Dessert_All_Day
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 406
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
If the living expenses and other costs were averaged too so that it was equally expensive to live anywhere in the world, 10k would probaly become a comfortable yearly salary.And if you divided the world GDP by the world population we all could only afford 10 grand per year. This has been your irrelevant fact of the day.
That's a good point, mercantilists only ever look at the loss of income side of the equation for free trade. Of course the other side of the equation is a drop in prices that should be much greater.If the living expenses and other costs were averaged too so that it was equally expensive to live anywhere in the world, 10k would probaly become a comfortable yearly salary.
If the living expenses and other costs were averaged too so that it was equally expensive to live anywhere in the world, 10k would probaly become a comfortable yearly salary.
No reason. It was as hypotethical as the post I replied to.Why would it ever be equally expensive though?
No reason. It was as hypotethical as the post I replied to.
Exactly my comradeIf the living expenses and other costs were averaged too so that it was equally expensive to live anywhere in the world, 10k would probaly become a comfortable yearly salary.
I like the comments from the article itself, especially the upvoted ones. They make more sense.
A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer
Noooo a capitalist magazine would do that!?Sounds like The Economist has a veiled globalist agenda. What a surprise...
To what end? What is the motivation for this?Free traders have been repeating these lies and similar ones for centuries.