Absolutely and without question.
Three people have achieved what prior governments alone could not....
Respectfully,
Playacaribe2
- Thread starter MoJoInDR
- Start date
Dominican Republic as a model of economic success.
Three people have achieved what prior governments alone could not....
Respectfully,
Playacaribe2
It seems that NALs doesn't understand what government is, and is for... By the power of the vote.
Very high accident rate is the main reason, secondary reason is all the politicians that have Villa that are accessed from the road, third reason= a lot of agriculture product that feeds the rest of the DR comes down that road.
The DR has the highest accident mortality rate in the world. Most of it is simply how people drive. That’s why when the rosd to Samaná was open and it was built to the highest security level, it didn’t take long for accidents to happen in that road.
None of that are obligations and the Cibao has been the breadbasket of the country since ever.
LOL
What they teach in USA universities? A dictartorship as the best form of goverment and socialism as the best economic system?
Not to my knowledge... But then again, I didn't attend a university in the USA.
But as I said... It seems that you don't understand what a government is, and is for... By the power of the vote.
It is absolutely relevant to wage levels, as the attitude of the government, business owners, and household employers disposition toward worker compensation, in the context of the value they place on the service being performed by these workers influences what wage levels are considered appropriate.
These are all aspects of market forces… Economic factors affect the price of, demand for, and availability of a commodity.
This is a matter of established law, which expresses the attitude of the government. .. All you’ve done above is support what I said that you called “…irrelevant…”.
This is a matter of the business owner’s attitude regarding conducting their business within the scope of the law, or not doing so.
Here you’re simply again supporting what I said.
Wonderful… The employment of legal workers should be the norm.
But, as you just admitted, in certain work environments it isn’t the norm.
Why?
Are there not enough Dominicans to meet the workforce requirement?
You want to blame illegal immigrants for the low wages being paid… However, the illegal immigrants are not the business owners/management who make employment choices and sign the paychecks.
Be honest and place the responsibility where it lies.
I’m pretending nothing… Just making clear what exactly is the true situation.
People can enter countries illegally, and then look for work… But they cannot force anyone to employ them… That is a matter of the employer’s choice to do so.
Chilean, Peruvian, Venezuelan… Or Haitian… It doesn’t matter… None can force a Dominican business owner to employ them… Employing any of them is on the business owner.
There may be many reasons why Haitians come to the DR… Legally or illegally… But I’m not speaking about the reasons why people immigrate… I’m speaking about what happens within the job market when illegal immigrants are hired to do a job.
You put forward that illegal immigrants are the reason for low wages in the DR… But this cannot be true, as illegal immigrants cannot force themselves on employers… The responsibility is with the employer.
Here again, you are supporting what I have put forward… The government and employers carry a major part of the responsibility in the matter of workforce dynamics.
I never said that businesses in the DR are responsible for the success of business in the DR… I’m well aware of the multiple aspects of an economy that impact market forces.
Actually… The desire to be rich is not what drives economic development… Market forces are what drive economic development (eg. consumer demand/spending, business investment, related regulations, workforce, social environment).
A person can have the utmost desire to be rich and produce a product that turns out to be a dismal failure with consumers.
Typically, the desire to be rich often works against business success, as the person who desires to be rich can lose sight of moral values… Which may lead to criminal activity that causes that person to end up in jail.
If you look at a list of character traits of a successful business owner you won’t find the desire to be rich on it. The thinking is that wealth will come as a result of the application of the listed traits.
All took decades/generations to develop and move forward… And are still struggling in many ways.
Colonialism developed the environment that people became used to living in… And since the pattern set by those who headed up colonialism was one of taking profit for themselves and not caring about the country (including the people)… When independence came to these countries, the way they thought to govern the newly independent country was according to how they saw the colonial folk do it.
Economics is the study of man in the ordinary business of life... Carrying out economics is to inquire as to how man gets income and how man uses it.
What you may be thinking of is an economy… Of which there are three main types… Command economy (government rules everything)… Market economy (free of any government rule)… And Mixed economy (a hybrid in which both command and market make up the system, and which most countries have a variation of).
And people can get rich or poor in any of the three.
Yet, within these environments are social drivers that can turn an economy on its head… Such as what happened in the American War of Independence, the Haitian War of Independence… Both countries were providing the means for business owners to become rich… And then the social dynamics within both countries brought an end to that.
And this happened because the local citizenry decided that the cost placed on them for others to get rich was too great.
There is nothing wrong with getting rich… Except when those who are helping you get rich, at their expense, decide to stop you from continuing to get rich.
A proper economy is a balanced economy… One in which all related groups share — to one degree or another — the success being earned.
Not everyone needs to become rich… But success should equate to a higher standard of living for all involved.
Wonderful… And I agree… Laws are there for a purpose… And if these laws are not working, then they need to be updated or even changed.
But the fact that there are laws means that there is a need for sacrifice… As to subject ourselves to laws is to sacrifice absolute freedom for a governed environment in which certain rights that allow a certain degree of freedom are given.
