Looks like a 10 point swing in betting odds
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 03:26 last edited by
It's still a free trade/fair trade issue. Since the country dumping the steel is undermining an essential business, they are causing harm. They are doing that by fixing an artificial price.
If something is priced artificially, how does that meet the definition of free trade?
-
It's still a free trade/fair trade issue. Since the country dumping the steel is undermining an essential business, they are causing harm. They are doing that by fixing an artificial price.
If something is priced artificially, how does that meet the definition of free trade?
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 04:04 last edited by xenon@Jolly said in Looks like a 10 point swing in betting odds:
It's still a free trade/fair trade issue. Since the country dumping the steel is undermining an essential business, they are causing harm. They are doing that by fixing an artificial price.
If something is priced artificially, how does that meet the definition of free trade?
This is a predatory pricing issue. You have these domestically as well - but we don’t call free markets “free and fair markets”.
If someone said “you can’t have free markets without fair markets” there’s no clear definition for that. Free markets is clear, fair markets isn’t.
And to my earlier point - predatory pricing is easier to deal with domestically (though very hard to identify), than through trade. You can affect the global price for a commodity without having to trade it with everyone in the world.
-
It's still a free trade/fair trade issue. Since the country dumping the steel is undermining an essential business, they are causing harm. They are doing that by fixing an artificial price.
If something is priced artificially, how does that meet the definition of free trade?
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 06:39 last edited by@Jolly said in Looks like a 10 point swing in betting odds:
If something is priced artificially, how does that meet the definition of free trade?
Anyone how prices something artificially is only shooting himself in the foot in the long term. It's good for the other party, even though there may of course be short-term negative consequences, too.
If you find another person in the world and would like to make a transaction with him or her and the two of you agree on the conditions, isn't it a fundamental freedom of the individual to be able to execute that transaction? It's just as fundamental as free speech or the right to property. I'd say that a society without free trade isn't free.
The notion of "fair trade" is just a populist term to find convenient scapegoats. It has no meaning otherwise.
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 15:11 last edited by
You can't talk about trade without including security.
There is no such thing.
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 17:27 last edited by
Some of you actually believe that Biden has a chance....
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 17:43 last edited by
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2020, 18:12 last edited by
@Copper said in Looks like a 10 point swing in betting odds:
You can't talk about trade without including security.
There is no such thing.
Yup.
-
wrote on 4 Nov 2020, 02:39 last edited by
Betting odds just flipped - 65 Trump, 35 Biden
-
wrote on 4 Nov 2020, 02:42 last edited by
-
Betting odds just flipped - 65 Trump, 35 Biden
wrote on 4 Nov 2020, 02:47 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Looks like a 10 point swing in betting odds:
Betting odds just flipped - 65 Trump, 35 Biden
Where? But I agree something is going on for sure.
-
wrote on 4 Nov 2020, 02:50 last edited by
Fox News announced it. The News Channel seems to be more positive about Trump than the website.
-
Fox News announced it. The News Channel seems to be more positive about Trump than the website.
wrote on 4 Nov 2020, 03:22 last edited byJake Tapper at CNN just sputtered that he doesn’t know if it’s 2016
-
wrote on 4 Nov 2020, 15:56 last edited by
-
wrote on 4 Nov 2020, 16:00 last edited by
Betting odds for PA.
