Trade War with China

canniBUS said:

You absolutely can compare Europe and US and you can see what a world of difference a strong worker's movement vs. a neutered worker's movement makes. I don't think it's an issue of cities and villages since you have both Detroit and West Virginia as examples. You would have to go to some places in Africa to find places that bad. Size is also challenge, but not an insurmountable one. USSR and China in the past had policies that promoted more even development.
Anyways, your final point is the most misguided and harmful. You cannot ignore what capitalists in other countries do and say that Chinese are different. You would have to assume we are somehow superior to other peoples and will not succumb to the same vices when playing by the rules of capital. History has not shown that, look at the ROC before 1949 or health and safety scandals we see now in China. And if we look across the pond to the remnants that call themselves ROC, the same issues have occurred. The people buying their way out of the country are not interested in the success and strengthening of the Chinese state. They'll play whatever role they need to now and stab you in the back later. Don't idolize capitalists, doesn't matter what race they are, lest you become one of their tools to use against China.

Click to expand...

If you want to compare US to Europe, then you need to compare it to the entirety of Europe. Once you do that, you'll realize that Europe has rich countries and poor countries, just like the US has rich states and poor states.

The difference is, in Europe, only the rich countries have good social welfare. In the US, all states, rich or poor, have more or less the same welfare. It's the poor states that have no economic prospects but can still dole out welfare where you'll find the most drug problems.

As for Chinese billionaires, it's not that they're exceptional, but that the current socio-political structure of China rewards contribution and punishes greed.

In countries with unscrupulous oligarchs, it's not the fact that they're wealthy that's the problem, but the fact that the country they live in rewards greed.

solarz said:

China in the 1960's was very equal: everybody was poor. Is that better than China in the 2000's? Is it actually inequality that's the issue?

Equality simply means a lack of opportunity to improve one self. That means stasis. Inequality is the basis of human motivation and the engine of progress, but only if people are free to pursue opportunities for advancement. It is the unequal society that limits advancement opportunities that is the basis of the social ills we speak of so often.

Click to expand...

Inequality is an issue. Don't even try to deny this.

The studies also show that wealth only increases happiness up to a certain level. At that point, extra wealth doesn't actually increase happiness. So once a society hits that wealth/development threshold, it is better for government policy to focus on reducing inequality.

Inequality is an inevitable consequence of the fast economic growth coming from a low baseline. But once a society has generated enough wealth, it is better to start using that wealth to improve society as a whole. An example would be transfers from rich Coastal China to the poorer interior, or from urban to rural.

And I'm not saying that a perfectly equal poor society (1960s China) is desirable, nor that China should limit opportunities for advancement.

But at the bottom of the pyramid, if people are willing to work, there should be a decent minimum wage.
And the government should subsidise education heavily, so that poor children have an equal chance in life as compared to their richer peers.

solarz said:

If you want to compare US to Europe, then you need to compare it to the entirety of Europe. Once you do that, you'll realize that Europe has rich countries and poor countries, just like the US has rich states and poor states.

The difference is, in Europe, only the rich countries have good social welfare. In the US, all states, rich or poor, have more or less the same welfare. It's the poor states that have no economic prospects but can still dole out welfare where you'll find the most drug problems.

As for Chinese billionaires, it's not that they're exceptional, but that the current socio-political structure of China rewards contribution and punishes greed.

In countries with unscrupulous oligarchs, it's not the fact that they're wealthy that's the problem, but the fact that the country they live in rewards greed.

Click to expand...

I would add the following:

In China, business operates within the confines of a political/tax/business environment with competent government. That is true in most wealthy or developed countries. But it is also a notable feature of all the other Confucian societies, whether rich or poor (eg. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, HK, Singapore, Vietnam)

In comparison, unscrupulous oligarchs generally operate in societies where the system is messed up. It means those societies produce oligarchs which control the government and can get away with anything.

Guys

Drugs are irrelevant to the points you want to make.

On my last note of the day, I think a certain level of welfare is acceptable. But as the Singaporeans say, it's better to give cold hard cash which has a value, rather than a service which nobody knows how to value.

And I'd extend that to education provision. In the UK for example, almost nobody realises that a primary (elementary) school education costs £5000 (6000USD) per year.

Yet virtually everyone has gone through the system...

Jura said:

ended
Piraeus port reported back to normal after strike action
on: June 04, 2018

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Nop, the strike ended at 6th June , and workers won
you can read it if you translate the text from Greek.Let me know something better .The dragon is lying LOL

2handedswordsman said:

Nop, the strike ended at 6th June , and workers won

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you can read it if you translate the text from Greek.Let me know something better .The dragon is lying LOL

Click to expand...

