Because it would be divided by exponential series

And exponential series is one of the fastest growing series that naturally exists

exponential series?

1/r^n

I know what exponentiality is

So? You know that for every passing year, we increase exponent by 1

ehm, what?

Discount rate effect increases exponentially.

We're still looking at a lessened supply with greater tariffs

That would never overtake growth in exponential series.

howso?

A $100 gain today will be more than $10,000 gain after 100 years. That is a factor of 100. So, if USA's share even becomes a quarter than it currently is, it would still be more beneficial to have a short term gain.

We're also considering the wellbeing of other nations too

Specialization in what one holds a comparative advantage in still, regardless, culminates in greater productivity long run and benefits both nations rather than just a single one

I am not sure what more I can show you. No, it does not happen that way. The more liberal econmonies did benefit by globalisation but they also were the biggest sufferers of depression because of lack of autarky. Data shows that developing nations were lesser affected than developed nations.
That happened because these nations were entirely dependent on other nations for certain products.

It was in 2000, then 2008

When one nation got affected, others linked to it also got affected, creating a chain reaction, especially in the real estate crash in 2008

USA's GDP growth rate for example, decreased by 200%, while India's GDP growth rate only decreased by 66%

UK's GDP growth rate also decreased by 200%

And do you know how much of growth rate Uganda lost?

20%

*they didn’t have much to lose in the first place*

But it is growth rate

Not actual amount

It already factors in their less assets

Increased liberalisation has increased frequency of depression. First it occurred in 1830s, and then in 1920s, which is almost 100 years. Then in 50 years, in 1973. Then in 30 years in 2000. And then in 8 years.
And all this, when we understand economics better (perhaps) and have so good communication systems and technology.

There's been countless depressions and recessions

It's a natural part of a capitalistic economy

I'm not even a capitalist

https://youtu.be/IHGrNzs1tjM

Friendly reminder that Christians, if they actually follow their holy book, believe that this would actually have an effect

This semester needs to hurry up and end so I can come back and appoint better staff members

@SilverLining Looks like Anon is really in need of new staff in giving that role to you

GDP is shit

@Bogatyr Bogumir @The Big Oof How about you actually bother to read about nationalism in the first place. To not forget you did not refute any of my point.

You guys don't have first-order concept understanding of nationalism, Borgatyrs first point proves his misunderstanding, I did not refute the existence of nations so most of the first paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Nationalism is by definition: The belief that nations has the right to self-determinism and governance, this notion of self-determinism.
Nations has existed yes, but that does not mean nationalism did...

States in the past consisted of many nations bound by the Monarchy and they would be more loyal to their common Monarch than the idea of their supposed nation.

Problem is that nationalism is hostile to the nation itself, because it demands homogenization, which again destroys the distinct groups in the nation, and no it is not the majority enforcing this on the minorities. The French Revolution and the modern French state enforced the France language on the historical provinces despite only about 3% actually spoked it, same with Hungary.

Saying that liberalism has nothing to do with nationalism shows that you lack second-order concept.
Nationalism is a direct consequent of the ideas of liberalism of self-determination and equality before the laws. Why you may ask? Because for a people to be able to take part in the political process, they have to speak the same language and act through the definition laid down by the elite, and as you can see, taking part in the political process through democracy made the people feel responsible for their nation, to not forget education that enforced the history of said nation. However this supposed nation is completely different from the one of the Ancien Régime.

No nationalism is not organic or natural at all, it is an synthetic in that it was created by the state or institutions based on a supposed "social contract" as opposed to the natural evolution of social bonds.
Never been an assimilation of a group? Once again, the French Revolution and the modern French nation is a great example on how it assimilated the historical provinces.

My main beef with nationalism is how it ruin traditional nations by homogenizing historical peoples as opposed to having several national identities.

Free market is a subset of capitalism. Yes, there have been many depressions but I am talking about major ones, because they are documented, and they had a large effect.
Protectionism is like creating a wall around house. You cannot go out and make use of opportunities, but you also prevent risk of bad people hurting you. In Free Marketers' or Liberalists theory, somehow there are no bad people.

And also, I don't think Bible says that a man confused about his sexuality, wearing tattoos and ornaments in an attempt to look like what he is not, could hex anything.

@名被盜 Tribes existed, common identity existed, always, there is a reason we to this day have distinct populations. History disagrees with you on this point.

Nationalism: That the native population have sovereignty (important here) over the homeland, and maintaining a shared identity.

-> sovereignty allows for self determination, people can choose to live under a monarchy they can and have had nationalistic ties. Monarchy is not necessarily antithetical to nationalism and never was. This is also part of self determination. Nationalism does not mandate any equality in the eyes of the law.

(Takes 2 examples -> This is nationalism reee) No its not, Nationalism maintains that there is some form of homogeneity and it does enforce it, yes, however just because nations that were rather diverse originally exacted this idea, not in the name of nationalism necessarily, does not mean nationalism is against the nation itself. For example Polish nationalism did not lead to the extermination of Kaszubians, or Silesian dilects and cultures or genetic groups. They exist and are doing quite well.

You are trying to argue a monarchistic view on nationalism that is brutally skewed, you are denying human nature by doing so. The things you describe is not assimilation it is, as I said, extermination. Assimilation and integration are the greatest lie of the 21st century, literally this is an almost impossible feat. If I have to go and force people to speak the same language, to think the same way, its no longer assimilation. Its convert or die, and usually these regions maintain some sense of autonomy and difference. Bavaria is another example of this incapacity for assimilation. Also the sorbs etc.

nationalism is -> Bigger tribalism. It is the natural consequence of a growing population. It is the idea of a culture that spans a massive region and the natural consequence of a culture doing this. Notice how for example in Poland you have so many sub identities that still consider themselves polish. Those are the descendants of the Lechite tribe, forming smaller tribes however they understand themselves as Polish rather than say, Pomorzanie or Silesians exclusively.

liberalism also necessarily breaks apart the nation and nationalism and any common identity, what we see today and call liberalism is largely a result and logical conclusion of the original liberalism.

@名被盜 Even if self-determination is your definition of nationalism (which is not a bad definition, by the way, it's somewhat of an accurate one), your point still fails.

What we know as nationalism originated from the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, yes, but the concept of self-determination has existed long before that. Do we need to go over examples of this in history? Nobody rebelled against someone else so their people could enjoy self-determination and national sovereignty? Really? The wars Jews fought against the Romans were examples of this?

"Nations has existed yes, but that does not mean nationalism did... "
Funnily enough, I never said this. Unless it's a response to the other guy. I'm sorry but I'm not responding to the majority this, there's nothing of value here. Just silly semantics and you trying to make yourself look like you know more than you actually do.

You're telling us we have a poor understanding of the subject while you argue using a definition that disproves your own point and lends more credibility to your opponent.