1. What exactly are the obligations of the government then?
2. Doesn't well-kept country with better infrastructure and government providing good services equal potentially more revenue whoever operates in the country and thus more tax money for the govt? Has better linkage between Punta Cana and Santo Domingo drawn less tax money for the govt or otherwise put the country backwards? I would think the contrary would be the case but what do I know...
I'm slightly confused here as well...
My opinion- I agree the economy has grown. Many more cars are on the road. However the roads cannot accommodate the traffic. Traffic is a nightmare.
Much more construction. But no consistent electricity and areas without water.
Higher minimum wagers that give the ordinary family just a little help.
Yet what is economic growth worth without growth in the infrastructure? And more importantly, what is the future if there is economic growth without growth in education?
Thus, perhaps, yes. The ordinary man benefits just a bit while the rich get richer and richer.
For now. Eventually in my opinion- and I hope I am wrong- it will collapse.
Much more construction. But no consistent electricity and areas without water.
Higher minimum wagers that give the ordinary family just a little help.
Yet what is economic growth worth without growth in the infrastructure? And more importantly, what is the future if there is economic growth without growth in education?
Thus, perhaps, yes. The ordinary man benefits just a bit while the rich get richer and richer.
For now. Eventually in my opinion- and I hope I am wrong- it will collapse.
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t. Wages are determined by supply and demand, productivity levels and any regulations followed (if the wge rate is actually below a minimum placed by government regulations, you either forgo hiring or do it if the government will subsidize the gap between the market going rate and the minimum.
Not in some some sectors.
You seem really worried with blame instead of what is actually happening. It’s only a blame when an excesses of labor in a certain sector due the illegal immigrants doesn’t exist and the illegal immigrants are blamed, but when in reality there is an excess of labor due to illegal immigrants it isn’t a blame, it’s what is happening.
I think you are given you’re very worried about “blame” and not reality. It’s as if you’re one of these extreme leftists who needs to mold any situation to their political views vs reality. At least that’s the vibe I’m getting.
Due to a porous border, corruption of border officials and migración officials and the situation in Haiti which is pushing them to leave.
Wages go down due to increasing competition and anyone not willing to work for the lowest wages will be out of a job since there are many new ones that will work for the lower wages.
Most illegal immigrants in the DR are from Haiti, not Puerto Rico, not Cuba, not Venezuela. What would happen to the illegal immigrant popularion in the DR is Haitian illegal immigrants were to disappear?
In the same token, none of the neighbors of the DR have such a high presence of illegal immigrants given the total population, not even Puerto Rico which has some of the highest wages in the Caribbean and basically any job pays more than the equivslent in the DR.
Perfect example you don’t know what drives economic growth and development. None of what you said exist if there are no people creating and developing businesses. It’s similar to using money to influence people’s decision of where they can work given their experiences and knowledge. Normally, people will work for the highest wage they can get given the going rate, but there are people that aren’t motivated by money. Those are precisely the people for whom advancement isn’t depended on.
Yes, those are the people that keep trying with new products until one sticks. Their desire to be rich is so strong that they never accepts no or a defeat. People that aren’t motivated by money, if they try to start one business offering a product or a service and it flops, at that moment they give up. People’s livelihood which first and foremost is based on having a job are better off with the one that wants to be rich than the one not motivated by money. They have a chance of getting a job with the first, but as soon as the second flops everybody is out of the job forever if they depend entirely on that person to start another business.
Criminal activity is often the result of people wanting a source of income but they’re unwilling to get one or at the level that they want. This is why crime increases during crises, when the businesses created by people wanting to be rich aren’t doing so well or go bankrupt.
Most people that start a business will not start one if they know it will not improve their economic situation,
That’s a very leftist thinking. A perfect example is the United States which wasn’t one colony, but thirteen. Up until recent times when for the first time the children of the baby boomers will do worse than them, what has happened to the USA from its independence is of a place that was rich and simpky got richer with every generation achieving higher wealths and well being than the previous generation. The United State isn’t the only wealthy country that started as a colony.
Furthermore, the economic success of the 13 colonies that became the USA wasn’t always the case as the wealthiest territories were often the ones that belong to Spain in Latin America. North America was looked as a land of waste with some of the hemisphere most developed cities not just economically, but also culturally, in the arts, etc were places like Mexico City, Quito, Lima… Not Miami, not New York, not Boston…. In fact, this image of extreme riches in various Spanish cities is one of the things that lead Francis Drake to attack and invade cities such as Santo Domingo, Cartagena, etc in 1586.
Just a reminder that I’m an economist. You?
Those were completely different. The United States quickly regai ed it place after the revolutionary war and even became a superpower, which it still is.
