Why wrote: "Let me sum it up your position: it's more important that capital is free than people are free."
Let me suggest that you should to sum up your own position before you try to sum up someone elses.
By you own words, you have been ranting on the thread.
My point was: there are positive side-effects of industrialists greed that need to be accounted for in determining what would be a "better" course for world economies.
Unlike you, I do try to consider what would be the greater good and try to not only think of self-interest. I guess its very easy to write off whole countries with your self-interested attitude. Why do you care about Japan anyway? Are you addicted to Japanese anime? ;) I mostly think about was "is" based on Occam's Razor and try not to mix it up with what I desire.
Let me sum up my own position: 1) At its core, an essential purpose of modern governments is to facilitate a competitive economy (Russia lost sight of this and imploded) 2) Second and third order side effects can sometimes be the most important (I noticed you did not comment on how the shifting of labor to low cost regions has dramatically reduced worldwide starvation) 3) Economic progress is defined by expanded prosperity and efficiency 4) The economies on Earth are getting more intertwined as time progresses 5) Personally, I think the world would be a happier place with less emphasis on materialism and economies but I do not think that happiness is worth forcing the control of thought and media. 6) I believe choosing to be greedy or generous, industrious or lazy should not be by government control, but by ones' own motivations and ability to reason to determine ones' own definition of pursuit of happiness. 7) What I think is right for somebody else may not at all be what they think is right for themselves: My interpretation of the Golden Rule has to account for differences in perspectives and it is improper to assume that it is always appropriate to treat other people how I want to be treated. There is great disparity in motivation and materialism and I do not think that it would be a "good" world if everyone's motivation, greed, generosity, industry and laziness alligned with mine. 9) Modern societies get domimanted economic productivity 10) I believe freedom plays a very siginficant role in productive economies. 11) I recall in the 80s everyone was saying that the Japanese economy would soon outstrip the American economy: Why didn't it? IMO, it was because the US industialists were freer (and greedier) when it came to global expansions. 12) China will hit an economic ceiling like Japan did, only much worse. They also have a stark disparity between the rural citizen and the city resident- on their current targetory, an internal civil war is not out of the question.
13) In the endgame, the political system that will "win" is the one that best maximizes productivity, can defend itself from insurrection and from foreign invasion and sabotage.
14) Globalization of the economy will continue, the difference between the prosperity of the middle class in the US and Europe and that of the rest of the world will continue to narrow.
15) Most of this I predict will happen based on Occam's Razor, but there are not necessarily what I think is "good".
Why: "At the bottom line, there is no difference between the capitalist and the communist, they both manipulate people like pawns."
To me, there is a huge difference, especially when anti-trust laws are enforced and competition is the primary mechanism of balance.
So what is the difference between the philosophy of Why and that of a capitalist? About $100M, because clearly there is no moral difference. And that's no joke.
Let me sum it up your position: it's more important that capital is free than people are free.
It says a lot about what happens when you base your behavior on morals. And I presume you consider them high morals. Not that I believe in morals; the point is you say you do. Either that or what you consider high most people would say are pretty low morals.
China is North Korea, just like Iran is the Soviet Union. Make no mistake about either one. As I said, it's puppet theatre. And these guys are dressed as killer clowns.
Taiwan is already "a done deal"...it's time to move on to Japan. China does not give a whiff about what we do, they already have half the Taiwanese population ready to vote them in. When they can take over without actually having to bomb the place, they will walk in. I give it less than ten years.
At the bottom line, there is no difference between the capitalist and the communist, they both manipulate people like pawns.
I was just pointing out that there are postive side effects of the industrialists' greed. (Previous posting of mine showed there were negative long term potential consequences as well (such as pointing to China as a potential military adversary)).
You seem to be advocating a colonialist approach to foreign exchange of labor where Americans "deserve" to set the framework of protectionist exchange for the good of the American middle class as opposed to market forces at the margins driving to equilibrium.
Do you base your protection leanings on the reasoning that because enough middle class Americans were willing to fight and win the second world war and thus the American middle class still deserves to set the economic framework for the world as a whole? (Sort of the Lou Dobbs approach)
Or is it just based on the perception that the middle class would have the power if it just acted in self-interest (invested) and thus we deserve it ? (and why should we have any concern about what happens to the poor in China or anywhere else: if they want it bad enough, they can get in a long line to emigrate to the US and follow our rules?)
