6 ms·

Man, you're completely insane, and I'm going to answer you for the last time only to keep at least a minimum of coherence in this "discussion" if someone reads

by meira 10y ago

Man, you're completely insane, and I'm going to answer you for the last time only to keep at least a minimum of coherence in this "discussion" if someone reads it in the future. > First, let's stop with the name-calling. We can do better than that. I am not discussing with you to score internet points. I am actually trying to engage in a conversation to see if your arguments have any merit. You were the one that jumped into the discussion name-calling, so I'll agree with you in letting it go. > - I am asking for a argument for your claim. Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses² in high tech jobs. Facebook don't here 1/10 of it in any of the countries they operate besides US. This is one company, so you have indirectly another hundreds of thousands of jobs, in education, in infrastructure, in services to attend this well-paid people. This is my "one argument" for the claim. Please, if you're going to dismiss it, do it properly, with good argument and references. > hird, I understand that you think that a closed, protectionist policy is better for the people than an open, global economy. But it seems to me that you are arguing in circles - "WeChat has more users in China, WeChat is controlled by the Government and closed, Government control makes it easier for "national companies", therefore "national companies" are better for the users" I never made these claims and I can only repeat myself saying that you are retard. > Fourth, you've said things here that are provably wrong - e.g, the thing about taxes being reduced during FHC. When you are getting such basic information wrong, couldn't you at the very least check your sources and re-evaluate some of your preconceptions? Could you be so kind and show just a little bit of humility and take a look at if you are engaging in an intellectually honest conversation? Do you have real understandings of economics and politics? Or you are more or less aligned with the average? Do you understand the implications of making 1 REAL worth 1 DOLLAR? And how FHC made it artificially, and just after que got reelected, he undervaluated our currency to 4/1², making all of our debts in dollar (most of it, of course haha) explode! Are you saying serious that you understand what happened that time? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent 2. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/01/business/international-business-brazil-devaluation-changes-the-trading-bloc-picture.html http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/01/business/international-bus...

rglullis 10y ago
You say you will drop the name-calling after saying again that I am insane, and in another paragraph calls me "retard". Are you sure you willing to "let it go" or are you keep taking cheap jabs with the name calling? Anyway, let's have another round of a friendly debate. Shall we? > I never made these claims (about protectionism and WeChat) and Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses (sic) (...) this is my one argument You might not have realized, but when you say that WeChat is better for China (because it creates jobs and whatnot), you are exactly claiming that protectionist policies are good for the country. We could have a longer debate about that (protectionism vs open market economic policies), but this has NOTHING to do with my original question. My question is "why is WeChat better for the users compared to Facebook? What makes WeChat better due to being closed and protected by the government? You keep going to this argument related to it being "beneficial for the Country", I am talking about it being beneficial to the users that live in that country. Do you see the difference? -- Regarding "real understandings of economics and politics": again, you are using bad data, and even if you were using the right data you still are reaching wrong conclusions that any honest economist would be able to point it out. I don't know if you are doing this out of intellectual dishonesty or just confusion, but let me point a few examples: - The article you linked says clearly that the devaluation post-FHC-reelection (1998) was of 40%. So the USD went to R$1,40, not $4,50 as you wrote. - The problem with the artifical parity of USD:BRL and subsequent devaluation is not related to the cost of debt "in dollars". The problem was actually the opposite! The debt kept growing and the austerity policies kept being pushed to keep the BRL artifically strong. If we had then a free-floating exchange rate (like we have now), then the dollar price would rise, our exports would increase and we might have been able to keep a better trade balance. The reason we didn't do any of that was that FHC Government needed to control inflation, and the only way that was possible by controlling the exchange rate and adjusting the budget. It was a bitter pill to swallow, but it was one that was very much needed. Had we not done that then, we would probably be today in a situation similar to Venezuela, completely in shambles. - You still haven't retracted yourself in regards with the tax rate during FHC years. If you don't believe me, I will even give you a very pro-left source (http://jornalggn.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-aumento-de-impostos-no-brasil http://jornalggn.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-aumento-de-imposto...) to check it out. -- To close up: I would appreciate very much if you could read carefully what I am writing instead of just (1) calling me names, (2) ignoring others that point out your factual mistakes and (3) trying to "win" by piling more and more about things that are not related to what was originally asked. And this thread is already getting too deep, so if you really want to continue this you can send me an email, just take a look at my "about" section here.

by meira 10y ago

rglullis 10y ago

You say you will drop the name-calling after saying again that I am insane, and in another paragraph calls me "retard". Are you sure you willing to "let it go" or are you keep taking cheap jabs with the name calling? Anyway, let's have another round of a friendly debate. Shall we? > I never made these claims (about protectionism and WeChat) and Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses (sic) (...) this is my one argument You might not have realized, but when you say that WeChat is better for China (because it creates jobs and whatnot), you are exactly claiming that protectionist policies are good for the country. We could have a longer debate about that (protectionism vs open market economic policies), but this has NOTHING to do with my original question. My question is "why is WeChat better for the users compared to Facebook? What makes WeChat better due to being closed and protected by the government? You keep going to this argument related to it being "beneficial for the Country", I am talking about it being beneficial to the users that live in that country. Do you see the difference? -- Regarding "real understandings of economics and politics": again, you are using bad data, and even if you were using the right data you still are reaching wrong conclusions that any honest economist would be able to point it out. I don't know if you are doing this out of intellectual dishonesty or just confusion, but let me point a few examples: - The article you linked says clearly that the devaluation post-FHC-reelection (1998) was of 40%. So the USD went to R$1,40, not $4,50 as you wrote. - The problem with the artifical parity of USD:BRL and subsequent devaluation is not related to the cost of debt "in dollars". The problem was actually the opposite! The debt kept growing and the austerity policies kept being pushed to keep the BRL artifically strong. If we had then a free-floating exchange rate (like we have now), then the dollar price would rise, our exports would increase and we might have been able to keep a better trade balance. The reason we didn't do any of that was that FHC Government needed to control inflation, and the only way that was possible by controlling the exchange rate and adjusting the budget. It was a bitter pill to swallow, but it was one that was very much needed. Had we not done that then, we would probably be today in a situation similar to Venezuela, completely in shambles. - You still haven't retracted yourself in regards with the tax rate during FHC years. If you don't believe me, I will even give you a very pro-left source (http://jornalggn.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-aumento-de-impostos-no-brasil http://jornalggn.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-aumento-de-imposto...) to check it out. -- To close up: I would appreciate very much if you could read carefully what I am writing instead of just (1) calling me names, (2) ignoring others that point out your factual mistakes and (3) trying to "win" by piling more and more about things that are not related to what was originally asked. And this thread is already getting too deep, so if you really want to continue this you can send me an email, just take a look at my "about" section here.