On the other hand, Haiti never recovered from the destruction of the Haitian Revolution. The main reason is that the USA never got rid of the people that had the know how. For example, before the Haitian Revolution the world’s most sought after cotton, for which people in Europe were willing to pay the modt money were, was that produced by the Desdune nesr Gonaives, Haiti. While that area hasn’t produced a single cotton since the plantation was destroyed during the Haitian Revolution, the area is still called Desdune, which is the last name of the French family who owned all of that. The entire Desdunes family was exterpated from Haiti, a large part killed during the revolution and a small part managed to escape snd ended in New Orleans. Is it really a mistery why Desdunes never created cotton after the revolution and what was once considered the best cotton in the world was no longer in existence? To revive something that depended on the know how of the owners, the very same people extirpated from Haiti by the Haitians themselves? Unlike the USA, Haiti never reached the amount of production it had in various articles before its independence at any time after it became independent. Several Haitian governments, following the pro-black agenda it had for many years starting with its independence, in addition to being shunned by countries such a France (Haiti was seen as a rebellious French colony until the Haitians paid the debt) and the USA (which was influenced by many of the French emigrants that fled Haiti during the revolutions, many of which were eyewitness to the massacres of the whites, and included people likes of Peter Chazotte who was a friend of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the declaration of independence of the USA and its third president who upon hearing of what the whites were facing in Saint-Domingue from several of the French immigrants including Peter Chazotte, remarked that the mess in existence in Saint-Domingue should be contained to that island), was it isolated itself given that most of the investors at that time were white and most immigrants were Europeans,
A place can’t quickly return and exceed its previous development level if those with the know how are eliminated. It should also be noted that most of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were themselves illiterate and with hardly any education. Haiti did what the USA didn’t do after each of their independence wars.
The most developed countries all have a higher percentage of rich people in their population. This would had never been reached if when the rich were a smaller percentage of the population were constantly wiped out duecto some revolution. Haiti is actually a perfect example of what results with constant instability. Cuba is another example of how much more difficult it’s to economically develop a place without its wealthy class.
Rather than making it smaller or entirely eliminated, the way to overall well being is to allow it to grow. That’s where the money will be created that affects the well being of the rest of the country. The issue is that there will be a period when the percentage of wealthy households will be very small and most of the people will be living in poverty while a very small group will be living very well. Envy is often the cause of many of these revolution, particularly envy of the rich and they are meant to destroy the rich because they see it as if the rich are rich by exploiting the poor. This is a ver leftist view. In reality, to increase the well being you need for the rich to grow, because if you do the opposite a worsening living conditions for most is what will follow.
This repeats itself. The more rich households make up a country’s population, the greater the standards of living of most people. The least percentage of wealthy households, the worse is the overall standards of living. That’s not what the extreme left wants to hear because their greatest motivating factor is envy of the rich and this will never get rid of them, if anything it allows the rich to get richer.
It isn’t. Wages are determined by supply and demand, productivity levels and any regulations followed (if the wge rate is actually below a minimum placed by government regulations, you either forgo hiring or do it if the government will subsidize the gap between the market going rate and the minimum.
Not in some some sectors.
You seem really worried with blame instead of what is actually happening. It’s only a blame when an excesses of labor in a certain sector due the illegal immigrants doesn’t exist and the illegal immigrants are blamed, but when in reality there is an excess of labor due to illegal immigrants it isn’t a blame, it’s what is happening.
I think you are given you’re very worried about “blame” and not reality. It’s as if you’re one of these extreme leftists who needs to mold any situation to their political views vs reality. At least that’s the vibe I’m getting.
Due to a porous border, corruption of border officials and migración officials and the situation in Haiti which is pushing them to leave.
Wages go down due to increasing competition and anyone not willing to work for the lowest wages will be out of a job since there are many new ones that will work for the lower wages.
Most illegal immigrants in the DR are from Haiti, not Puerto Rico, not Cuba, not Venezuela. What would happen to the illegal immigrant popularion in the DR is Haitian illegal immigrants were to disappear?
In the same token, none of the neighbors of the DR have such a high presence of illegal immigrants given the total population, not even Puerto Rico which has some of the highest wages in the Caribbean and basically any job pays more than the equivslent in the DR.
Perfect example you don’t know what drives economic growth and development. None of what you said exist if there are no people creating and developing businesses. It’s similar to using money to influence people’s decision of where they can work given their experiences and knowledge. Normally, people will work for the highest wage they can get given the going rate, but there are people that aren’t motivated by money. Those are precisely the people for whom advancement isn’t depended on.
Yes, those are the people that keep trying with new products until one sticks. Their desire to be rich is so strong that they never accepts no or a defeat. People that aren’t motivated by money, if they try to start one business offering a product or a service and it flops, at that moment they give up. People’s livelihood which first and foremost is based on having a job are better off with the one that wants to be rich than the one not motivated by money. They have a chance of getting a job with the first, but as soon as the second flops everybody is out of the job forever if they depend entirely on that person to start another business.
Criminal activity is often the result of people wanting a source of income but they’re unwilling to get one or at the level that they want. This is why crime increases during crises, when the businesses created by people wanting to be rich aren’t doing so well or go bankrupt.
Most people that start a business will not start one if they know it will not improve their economic situation,
That’s a very leftist thinking. A perfect example is the United States which wasn’t one colony, but thirteen. Up until recent times when for the first time the children of the baby boomers will do worse than them, what has happened to the USA from its independence is of a place that was rich and simpky got richer with every generation achieving higher wealths and well being than the previous generation. The United State isn’t the only wealthy country that started as a colony.
