The USA Still Number One 1956

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Kamal R. Prasad

Your big mistake is in thinking that EVERYTHING in the USA needs only an immigrant or an offshore location and that absolutely NOTHING done HERE is profitable to ANY company.

Why do they bribe politicians

I've been telling you that all of this lobbying is for the benefit of CEOs whether they are in the USA or in India, and you have a lot--a very lot of people--in India that want to hook up to the US as cash cow. Everyone in the world wants USD, even Viet Nam, and North Korea (even though they don't want to work, they just want to trade big USD for not developing N-plants same deal in Iran).

They can save

With all the anti-American things you said and with your understanding that I explained above about your big mistake, then the answer is yes.

There are lots of americans who wouldn't refer to

I'll leave it to people with less patience than I have to read all of your posts and decide, based on how much anti-American posts you made and zero or almost zero anti-ANYone else, then you are definitely as anti-American as Alqueda, the Arabs, and all those left wing South American leaders.

but you can say I do not aspire for the

You have already put "Americans" and "neo-Nazi" in the same sentences many times.

A

Read it again: ----------------------------- The following quote is from Business Week, December 6, 2004 and from the article "Shaking up Trade Theory" by Aaron Bernstein on pages 116 to 120. (The subbreastle of the article is: "For decades economists have insisted that the U.S. wins from globalization. Now they are not so sure")

They quoted Paul Samuelson (MIT) as saying "Comparative advantage cannot be counted on to create...net gains greater than the net losses from trade"

-------------------------------

The Consumer Debt opts for the lowerst

Read it again:

"Comparative advantage cannot be counted on to create...net gains greater than the net losses from trade"

I can tell that you did not read any of what I posted below.

-some based on fiction, some on facts and some

Keen's text just covered a fraction of economic problems, and he also cited other economists that have problems with economics. Keen is not alone.

Just read his sentence again: "Do economists really know what they are talking about?"

Yes. And, also, you don't know what you are talking about, either.

I also read parts of the new book "Freakonomics" and I know you have not.

That is not what Freidman said.

-which is why comparative

Universally means all. At least Samuelson does not.

No industry has managed to defy this

You have no proof and the fact of the matter is that a lot of economists disagree with other economists. I have read a few books on this now.