That is exactly the problem with Greek They have sense of entitlement deserving or not A democratic government that is pandering to the popular demand. The system work for a while because they borrow money for consumption and not for building productive infrastructure Until they can't borrow no more than problem start cropping up and the end result is decline in living standard

It is pole opposite of what happened in Far east where the government tell the people NOBODY OWE ANYBODY A LIVING if you want to eat WORK! No Union No welfare, no entitlement
You can see the result prosperity is Far East and malaise in South Europe
Coming back to Piraeus port that almost went bankrupt now that the Chinese take over it is humming with activity and employed more people than before,upgrade the port,streamline management
The same with any factory that the Chinese take over

AndrewS said:

Inequality is an issue. Don't even try to deny this.

The studies also show that wealth only increases happiness up to a certain level. At that point, extra wealth doesn't actually increase happiness. So once a society hits that wealth/development threshold, it is better for government policy to focus on reducing inequality.

Inequality is an inevitable consequence of the fast economic growth coming from a low baseline. But once a society has generated enough wealth, it is better to start using that wealth to improve society as a whole. An example would be transfers from rich Coastal China to the poorer interior, or from urban to rural.

And I'm not saying that a perfectly equal poor society (1960s China) is desirable, nor that China should limit opportunities for advancement.

But at the bottom of the pyramid, if people are willing to work, there should be a decent minimum wage.
And the government should subsidise education heavily, so that poor children have an equal chance in life as compared to their richer peers.

Click to expand...

Yes to free education, no to minimum wage.

Education enables social mobility, which enables progress. Minimum wage creates vacuums in the job market, instills a sense of entitlement, and in fact causes social stagnation. A common refrain among young job seekers is that they can't get jobs without experience, but they can't get experience without jobs. The value of many entry-level jobs are in fact not worth the minimum wage, so employers end up divvying those duties among more senior employees, thus denying entry-level job seekers those opportunities.

Low wage jobs have a place in the economy. They are a springboard for better, higher paying jobs. With the minimum wage, I often see middle-aged people working as cashiers and waiters, and complain how their wages aren't enough to raise a family.

In China, if you feel your job doesn't pay enough, there are a hundred people waiting to fill your role. This creates an incentive to work hard to better oneself. In China, you can't even get married without a decent job and some assets, but in Canada, people feel secure enough to get married young, work a minimum wage job for a decade, then wonder why they can't afford to raise their kids on a minimum wage salary.

AndrewS said:

Guys

Drugs are irrelevant to the points you want to make.

On my last note of the day, I think a certain level of welfare is acceptable. But as the Singaporeans say, it's better to give cold hard cash which has a value, rather than a service which nobody knows how to value.

And I'd extend that to education provision. In the UK for example, almost nobody realises that a primary (elementary) school education costs £5000 (6000USD) per year.

Yet virtually everyone has gone through the system...

Click to expand...

I would say the exact opposite. Offering free education, even higher education, would be much more valuable than offering cash.

The problem with welfare is that it's seen as charity, when really, it should be seen as an investment for the future of society.

Inequality is an inevitable consequence of the fast economic growth coming from a low baseline. But once a society has generated enough wealth, it is better to start using that wealth to improve society as a whole. An example would be transfers from rich Coastal China to the poorer interior, or from urban to rural.

And I'm not saying that a perfectly equal poor society (1960s China) is desirable, nor that China should limit opportunities for advancement.

Click to expand...

It is already happening with twinning program of rich province in the eastern seaboard with much poorer inland province like Fujian and Ningxia where the richer provice provide capital and technical skill to the poorer province by establishing company that employed these poorer villager Like in this video Where Fujian government built village housing and factory As a gratitude the people call the new village Minning Min is the name of river flowing in Fujian and become the nickname for Fujian and Ning is from Ningxia

Hendrik_2000 said:

It is already happening with twinning program of rich province in the eastern seaboard with much poorer inland province like Fujian and Ningxia where the richer provice provide capital and technical skill to the poorer province by establishing company that employed these poorer villager Like in this video Where Fujian government built village housing and factory As a gratitude the people call the new village Minning Min is the name of river flowing in Fujian and become the nickname for Fujian and Ning is from Ningxia

Click to expand...

And the very reason China is now able to invest in these traditionally poor provinces is because of the wealth generated by the first wave of economic modernization.

Deng Xiaoping hit the nail on the head when he said: "Let some people get rich first."

Imagine you and a group of people are stranded in the bottom of a pit. If you all worked together, you can form a human ladder and climb out.

Those who advocate for equality for the sake of equality would have everyone stay at the bottom of the pit for fear that some people would climb out first.