Hello,

More of my philosophy about Trade Adjustment Assistance and globalization..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think that protectionism is not good, and i think that Trade
Adjustment Assistance etc. is a better way of solving problems, so
i invite you to read the following article to know more:

https://theconversation.com/international-trade-has-cost-americans-millions-of-jobs-investing-in-communities-might-offset-those-losses-143406

And read more here about Trade Adjustment Assistance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance

More philosophy about protectionism and USA and more..

I think we have to be careful about protectionism, since read the following:

"Protectionist policies impose an additional cost and loss on all
parties. First of all, domestic consumers must pay a higher price for
goods. At the same time, importers face a decline in demand, so
international jobs are lost. For instance, the US-China trade war meant
that US consumers paid a higher price whilst demand for Chinese workers
is reduced.

So the Chinese unemployment increases and US consumers pay more.
However, the counter-argument is that it saves US jobs and businesses.
Now there is some validity to that claim. If the money sent to China
doesn’t come back in either demand for US goods, or FDI, then the
argument can be validated.

However, the reality of the situation is that when a US consumer buys
cheaper Chinese goods, that money goes to a Chinese exporter. That money
doesn’t stay with them indefinitely. It makes its way back to the US
through either demand for its goods or in FDI.

What we see as a result is that Chinese demand drives employment in
other industries. So jobs that may have been lost in one industry, are
being created in another. At the same time, the FDI inflows also create
employment in the relevant industry.

Although there is disruption, there is a net positive gain in the long
term. Employees will have to shift to new industries, but the average
consumer benefits from lower prices. By contrast, the only winner under
protectionism is specific domestic workers. However, they too are
consumers and consequently lose out too.

Is Protectionism Good For The Economy?

In the long-run, protectionism is not good for the economy. It makes
consumers and businesses pay more. And whilst it may protect jobs in the
short-term, the economy as a whole would be better served in allowing
cheaper imports in. Although this may temporarily destroy some jobs,
consumers benefit from lower prices. In turn, the income that would have
been spent on the goods before can now be spent in other markets. In
turn, employment is stimulated elsewhere in the economy."

Read more here:

https://boycewire.com/protectionism-definition-and-types/

More of my philosophy about closed systems and open systems and
interdependent systems..

I think i am smart, and i will say that we have to have the right spirit
so that to be efficient, and i think that the basis of the right spirit
is also to look at how we are interdependent systems of different
countries etc., so i think that the best way is to know how to be like
the right randomness of the evolutionary algorithms that permits to not
get stuck in a local optimum and be able to ensure the convergence to a
global optimum, i mean that the best way is also to know how to well
balance between cooperation and competition, since so that to not get
stuck in a local optimum of efficiency we have also to know how to buy
products and services from the other countries so that also to encourage
creativity and innovation, since if you are too much competition you can
"monopolize" too much and this can hurt creativity and innovation, so
then we have to become a much more efficient and civilized world. And I
think that Nazism or neo-nazism or white supremacism or communism are
also too rigid, so they don't work correctly, since they also have the
strong tendency to want to like too much homogenize and to too much
monopolize and too much centralize, so they are not efficient systems.

More of my philosophy about correlation and about diversity and more..

I think i am smart, and i will say to look again at what is saying
the Ph.D Katherine W. Phillips that is the Paul Calello Professor of
Leadership and Ethics Management at Columbia Business School(Read about
her here: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/profile/katherine_phillips):

"Large data-set studies have an obvious limitation: They only show that
diversity is correlated with better performance, not that it causes
better performance."

So i will say that this Ph.D and other researchers are not so smart,
since notice how is speaking the Ph.D Katherine W. Phillips in the
following article:

How Diversity Makes Us Smarter

Read more here:

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_diversity_makes_us_smarter

So notice that she is not saying that human diversity is a "mechanism"
that can cause "competition" or more competition between people, and
then competition can be the cause of better performance, so you are
noticing that the above Ph.D and researchers are trying to measure it
empirically, but i think that this kind of measuring is not a correct
measuring, since what i am showing you by my way of thinking is the fact
that there is a "tendency" in human diversity that it causes competition
or more competition, so it causes better performance, so then we can
notice that by not following there way of empirical measuring we can still
know about the process. So as i said, i think this Ph.D and other
researchers are not thinking and abstracting correctly since from my
saying below we can notice that human Diversity in a global world or in
a society or in a group brings more "competition" between people, so it
makes us work harder and better cognitively and socially, but if we are
not being the right human diversity and we are working harder and better
cognitively and socially, then i think being human diversity can still
"keep" or "maintain" the working harder and better cognitively and
socially, also human diversity brings different human perspectives or
views and it brings different human experiences and different human
knowledges and it is good for creativity and innovation since it is also
good for divergent thinking that enhance creativity and innovation.

More of my philosophy about USA and human diversity and more..

I just said the following:

"I think i am understanding rapidly, since i think that human Diversity
in a global world or in a society or in a group brings more
"competition" between people, so it makes us work harder and
better cognitively and socially, also human diversity brings different
human perspectives or views and it brings different human experiences
and different human knowledges and it is good for creativity and
innovation since it is also good for divergent thinking that enhance
creativity and innovation."

So i will invite you to look at my following writing about USA that will
make you notice how USA is making itself innovative and creative by
bringing the "best" big brains immigrants, and notice, like in my above
saying, that it is also saying the following:

"But it’s not just a numbers thing. Another reason immigrants do so well
in tech is that people from outside bring new perspectives that lead to
new ideas."

And here is more of my new thoughts about USA, read them again carefully:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/kIbGEdTXezQ

Yet more precision of my philosophy about diversity and adaptability and
resilience..

I think i am understanding rapidly, since i think that human Diversity
in a global world or in a society or in a group brings more
"competition" between people, so it makes us work harder and
better cognitively and socially, also human diversity brings different
human perspectives or views and it brings different human experiences
and different human knowledges and it is good for creativity and
innovation since it is also good for divergent thinking that enhance
creativity and innovation:

And here is my new proverb that talks more about it:

"Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual
openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance
divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards
the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of
efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity."

And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it:

I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to
generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice
that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas
across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make
us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily
notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent
thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking
with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater
than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if
the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can
get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global
optimum of efficiency, and it is related to my following thoughts about
the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, so i invite you to read them: