Eminent Domain, Corporate Welfare, and JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!

[Lumpenproletariat]

When will we finally flush the "JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!" delusion down the toilet?

Why does everyone keep giving excuses to keep this delusion going?

You're ignoring the important question, which is why the city should offer this subsidy and dislocate so many residents? Why should such a huge cost be paid in order to lure a company and get it to "create jobs"? How are these "jobs" worth such a cost? Obviously you are embarrassed to try to answer this question.

Um, no - what I'm not understanding is how the logic of changing the message to 'CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS!' changes anything.

I said:

The purpose of the economy is not "jobs! jobs! jobs!" but production to serve "CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS!"

Meaning decisions about the economy must recognize that the ultimate aim of "the economy" is to serve consumers, or make sure that producers are serving consumers. Their function is NOT to provide "jobs! jobs! jobs!" as Trump and other demagogues pretend, and so if the creation of more "jobs" ends up hurting consumers, then those "jobs" are a net loss to the country, not a gain. The only "jobs! jobs! jobs!" having any value are those which end up making the consumers better off, or improving the production or the service to consumers. This is not so if the "job creation" makes the production more costly and results in higher prices which consumers have to pay, or higher taxes.

So "changing the message to 'CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS!'" only means recognizing that the economy is really about serving consumers, i.e., producing the stuff people want, instead of pretending that it's about creating jobs.

The company still wants to build the factory cheaply, so they'll try to convince politicians that it's a good idea -- and they'll in turn try to convince their constituents that what they're doing is a good idea.

Of course all companies want subsidies and welfare and so on. The unanswered question is: Why should the state do this when it makes society worse off rather than better off?

And here's the answer (if no one offers a better one): Many of us are deluded into believing there is a mass of scum in the country who need to be neutralized somehow, so they don't do us harm by going on a rampage, i.e., committing crimes, plunder, etc. And since we worship factories and factory jobs, as preached by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, we imagine that massive creation of factory "jobs" will solve this problem of excess humans, scum, rabble, who need to be put somewhere to keep them out of mischief.

RVonse confirmed this when he said in effect

The real purpose of my job is to:
get me off the streets so I don't "steal":​

They want more jobs because they actually want more money. And they correctly assume that it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it.

I.e., Americans who don't have these artificial "jobs" provided for them will resort to CRIME, i.e., the "unemployed" is a mass of pillagers who are ready to go on a rampage of plunder if we don't put them into factory "jobs" to keep them out of mischief.

RVonse proves my point that the whole purpose of Trump's "jobs" is to provide babysitting slots to put the rabble into in order to get them off the streets so they don't turn to plundering (stealing etc.).

He's saying in effect that the whole purpose of saving his job as a steelworker was to get him off the streets and prevent him from pillaging and plundering, i.e., stealing. Because without his steel job, paying him 10 times as much as a Chinese worker would be paid, he'd resort to crime and plunder and pillage, and so to save our society from his crimes we had to provide him with a job at the steel mill, even though it means we have to pay higher prices for steel as a result.

Are you saying that the idea of building factories based on consumer demand is so unpopular as to never be voted for?

subsidized by the state? Yes, that's unpopular. The demand is not for that, but for factories to provide babysitting slots for excess job-seekers, which is not "consumer demand."

Because building unnecessary factories would not in fact serve consumer demand. It's unnecessary factories we're talking about, paid for by corporate welfare like in Michigan. Whatever factories are actually necessary to serve consumer demand don't require any government subsidy or corporate welfare, because the market alone, by itself, provides the incentive to build those factories, which will be profitable and reward the company, without any state subsidy.

There's no reason for the state to subsidize something which would be profitable for the company to do anyway, without the subsidy. But, to provide "jobs" for crybabies, i.e., babysitting slots to keep the rabble off the streets -- for that we need state subsidy, because the companies don't make any profit doing this, because it's a service to society rather than something needed to improve the production and increase profit.

If not, then conditions will exist where factories need to be built based on consumer demand, buildings will get razed to serve consumer demand, then as demand ebbs the factory goes away.

You're ignoring the question of the state subsidizing it. Obviously factories are sometimes built without any corporate welfare because the market supports it. I.e., to satisfy consumer demand, and thus make profit. And such development might even result in earlier buildings getting razed. If it's supported by the private market and profit motive and supply-demand, then it's the right thing to do -- bring on the bulldozers!

But that's not special corporate welfare deals to select companies, like the Michigan case. That wasn't based on consumer demand, but on the need for the babysitting slots ("jobs").

Whereas meeting market demand requires letting all buyers, all companies, all property owners compete equally, regardless of any need to provide "jobs! jobs! jobs!" -- i.e., the goal is not to provide babysitting-slot "jobs" for crybabies, but to raise tax revenue to the state, and to let companies make profit in the competitive market. And those which perform better reap more profit and win out in the competition.

As long as it's the market and profit which pays for the change or the bulldozing or relocations, then it's worth it.

In what sense would the outcome actually change for this town with a different rationalization?

The difference would be that if it's done to serve consumer demand, then there's no government subsidy, so there's no cost born by taxpayers. If there's a cost, it's paid by the companies, who buy or lease property like any other player in the market, with no special deal to them to get them to "create jobs" for society.

The intended outcome of "jobs! jobs! jobs!" is the wrong rationalization. No special deals should be cut with any company, giving them some special tax-break or other subsidy, in order to get them to create "jobs! jobs! jobs" -- Rather, let all the companies compete in the market, serving consumers, and those which perform better will prevail, and all costs will be paid by those who benefit, from the profits.