Furthermore, the economic success of the 13 colonies that became the USA wasn’t always the case as the wealthiest territories were often the ones that belong to Spain in Latin America. North America was looked as a land of waste with some of the hemisphere most developed cities not just economically, but also culturally, in the arts, etc were places like Mexico City, Quito, Lima… Not Miami, not New York, not Boston…. In fact, this image of extreme riches in various Spanish cities is one of the things that lead Francis Drake to attack and invade cities such as Santo Domingo, Cartagena, etc in 1586.
Just a reminder that I’m an economist. You?
Those were completely different. The United States quickly regai ed it place after the revolutionary war and even became a superpower, which it still is.
On the other hand, Haiti never recovered from the destruction of the Haitian Revolution. The main reason is that the USA never got rid of the people that had the know how. For example, before the Haitian Revolution the world’s most sought after cotton, for which people in Europe were willing to pay the modt money were, was that produced by the Desdune nesr Gonaives, Haiti. While that area hasn’t produced a single cotton since the plantation was destroyed during the Haitian Revolution, the area is still called Desdune, which is the last name of the French family who owned all of that. The entire Desdunes family was exterpated from Haiti, a large part killed during the revolution and a small part managed to escape snd ended in New Orleans. Is it really a mistery why Desdunes never created cotton after the revolution and what was once considered the best cotton in the world was no longer in existence? To revive something that depended on the know how of the owners, the very same people extirpated from Haiti by the Haitians themselves? Unlike the USA, Haiti never reached the amount of production it had in various articles before its independence at any time after it became independent. Several Haitian governments, following the pro-black agenda it had for many years starting with its independence, in addition to being shunned by countries such a France (Haiti was seen as a rebellious French colony until the Haitians paid the debt) and the USA (which was influenced by many of the French emigrants that fled Haiti during the revolutions, many of which were eyewitness to the massacres of the whites, and included people likes of Peter Chazotte who was a friend of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the declaration of independence of the USA and its third president who upon hearing of what the whites were facing in Saint-Domingue from several of the French immigrants including Peter Chazotte, remarked that the mess in existence in Saint-Domingue should be contained to that island), was it isolated itself given that most of the investors at that time were white and most immigrants were Europeans,
A place can’t quickly return and exceed its previous development level if those with the know how are eliminated. It should also be noted that most of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were themselves illiterate and with hardly any education. Haiti did what the USA didn’t do after each of their independence wars.
The most developed countries all have a higher percentage of rich people in their population. This would had never been reached if when the rich were a smaller percentage of the population were constantly wiped out duecto some revolution. Haiti is actually a perfect example of what results with constant instability. Cuba is another example of how much more difficult it’s to economically develop a place without its wealthy class.
Rather than making it smaller or entirely eliminated, the way to overall well being is to allow it to grow. That’s where the money will be created that affects the well being of the rest of the country. The issue is that there will be a period when the percentage of wealthy households will be very small and most of the people will be living in poverty while a very small group will be living very well. Envy is often the cause of many of these revolution, particularly envy of the rich and they are meant to destroy the rich because they see it as if the rich are rich by exploiting the poor. This is a ver leftist view. In reality, to increase the well being you need for the rich to grow, because if you do the opposite a worsening living conditions for most is what will follow.
This repeats itself. The more rich households make up a country’s population, the greater the standards of living of most people. The least percentage of wealthy households, the worse is the overall standards of living. That’s not what the extreme left wants to hear because their greatest motivating factor is envy of the rich and this will never get rid of them, if anything it allows the rich to get richer.
[/QUOTE]
A GOOD POST. A rising tide does indeed affect all boats, mainly positvely . Are you a fan of Ludwig von Mises? For Mises was able to demonstrate (a) that the expansion of free markets, the division of labor, and private capital investment is the only possible path to the prosperity and flourishing of the human race; (b) that socialism would be disastrous for a modern economy because the absence of private ownership of land and capital goods prevents any sort of rational pricing, or estimate of costs, and (c) that government intervention, in addition to hampering and crippling the market, would prove counter-productive and cumulative, leading inevitably to socialism unless the entire tissue of interventions was repealed. Although not an economist I did take both macro and microeconomics 101 as part of my business education and my wife has many economics courses as part of her statistics degree. We have had many discussions regarding the economy.
Not in some some sectors.
You seem really worried with blame instead of what is actually happening. It’s only a blame when an excesses of labor in a certain sector due the illegal immigrants doesn’t exist and the illegal immigrants are blamed, but when in reality there is an excess of labor due to illegal immigrants it isn’t a blame, it’s what is happening.
I think you are given you’re very worried about “blame” and not reality. It’s as if you’re one of these extreme leftists who needs to mold any situation to their political views vs reality. At least that’s the vibe I’m getting.
Due to a porous border, corruption of border officials and migración officials and the situation in Haiti which is pushing them to leave.
Wages go down due to increasing competition and anyone not willing to work for the lowest wages will be out of a job since there are many new ones that will work for the lower wages.
Most illegal immigrants in the DR are from Haiti, not Puerto Rico, not Cuba, not Venezuela. What would happen to the illegal immigrant popularion in the DR is Haitian illegal immigrants were to disappear?
