Taxi Driver Online

the tx1 is chassis built it should be able to take a 76mm cannon no prob first fair city chambers

Can you imagine those councillors faces if everything started coming apart at the seams? I wonder what they would do then. It would be one of those, “remember me” moments. That would teach them to abuse their positions and to fu*k with peoples lives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16255514

'Nature abhors a vacuum' talk about the world turning to [edited by admin]

I mentioned this today......those f*ckers are mad and they have nukes ffs

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I read a book a number of years ago called, The Black Swan, The impact of the highly improbable, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.


Let me tell you, short of a huge meteorite hitting the Earth, there's not much left that can go wrong.

A Black Swan if ever there was one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaZORYaygo0&feature=related

Very interesting description of how trade works.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Or doesn't as the case may be command economies.

Yeah.....but building a factory in a foreign country where labour laws a less stingent and people work for nothing......to supply one of your own factories in your own country....then describing it as trade?

Thats usually better known as fraud.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I agree but only if you look at the figures as Chomsky explains, it's a subtle difference in meaning depending on if you own the factory and want to see it as trade.

Can't really see what Chomsky's on about. What difference does it make if a business imports cheap parts from abroad from an other company or it sets up another company itself and makes the cheap parts abroad itself? It's still trade, just that the market in question is structured differently.

Don't really get his point about the invisible hand either. He says it has nothing to do with neoclassical economics, but Adam Smith alludes to the invisible hand and neoclassical economics in another of his most famous statements, and the fact that he doesn't actually use the phrase 'invisible hand' is irrelevant:



Of course, as Chomsky rightly points out Smith later qualifies this by pointing out that governments should intervene against the excesses of free markets, but that doesn't disqualify free marketeers from using the phrase 'invisible hand'. What Smith is essentially saying is that the invisible hand is a good slave but a bad master, whereas neoclassical economists tend to think the invisible hand is a good master and a bad slave.

His dismissal of the concept of the division if labour is also a bit bizarre. There's no doubting that the division of labour exists - otherwise Chomsky wouldn't be an academic writing books and starring in YouTube videos - but the argument is about controlling its excesses and inequalities and to what extent this is desirable.

Chomsky seems to be dismissing concepts like the invisible hand, the division of labour and trade on the basis that they don't exist rather than that he doesn't like them. But in fact they do exist and he can argue against their excesses if he wants, but denying that they exist seems a bit nitpicking and ultimately pointless.

Dusty, did you watch the same video as the rest of us?

Yes, I just interpreted it differently

I dont think you did.....if a company starts a branch in a foreign place....with the sole intention of supply purely to another factory within the companies domain....and because labour laws are less costly.......how on earth could that be described as trade?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

So if we buy the goods manufactured abroad and the workers abroad benefit as a consequence then to that extent it doesn't really matter how the transaction is structured.

Chomsky may have a point about exploitation and the like, but I can't really see the relevance of nitpicking about descriptive concepts like trade, the invisible hand and the division of labour. They're merely describing the mechanisms rather than saying whether they're morally desirable, but Chomsky seems to ignore the difference.

Chomsky's essentially making the point that those who advocate free markets have used Adam Smith as a justification, whereas Smith's 'invisible hand' and suchlike were merely describing how the market works rather than saying whether they're morally desirable.

That's a fair point, but it doesn't mean that mere descriptions of how things like the division of labour and the invisible hand works are invalid.

He should just stick to saying that Smith didn't merely describe these ideas, as some try to say, and instead he should point out that Smith was also critical of how these ideas worked in practice.