3 ms·
"from an economic perspective the net impact of jobs and wages has not been significant." I suppose you mean "from a global financial economic perspective". An
by RobertoG 10y ago
"from an economic perspective the net impact of jobs and wages has not been significant."
I suppose you mean "from a global financial economic perspective". And you are right, of course: income equals expenditure.
From a economic local perspective, you have now a worker that before won 25$ and now doesn't. He is pissed off, and it's going to vote somebody that looks angry too.
You have 23$ in profit that will go (with a short stop in Ireland first) to buy an empty condo-mine in London or will be invested in places with 2$ waves in order to repeat the operation.
But, yes, the USA commercial deficit is totally the fault of the Chinese.
- projectramo 10y agoNo, I did not mean from a "global" perspective. Most of that money is likely to be re-invested or spent in the United States. You make a whole host of claims in your 4th sentence about the London condo mines etc. which I don't understand. Just to be clear: the price of commodities don't get magically untaxed by Ireland. The transfer pricing only applies in cases where the value-add is not objective such as IP. If the $23 were re-invested it would increase jobs and increase wages too.