In the same token, none of the neighbors of the DR have such a high presence of illegal immigrants given the total population, not even Puerto Rico which has some of the highest wages in the Caribbean and basically any job pays more than the equivslent in the DR.
Perfect example you don’t know what drives economic growth and development. None of what you said exist if there are no people creating and developing businesses. It’s similar to using money to influence people’s decision of where they can work given their experiences and knowledge. Normally, people will work for the highest wage they can get given the going rate, but there are people that aren’t motivated by money. Those are precisely the people for whom advancement isn’t depended on.
Yes, those are the people that keep trying with new products until one sticks. Their desire to be rich is so strong that they never accepts no or a defeat. People that aren’t motivated by money, if they try to start one business offering a product or a service and it flops, at that moment they give up. People’s livelihood which first and foremost is based on having a job are better off with the one that wants to be rich than the one not motivated by money. They have a chance of getting a job with the first, but as soon as the second flops everybody is out of the job forever if they depend entirely on that person to start another business.
Criminal activity is often the result of people wanting a source of income but they’re unwilling to get one or at the level that they want. This is why crime increases during crises, when the businesses created by people wanting to be rich aren’t doing so well or go bankrupt.
Most people that start a business will not start one if they know it will not improve their economic situation,
That’s a very leftist thinking. A perfect example is the United States which wasn’t one colony, but thirteen. Up until recent times when for the first time the children of the baby boomers will do worse than them, what has happened to the USA from its independence is of a place that was rich and simpky got richer with every generation achieving higher wealths and well being than the previous generation. The United State isn’t the only wealthy country that started as a colony.
Furthermore, the economic success of the 13 colonies that became the USA wasn’t always the case as the wealthiest territories were often the ones that belong to Spain in Latin America. North America was looked as a land of waste with some of the hemisphere most developed cities not just economically, but also culturally, in the arts, etc were places like Mexico City, Quito, Lima… Not Miami, not New York, not Boston…. In fact, this image of extreme riches in various Spanish cities is one of the things that lead Francis Drake to attack and invade cities such as Santo Domingo, Cartagena, etc in 1586.
Just a reminder that I’m an economist. You?
Those were completely different. The United States quickly regai ed it place after the revolutionary war and even became a superpower, which it still is.
On the other hand, Haiti never recovered from the destruction of the Haitian Revolution. The main reason is that the USA never got rid of the people that had the know how. For example, before the Haitian Revolution the world’s most sought after cotton, for which people in Europe were willing to pay the modt money were, was that produced by the Desdune nesr Gonaives, Haiti. While that area hasn’t produced a single cotton since the plantation was destroyed during the Haitian Revolution, the area is still called Desdune, which is the last name of the French family who owned all of that. The entire Desdunes family was exterpated from Haiti, a large part killed during the revolution and a small part managed to escape snd ended in New Orleans. Is it really a mistery why Desdunes never created cotton after the revolution and what was once considered the best cotton in the world was no longer in existence? To revive something that depended on the know how of the owners, the very same people extirpated from Haiti by the Haitians themselves? Unlike the USA, Haiti never reached the amount of production it had in various articles before its independence at any time after it became independent. Several Haitian governments, following the pro-black agenda it had for many years starting with its independence, in addition to being shunned by countries such a France (Haiti was seen as a rebellious French colony until the Haitians paid the debt) and the USA (which was influenced by many of the French emigrants that fled Haiti during the revolutions, many of which were eyewitness to the massacres of the whites, and included people likes of Peter Chazotte who was a friend of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the declaration of independence of the USA and its third president who upon hearing of what the whites were facing in Saint-Domingue from several of the French immigrants including Peter Chazotte, remarked that the mess in existence in Saint-Domingue should be contained to that island), was it isolated itself given that most of the investors at that time were white and most immigrants were Europeans,
A place can’t quickly return and exceed its previous development level if those with the know how are eliminated. It should also be noted that most of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were themselves illiterate and with hardly any education. Haiti did what the USA didn’t do after each of their independence wars.
The most developed countries all have a higher percentage of rich people in their population. This would had never been reached if when the rich were a smaller percentage of the population were constantly wiped out duecto some revolution. Haiti is actually a perfect example of what results with constant instability. Cuba is another example of how much more difficult it’s to economically develop a place without its wealthy class.
Rather than making it smaller or entirely eliminated, the way to overall well being is to allow it to grow. That’s where the money will be created that affects the well being of the rest of the country. The issue is that there will be a period when the percentage of wealthy households will be very small and most of the people will be living in poverty while a very small group will be living very well. Envy is often the cause of many of these revolution, particularly envy of the rich and they are meant to destroy the rich because they see it as if the rich are rich by exploiting the poor. This is a ver leftist view. In reality, to increase the well being you need for the rich to grow, because if you do the opposite a worsening living conditions for most is what will follow.
This repeats itself. The more rich households make up a country’s population, the greater the standards of living of most people. The least percentage of wealthy households, the worse is the overall standards of living. That’s not what the extreme left wants to hear because their greatest motivating factor is envy of the rich and this will never get rid of them, if anything it allows the rich to get richer.
[/QUOTE]
A GOOD POST. A rising tide does indeed affect all boats, mainly positvely . Are you a fan of Ludwig von Mises? For Mises was able to demonstrate (a) that the expansion of free markets, the division of labor, and private capital investment is the only possible path to the prosperity and flourishing of the human race; (b) that socialism would be disastrous for a modern economy because the absence of private ownership of land and capital goods prevents any sort of rational pricing, or estimate of costs, and (c) that government intervention, in addition to hampering and crippling the market, would prove counter-productive and cumulative, leading inevitably to socialism unless the entire tissue of interventions was repealed. Although not an economist I did take both macro and microeconomics 101 as part of my business education and my wife has many economics courses as part of her statistics degree. We have had many discussions regarding the economy.
I think the worst is health care but I got criticized heavily here on this forum for claiming there is a major problem. Apparently I hadn’t been following recent improvements all over the country in the health care system.
I can only go by what you've said in your comments on this thread... Which is not much... And which is why I tempered my response with "...seems...".
Not sure what's happening, but I can't get NALs' response in quote boxes... I'll just do it the old-school way...
NALs says... "It isn’t. Wages are determined by supply and demand, productivity levels and any regulations followed (if the wge rate is actually below a minimum placed by government regulations, you either forgo hiring or do it if the government will subsidize the gap between the market going rate and the minimum."
I touched on the matters of supply and demand, productivity levels, and regulations... So your above speaking doesn't present anything I've not already spoken to.
Government subsidizing wages is another matter.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Not in some some sectors."
So there is a need to introduce alternate labor.
Moving on... NALs continued... "You seem really worried with blame instead of what is actually happening."
Not in the slightest... I just prefer honesty over dishonesty... Dishonesty such as the straw man you presented above.
Moving on... NALs continued... "It’s only a blame when an excesses of labor in a certain sector due the illegal immigrants doesn’t exist and the illegal immigrants are blamed, but when in reality there is an excess of labor due to illegal immigrants it isn’t a blame, it’s what is happening."
Another dishonest straw man... Haitian workers didn't just suddenly show up and demand work... Haitian workers have been a consistent part of the workforce in the DR... And to expect Haitian workers to appear and disappear according to the labor whims of DR business owners is immaturely foolish.
The dynamics of the DR/Haiti labor relationship have long been out of proper, organized control, and it needs to be brought under control... But I'm sure many DR business owners, on occasion, have smiled all the way to the bank as a result of the poorly controlled labor system.
Moving on... NALs continued... "I think you are given you’re very worried about “blame” and not reality. It’s as if you’re one of these extreme leftists who needs to mold any situation to their political views vs reality. At least that’s the vibe I’m getting."
And... Again... Another dishonest straw man.
Is this all you're capable of, NALs?
I'm a capitalist and have been since my teens. I grew up in the so-called democratic socialist environment of Michael Manly's '70s Jamaica and saw firsthand just how duplicitous, in the hands of some, it could be.
But I also grew up among the 21 families of Jamaica... And in fact, I am related to one of the top 7... This allowed me to also see, firsthand, how duplicitous capitalism, in the hands of some, can be.
Politics means nothing to me, NALs... I've personally known many politicians, and have little care for any... And the same goes for politics.
So no "...leftists..." tag for me, extreme or otherwise... But also, no rightist tag either... I just vote for plain ol' common sense.
That made clear... Your childish attempt to tar me with a "...extreme leftist..." brush won't work... The better way would have been to just ask me what my stance on the matter was... That way you would have had to assume to know what you now obviously didn't know.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Due to a porous border, corruption of border officials and migración officials and the situation in Haiti which is pushing them to leave."
Well... No... Although the things you referenced are aids to the Haitians successfully making the trip across the border... The base reason for Haitians migrating to the DR is the lure of attaining a better standard of living for themselves and family.
It seems that psychology is not your forte either, NALs.
The many Haitians I've met are very proud to be Haitian, and many want to live in Haiti, both wealthy and poor. This is why, so far, I don't believe that Haitians have been seeking refugee status from the DR government.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Wages go down due to increasing competition and anyone not willing to work for the lowest wages will be out of a job since there are many new ones that will work for the lower wages."
Absolutely... But if minimum wages are strictly enforced and adhered to, then wages can only go down to a certain level... And then it becomes a matter of willingness to work for the legally offered wage.
When you walk into a supermarket, how many different types of breakfast cereal do you see?... Is there a need for all that competition?
In a free-market environment there will always be, and should be, competition between all participants. Some guiding regulations are always needed... But healthy competition drives a healthy marketplace.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Most illegal immigrants in the DR are from Haiti, not Puerto Rico, not Cuba, not Venezuela. What would happen to the illegal immigrant popularion in the DR is Haitian illegal immigrants were to disappear?"
What would happen is that illegal Haitian immigrants would disappear... That's a really easy question to answer, NALs.
A better question would be... What would business owners who relied on Haitian workers, including those who were illegal, do given the loss of available labor?
Puerto Rico is presently suffering from a declining workforce, and some PR businesses are suffering as a result. Because of this, I've read that some PR businesses have looked at moving their facilities to the DR... Which would place a further strain on the limited local DR workforce.
