Invisible hand

[_sabotage_]

Some guy wrote blah blah blah. What most people ignore is that he actually said domestic competition promotes strong nations, whereas now corporations have no home. Should we worry about the homelessness of these persons?

Homelessness is a serious issue. On the streets, on tv, online, everywhere these insolent upstarts beg me for my dollars. The White House is stunk full with their panhandling. Shouldn't we try to find them a home?

[BigBallinStalin]

With every word, you make less sense. Shouldn't we try to find them a home?

[AndyDufresne]

Some guy wrote blah blah blah. What most people ignore is that he actually said domestic competition promotes strong nations, whereas now corporations have no home. Should we worry about the homelessness of these persons?

Homelessness is a serious issue. On the streets, on tv, online, everywhere these insolent upstarts beg me for my dollars. The White House is stunk full with their panhandling. Shouldn't we try to find them a home?

I've translated this post using the Bad Translator, using 18 translations:

Speak, yada, yada, yada, yada, man. None of the farm, is a real competitiveness is now part of the great nation. There is no need to worry that homeless person.

Is a serious problem in this song porn free TV Internet upstarts at $ i. open space blog questions in the White House. We should try to find a home.

--Andy

[Ray Rider]

Some guy wrote blah blah blah. What most people ignore is that he actually said domestic competition promotes strong nations, whereas now corporations have no home. Should we worry about the homelessness of these persons?

Homelessness is a serious issue. On the streets, on tv, online, everywhere these insolent upstarts beg me for my dollars. The White House is stunk full with their panhandling. Shouldn't we try to find them a home?

I've translated this post using the Bad Translator, using 18 translations:

Speak, yada, yada, yada, yada, man. None of the farm, is a real competitiveness is now part of the great nation. There is no need to worry that homeless person.

Is a serious problem in this song porn free TV Internet upstarts at $ i. open space blog questions in the White House. We should try to find a home.

--Andy

Ohh, noooowww that makes sense! Thanks bro!

[rdsrds2120]

Andy's sporadic use of Bad Translator makes me feel alive again.

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

Thank you, Andy, for clearing up the confusion in this thread. We can all go home now.

[Phatscotty]

We could try stopping making the corporations homeless.

But why would American corporations stay in America anyways? The people in those corporations today were brought up to believe that America is a horrible country.

Maybe they worry about the "income gap" so much that they are just helping us out by making the top part of the income rate disappear?

[Lootifer]

I think you're crazy _sabotage_

[AndyDufresne]

We could try stopping making the corporations homeless.

But why would American corporations stay in America anyways? The people in those corporations today were brought up to believe that America is a horrible country.

Maybe they worry about the "income gap" so much that they are just helping us out by making the top part of the income rate disappear?

I translated this post to make more sense out of it, using 18 translations again:

You can try to make it at home and not work.

But why does the United States say that why? We are made in the United States today, and there is no reason to.

Strange you rights, inequality also gave us the only problem is that a lot?

--Andy

[Symmetry]

Scotty est troglodytam, quid exspectas?

[_sabotage_]

I'm glad at least someone thinks I'm crazy.

"As every individual … therefore, endeavours as much as he can, both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce maybe of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the general [Smith said "public" not general] interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security, and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, [as in many other cases] led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.[21][23]

Smith nowhere wrote about "the invisible hand of the market" as is commonly assumed. He just used the phrase "invisible hand". Furthermore, the qualifier, "By preferring the support of domestic to that of a foreign industry", is not quoted when referring to the "invisible hand" sentence.

My reference is to the last bit: "By preferring the support of domestic to that of a foreign industry". Free market economists tend to forget this bit. But what will it mean for these industries which have no stake in a local population, yet use their labour, pollute their environment and close down competition?

Where I'm at, the trend has been to buy up the local producers just to shut them down. What happens to the population when we are no longer profitable? We've lost most of our trade-able products and our service are no longer needed。

During the 90s, my mother spent most of her time reforming national laws around international policies. She worked for the World Bank or ADB as was most appropriate to the situation. Over the last decade plus, she has been organizing key strategic nations around privacy standards, again imposed by the weightier financial bodies.

Countries which have historically been self-sufficient now rely on specialization and subsidies to have a marketable product to trade for their other needs.

In the US, we heavily subsidized corn and have built a whole supporting network around it. Corn is used in most of our convenient food products as well as the key source of feed for our meat products. But who is the government giving the money to and how linked are the producers to the needs of the local market as opposed to the international market?

Famine has happened internationally and though many charities exist which are meant to alleviate hunger, their supply of starving children to use as ads has not diminished. One excuse is that by supplying the hungry with food, we would be making it unfair on the local farmers. So we capitalize these charities and in return they create a bureaucracy to monitor the starving and advertise them on TV to the rest of us.

In recent years, we have severely overprinted the US dollar. Bailouts, deficit spending and secret loans were made in a stated attempt to prop up the economy, but At the moment, there is still faith in it. Faith from the little people, interdependence by foreign governments. We bribe and threaten, deceive and corrupt. What if China can afford to ditch its investments? If other countries decide to seek stability over pillage?

But at least we're in the clear, right? We have spent 20 + trillion dollars in the last few years putting ourselves on a strong domestic and international footing, haven't we?
No. Detroit is dead and GM et al used the our bailout dollars to set up JVs in China. The banks got rich on the way up and then spied out the spoils from their parachutes as they floated down, using our own money to fill the slots that slide straight into their vaults.

On occasion, we do see the fateful demise of one of these institutions. They are lain bare by the wayside and their corpse is devoured in the media. Recent trends have had their upper management rewarded as they jump ship. What if we provide the same example to corporate USA? What happens when we are the shell being ogled and stripped clean? Do you have the feeling that upper management has been preparing to jump ship?

Things which we envisioned and brought to life in medicine, technology, entertainment no longer belong to us. We have been laid bare. One last stripping is coming. Privacy laws are widespread, owned by multinationals and enforced by a private security monopoly. The things we thought were ours are about to be taken from us.

We can strip corporations of their personhood and return enterprise to our community. Competition needs to be sparked and given leeway. Ensure that activity in your locality has inherent interest in the well being of the community and has the working basis of developing the well being in the community as their prime objective. If we focus our efforts on tackling the root issues of human need instead of profitable ways of servicing them, we have the ability to rid ourselves of the forms of crisis that we find ourselves in and further our species. An active community is a thriving, happy one. The dollar is going to take a hit, purchasing power is going to shrink, it is time to stop depending on foreign self-interest to support local well-being.

[BigBallinStalin]

"The invisible hand"

see: Spontaneous Order

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/201 ... spont.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/L ... yTSO1.html
and wiki, but wiki is lacking.

[ManBungalow]

therrad

[Serbia]

Utter shite.

Bollocks.

[saxitoxin]

I heard AoGs babysitter caught him abusing himself and AoG tried to blame it on an "invisible hand." I don't know if that's true or not, that's just the rumor I heard.