How much of your self-interested philosophy are you willing to share on this subject?
How much trade did the Taliban have invested in the US? Did you think their lack of economic engagement with the US had anything to do with their willingness to let al Qaeda train there?
Would you rather see China as an giant version of isoloated North Korea: only 100 times more dangerous?
In fact, they would be more like Iran (where much of the non-US world economy is very willing to trade with them) if the US did not expand economic ties during Nixon and beyond.
You mentioned the PRC coveting Japan: You better think about Taiwan first, or have you already conceded that to the PRC? Clinton and the DNC were certainly leaning that way.
So in your mind, what's the biggest difference between an industrialist's puppet and a communist's puppet? Is it your ability to whine and complain and not get sent to the poor region of the country to get "retrained"?
Should we use France as a role model for handling immmigration and protecting the working class?
"How is it that Larry the Attack Monkey rates me a 3 banana kinda guy, whilst you only rate 2?"
I think this is the webster definition of a crassiness: I doubt you could get the Monkey to back you up on this one... In fact, he'll probably demote you after such a vuglar use of his rating.
Come on, Larry: Pleeassse weigh in on the incredible sophisticated formulation to rate a three banana or four banana listing.
If I get one, I'll probably start posting under a new handle. ;)
re: How is it that Larry the Attack Monkey rates me a 3 banana kinda guy, whilst you only rate 2?
Oh jeez chip_mate you got me. Your posts are full of valueable insights and we all are anxiously awaiting the next one. Keep up the good work! Make sure your children know about your great contributions to society. Hell, even those communists over at the NYT's are shaking in their boots as all your hard work is taking away from the readership.
PS. If you're using LR ratings to drive your self esteem you really need to go see that doctor.
re: oh Lordy, the disenfranchised intelligensia whines yet again...
Uhmm, if you look in the mirror you might see where the whining your experiencing is coming from. Not much else from your posts over the last year that I've seen.
PS. You may want to see a doctor and ask about the following.
"In psychopathology, projection is an especially commonly used defense mechanism in people with certain personality disorders:
"Before Nixon, China's middle class hardly existed. Now it outnumbers the US and is still growing. Yes, they live under communism, but they get to buy cellphones and air-conditioning.
The greed of the industrialists is the primary reason for the rise of the middle class in China and the lessening of starvation around the globe.
I suppose you would feel better if we went back to more protectionism and had China, India and Africa fending and starving for themselves?"
Yes, absolutely! And you forgot to mention that before Nixon we had real money. Gold backed currency made arbitrage very difficult, almost impossible. Now China's dictators can take our worthless paper and sell us their labor on the cheap
"Do you think a chinese teacher publically dis'ing her principal and school board would play very well in China?"
The answer is no, they send them to re-education camps...so your answer is to do business with the regime that does that? Why? So they can have our money to sponsor NK to build nukes to threaten Japan? Next thing you will hear is Japan is historical province of China, and they need to think about when they will join back to the motherland. Yea, NK leader is crazy dude, China is trying to be good guy...yea, right. It used to be called puppet theatre.
rjm: "And to chip_mate, yes I spent early years scooping ice cream for a Chinese immmigrant, serving people in restaurants, busing tables, cleaning dishes (using a broken hobart), working as low cost labor in a motorcycle store, finding a way to pay for my education, paying for the education of my siblings so they could in turn fulfill their abilities, etc. If that's something to be made fun of over a multimillionaire who eats lamb, I'm proud to be the former."
III Duce: "I would hardly attribute the notion of capital following the price of labor to Keynes."
I forgot to thank you correcting my improper attrituition to Keynes. Clearly it did pre-date him. Probably Marshall from the "Marginalist School" would be the best match to my point.
But I would disagree with: "What's is happening now is simply economic deja vu. "
We are now dealing with a much higher level of international trade where the government policies of individual nations have much less impact. In fact, now the WTO can punitively punish any national economic policy that the WTO does not like. (Just the way the capitalists want it). Its unlikely that the Roosevelt policies could pass the WTO if the US fell into another depression. Protectionism by the US would most likely be considered illegal by the WTO (even though they've grandfathered alot of it for EU countries).
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