Moving on... NALs continued... "In the same token, none of the neighbors of the DR have such a high presence of illegal immigrants given the total population, not even Puerto Rico which has some of the highest wages in the Caribbean and basically any job pays more than the equivslent in the DR."
None of the DR's other "...neighbors..." share a land border.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Perfect example you don’t know what drives economic growth and development."
Yeh... I do... I've been around business and government for many decades... And Google is a wonderful research starting point... And for sure I know how to use Google.
Moving on... NALs continued... "None of what you said exist if there are no people creating and developing businesses. It’s similar to using money to influence people’s decision of where they can work given their experiences and knowledge. Normally, people will work for the highest wage they can get given the going rate, but there are people that aren’t motivated by money. Those are precisely the people for whom advancement isn’t depended on."
Another dishonest straw man... I never said nor suggested that there was no need for creating and developing businesses.
I started my first business at age 14, and I've been a serial entrepreneur ever since. And for the last twenty years, I've helped startup businesses create and develop product lines... Seriously, NALs... Ask before you speak foolishly.
You said that it is the desire to be rich that drives economic development... And I said it wasn't... I said that market forces are what drive economic development (eg. consumer demand/spending, business investment, related regulations, workforce, social environment).
Now for sure money is a major player in economic development... But I've known many very successful business owners, and I'd venture to say that none of them got into business to be rich... They got into business to be successful at what they got into business to do... Believing that business success would bring financial success.
Let me know if I need to simplify it for you some more.
Moving on... NAls continued... "Yes, those are the people that keep trying with new products until one sticks. Their desire to be rich is so strong that they never accepts no or a defeat. People that aren’t motivated by money, if they try to start one business offering a product or a service and it flops, at that moment they give up. People’s livelihood which first and foremost is based on having a job are better off with the one that wants to be rich than the one not motivated by money. They have a chance of getting a job with the first, but as soon as the second flops everybody is out of the job forever if they depend entirely on that person to start another business."
as I said earlier... Psychology isn't your forte.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Criminal activity is often the result of people wanting a source of income but they’re unwilling to get one or at the level that they want. This is why crime increases during crises, when the businesses created by people wanting to be rich aren’t doing so well or go bankrupt."
The love of money is the root of evil.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Most people that start a business will not start one if they know it will not improve their economic situation,"
No doubt... But getting "...rich..." is not just a matter of "...improve their economic situation,...", and that's my point... You said "...rich..."... Not "...improve their economic situation...".
Moving on... NALs continued... "That’s a very leftist thinking. A perfect example is the United States which wasn’t one colony, but thirteen. Up until recent times when for the first time the children of the baby boomers will do worse than them, what has happened to the USA from its independence is of a place that was rich and simpky got richer with every generation achieving higher wealths and well being than the previous generation. The United State isn’t the only wealthy country that started as a colony."
You're obviously clueless regarding American economic history... Just as you're clueless to plain ol' common sense thinking... And what is actually "...leftist thinking...".
The 13 colonies that made up what would become America were going along perfectly fine as colonies until tax politics started to rock the boat.
And go tell American Indians that they have lived in "...a place that was rich and simpky got richer with every generation achieving higher wealths and well being than the previous generation...", see what they have to say.
Tell that to black Americans too.
NALs... Go do some proper research on American history and get back with me.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Furthermore, the economic success of the 13 colonies that became the USA wasn’t always the case as the wealthiest territories were often the ones that belong to Spain in Latin America. North America was looked as a land of waste with some of the hemisphere most developed cities not just economically, but also culturally, in the arts, etc were places like Mexico City, Quito, Lima… Not Miami, not New York, not Boston…. In fact, this image of extreme riches in various Spanish cities is one of the things that lead Francis Drake to attack and invade cities such as Santo Domingo, Cartagena, etc in 1586."
Oy vey... Go learn about mercantilism and get back with me.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Just a reminder that I’m an economist. You?"
Just someone who seems to have a better understanding on history and business than a claimed "...economist...".
But then again... I've been down in the economics trenches... Have you?
Economies aren't created and developed in lecture rooms.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Those were completely different. The United States quickly regai ed it place after the revolutionary war and even became a superpower, which it still is."
The newly formed United States of America occupied just a very small portion of the land that would later become the entire country... The immense economic success enjoyed by the USA came in the late 19th century, after the Civil War, and was greatly supported by the growth that took place from the East Coast to the West Coast... To the detriment of the native population that lived in the middle of what would become many more US states... Even Mexico suffered loss at the hands of America.
The way you put it sounds like America was just all success from the word go... Which is not how things went.
