[thaumasiotes]

> Let's say I'm a cobbler and I make shoes. New efficiency gains in China mean that the exact same shoes from China can be bought by my former customers for below the cost of my production. Who would continue to buy shoes from me at my necessarily higher prices? I can't sell them to China. I can't sell them anywhere as China sells the same shoes everywhere. I already have more shoes than I need and I can't use the shoes for other things. Even if I could, it would be cheaper to buy the shoes from China than to make them myself.

In order to make this paragraph work, you're assuming that your customers, and you, are producing things that are valuable to China. (How else are you going to pay for their stuff?) This already contradicts your premise that Chinese superiority will mean you and your customers have nothing valuable to do.

If you don't want to start with contradictory premises, the most that Chinese superiority can mean is that you and your customers can't afford to buy Chinese products. That really can shut you out of consuming Chinese products, but it can never shut you out of consuming what you produce yourself.

[cjbgkagh]

“New efficiency gains” suggests a before and after. We are talking about china becoming more efficient from a previous state where they were less efficient. As circumstances refer to different times there is no contradiction.

What is a cobbler going to do with a bunch of shoes that will cost him more to make than it would cost to buy. What good would it do him to be able to consume his own products - are we still talking about a cobbler or have you somehow mixed in the notion of a nation state? Are you suggesting the cobblers consumption needs are met by his own production? Is he to eat his shoes?

Even if he was, he would still be better off buying them than making them.

[thaumasiotes]

> What is a cobbler going to do with a bunch of shoes that will cost him more to make than it would cost to buy. What good would it do him to be able to consume his own products - are we still talking about a cobbler or have you somehow mixed in the notion of a nation state? Are you suggesting the cobblers consumption needs are met by his own production?

If the cobbler is the only person with this "problem", what are you worried about?

> Is he to eat his shoes?

> Even if he was, he would still be better off buying them than making them.

Please think about whether what you imagine is logically possible. What is this cobbler going to use to buy imported shoes?

[cjbgkagh]

In this hypothetical I am the cobbler, thus I'm the one with the problem. Even if I wasn't the cobbler, if the same circumstances are repeated across a large number of industries I have to be worried when a large number of people are made effectively unemployed and unemployable in a short period of time.

The cobbler has money left over from before the time China became more efficient. Remember how I mentioned there was a change from where China was less efficient to a time where China is more efficient.

Since you apparency have great difficulty with the concept that things can change with time I'm going to consider any further discussion on this pointless and will not respond to you any further.

[thaumasiotes]

> if the same circumstances are repeated across a large number of industries I have to be worried when a large number of people are made effectively unemployed and unemployable in a short period of time.

You were just complaining that you didn't want to think about what would happen if this "problem" occurred at a systemwide level. What would happen is not compatible with your worries.

If you're then going to insist that the cobbler's problem matters because it happens simultaneously to everyone else, you need to consider the systemic effects. At the system level, this problem cannot exist.