što liči Detroit) zbog samo jednog razloga - povećanja profita.
Dakle, u ovom konkretnom slučaju uopće ne stoji ovo o čemu govoriš.

melkior wrote:
Visoka kultura i jest kolektivistička izmišljotina i treba ju zakonom zabraniti jer sterilizira intelektualnu elitu i čini ju podložnom vlasti, a kler utapa u hedonizam.

aben wrote:
itekako stoji. 
detroit je propo jer niko ni kupovo njihovi auti. prvo su ih prestali kupovati, a tek unda su kapitalisti ugasili proizvodnju.

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.

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

melkior wrote:


Ok, priznajem i sam da sam pao pod njegov otrovni utjecaj     
Gas do daske, vjetar u kosi mmm... 

A tko nije?  U određenom životnom periodu.
Samo je pitanje shvaćanja kada treba prestati sa takvim životom i okrenuti novi list. 

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:
itekako stoji. 
detroit je propo jer niko ni kupovo njihovi auti. prvo su ih prestali kupovati, a tek unda su kapitalisti ugasili proizvodnju.

Nisu kupovali američke automobile proizvedene u SAD-u zato jer su im bili preskupi, a jesu europske koji su bili još skuplji?
Teško da je to bio razlog, nebitno što znam da postoje i takva objašnjenja među ekonimostima i analitičarima.
Ostalo mi se sad ne da komentirati jer mi je kasno i idem na spavanje.
Laku noć tebi i melkioru. :)

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:
itekako stoji. 
detroit je propo jer niko ni kupovo njihovi auti. prvo su ih prestali kupovati, a tek unda su kapitalisti ugasili proizvodnju.

Nisu kupovali američke automobile proizvedene u SAD-u zato jer su im bili preskupi, a jesu europske koji su bili još skuplji?
Teško da je to bio razlog, nebitno što znam da postoje i takva objašnjenja među ekonimostima i analitičarima.
Ostalo mi se sad ne da komentirati jer mi je kasno i idem na spavanje.
Laku noć tebi i melkioru. :)

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.

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

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.

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.