Moving on... NALs continued... "On the other hand, Haiti never recovered from the destruction of the Haitian Revolution. The main reason is that the USA never got rid of the people that had the know how. For example, before the Haitian Revolution the world’s most sought after cotton, for which people in Europe were willing to pay the modt money were, was that produced by the Desdune nesr Gonaives, Haiti. While that area hasn’t produced a single cotton since the plantation was destroyed during the Haitian Revolution, the area is still called Desdune, which is the last name of the French family who owned all of that. The entire Desdunes family was exterpated from Haiti, a large part killed during the revolution and a small part managed to escape snd ended in New Orleans. Is it really a mistery why Desdunes never created cotton after the revolution and what was once considered the best cotton in the world was no longer in existence? To revive something that depended on the know how of the owners, the very same people extirpated from Haiti by the Haitians themselves? Unlike the USA, Haiti never reached the amount of production it had in various articles before its independence at any time after it became independent. Several Haitian governments, following the pro-black agenda it had for many years starting with its independence, in addition to being shunned by countries such a France (Haiti was seen as a rebellious French colony until the Haitians paid the debt) and the USA (which was influenced by many of the French emigrants that fled Haiti during the revolutions, many of which were eyewitness to the massacres of the whites, and included people likes of Peter Chazotte who was a friend of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the declaration of independence of the USA and its third president who upon hearing of what the whites were facing in Saint-Domingue from several of the French immigrants including Peter Chazotte, remarked that the mess in existence in Saint-Domingue should be contained to that island), was it isolated itself given that most of the investors at that time were white and most immigrants were Europeans,"
Just to be clear... Thomas Jefferson was a racist slave owner... And it should expected that he would side with other racist slave owners.
Newly independent Haiti was not like newly independent America... Haiti's war of independence lasted 12 years... America's war of independence lasted seven years.
Haiti's war of independence was mainly an uprising of slaves... America's revolution was an uprising of mainly free people.
America had regular economic ties to other countries with which they could trade... Haiti didn't.
America had the financing to quickly rebuild... Haiti didn't.
Should I continue?
Your speaking quoted above is so myopically presented that it borders on being shameful.
Moving on... NALs continued... "A place can’t quickly return and exceed its previous development level if those with the know how are eliminated. It should also be noted that most of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were themselves illiterate and with hardly any education. Haiti did what the USA didn’t do after each of their independence wars."
Oh vey... The above isn't worth attempting to respond to... Please... Do yourself a favor... Do some research so as not to sound, well, illiterate on the matter.
Moving on... NALs continued... "The most developed countries all have a higher percentage of rich people in their population. This would had never been reached if when the rich were a smaller percentage of the population were constantly wiped out duecto some revolution. Haiti is actually a perfect example of what results with constant instability. Cuba is another example of how much more difficult it’s to economically develop a place without its wealthy class."
Nothing against the "...wealthy class..."... Except when greed begins to negatively effect the rest of the classes.
Honestly... Is "...class..." still a ting in your mind, NALs?
Perhaps next you'll be arguing in favor of the untouchable "...class..." in India being a wonderful thing for human society.
Moving on... NALs continued... "Rather than making it smaller or entirely eliminated, the way to overall well being is to allow it to grow. That’s where the money will be created that affects the well being of the rest of the country. The issue is that there will be a period when the percentage of wealthy households will be very small and most of the people will be living in poverty while a very small group will be living very well. Envy is often the cause of many of these revolution, particularly envy of the rich and they are meant to destroy the rich because they see it as if the rich are rich by exploiting the poor. This is a ver leftist view. In reality, to increase the well being you need for the rich to grow, because if you do the opposite a worsening living conditions for most is what will follow."
Not really true... A more equitable share of economic wealth is the better way... Not everyone wants to be a millionaire... Many are quite content to get by with far less... But this is becoming harder and harder to do, as the greed of the wealthy "...class..." continues its ever-increasing takeover of economies... Which itself is becoming more difficult... Hence the really wealthy pursue power.
The former Haitian slaves did well to overthrow their oppressors... Where they fell short is in taking their overthrown oppressors' way as a pattern for their new leadership.
It almost sounds like you would have supported the DR remaining a colony of Spain, NALs.
Is slavery something that you think should have been continued also... Or don't you know that it was the "...wealthy class..." that promoted slavery?
Moving on... NALs continued... "This repeats itself. The more rich households make up a country’s population, the greater the standards of living of most people. The least percentage of wealthy households, the worse is the overall standards of living. That’s not what the extreme left wants to hear because their greatest motivating factor is envy of the rich and this will never get rid of them, if anything it allows the rich to get richer."
All extremes, and those who promote extremes, are useless exaggerations of human vanity.
What is needed is a proper balance of care and consideration.
Unfortunately... Human society is made up of humans... And humans are not balanced creatures.
Now... I think we've covered all that needs to be covered regarding our past comments... If you want to present something new I'll respond if I feel so inclined... But not to more of this.
Thanks.
What happened in England when their local market became saturated with the goods produced in their industrial revolution?
And how did England's solution work out for the Far East and Africa?
The "...the expansion of free markets, the division of labor, and private capital investment..." that "...is the only possible path to the prosperity and flourishing of the human race;..." must itself be regulated for the betterment of human society. But when the governments that regulate these matters are themselves profit partakers in them... Then who regulates the government regulators?
Tell me... Can you really take an honest look around you and claim that you see a "...prosperity and flourishing of the human race;..."?
Talk is cheap.
yep, I know lots of people prospering. Places where government interferes to much aren't though.