What exactly is the question we're supposed to answer?

The question is: What was gained for society by paying subsidies to GM to build that factory? Why should a company get a special deal at taxpayers' expense because they promise "jobs! jobs! jobs!"? How are those "jobs! jobs! jobs!" worth it to the taxpayers who have to pay the cost?

The question to be answered by Trump and Bernie Sanders and the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" fanatics is: Why do we need the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" instead of just letting the competitive market take care of meeting the market demand? Or, why are you deluded into thinking we need all these "jobs! jobs! jobs!" in order to keep RVonse and others off the streets to prevent them from stealing, plundering, pillaging? Why are you hallucinating that we need to "bring back the factories" etc. in order to provide "jobs" for the rabble?

 

[RVonse]

[Pan=3
The question to be answered by Trump and Bernie Sanders and the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" fanatics is: Why do we need the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" instead of just letting the competitive market take care of meeting the market demand? Or, why are you deluded into thinking we need all these "jobs! jobs! jobs!" in order to keep RVonse and others off the streets to prevent them from stealing, plundering, pillaging? Why are you hallucinating that we need to "bring back the factories" etc. in order to provide "jobs" for the rabble?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I get it you think we are all delusional. But the logic of the situation can only take you to these 2 options:

1. More jobs causing more consumption derived from higher wages, and higher living standards for everyone. (the German economy)
or
2. Less jobs causing more unemployment, more crime and corruption, and lower living standards. But higher profits for CEO's and financial holders of equity. (the Mexico or Bangladesh economy)

If you are in the middle class you desire #1 but if you are an equity holder you will desire #2.

This is what it all boils down to. It is simple enough there is no need to try to fool yourself and/or others with the bullshit wall of text.

The jobs really are important and everyone except for you knows this.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You're mistaken about export economies like Germany; they keep their living standards lower in order to keep their prices competitive. Allowing a higher standard of living causes their currency to rise in value.

 

[RVonse]

You're mistaken about export economies like Germany; they keep their living standards lower in order to keep their prices competitive. Allowing a higher standard of living causes their currency to rise in value.

If that is the case, then how do they manage labor unions with higher wages than the UAW?

 

[Horatio Parker]

You're mistaken about export economies like Germany; they keep their living standards lower in order to keep their prices competitive. Allowing a higher standard of living causes their currency to rise in value.

If that is the case, then how do they manage labor unions with higher wages than the UAW?

Because we're even harder on our workers, even if we're not an exporter. Also, they have a stronger welfare state. I'm sure that figures into the compensation figures.

https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-publ...-austerity-inequality-germany-120913-en_0.pdf

I'd quote portions but my iPad won't select from this PDF. Anyway, the notion that exporters, Germany among them, practice austerity to keep their competitive advantages is not controversial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was referring to simple labels that are sometimes applied arbitrarily. Maybe the labels "socialist' or 'oommunist' are applied to systems that are probably better described as a kind of autocracy, a ruling body dominated by powerful leader.

They went crazy with collectivization--and tens of millions starved as a result.

But not those in the upper layers of government hierarchy.

True. Also, in general they saved the city dwellers, it was the rural people that died.

 

[DBT]

But not those in the upper layers of government hierarchy.

True. Also, in general they saved the city dwellers, it was the rural people that died.

Yes, so much for 'Socialism' or 'Communism' or collective wellbeing.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The "babysitting slots" are those of the "job creation" programs, or the "JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!" clamor, and

and the BRING BACK THE FACTORIES babble. Etc. -- not ALL employment, or ALL jobs.

Why do you believe that GM or Steel Dynamics would hire people just to babysit them?

They would because they're paid to do it, by the state, wanting to subsidize "jobs" for someone who otherwise would steal.

It's RVonse who demands that the state do this subsidizing, saying the purpose of his job is to prevent him from stealing. He said in the quote above that the point of the "job creation" is that the job is needed as an alternative to stealing:

"And they correctly assume that it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it."

And this is the reason we have to provide "jobs" for people. It's not the company who wants to babysit them, but it's RVonse who's saying we have to get them into the jobs in order that they don't STEAL as the alternative to having the job.

So it's not in order to produce a better product, or serve the consumers, that we need these "jobs" -- No, that production was already taking place in China, where the steel and other products were produced just as well and at lower cost. So, what was gained by "bringing back the factories" from China? or the steel production? It wasn't to get something produced that wasn't already being produced before. Nothing new is produced by relocating the production to the U.S. All that's new is the new job slots for Americans, to do the same work at higher labor cost than before, so that now consumers have to pay higher prices than before, for the same production.

RVonse's explanation why we need Trump to "create jobs" for someone is that "it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it." Meaning that if they had not been put in this new job brought back from China, they'd be stealing instead.

How is it not BABYSITTING them, if we put them in that factory job in order to deter them from stealing as their alternative? And we're paying GM or U.S. Steel etc. to provide this babysitting slot. The company does it in order to get the subsidy, or the protectionism, the extra business, but society's motive for paying the company is to get that job slot for the U.S. job-seeker, who would otherwise resort to stealing. According to RVonse.

This is very true. Babysitting is actually recognized as a HUGE value to our society. And as such is a big reason why Warren Buffet pays lower taxes than his secretary.

I've explained what "babysitting" means. It refers to jobs which are "created" at a cost to society (such as higher taxes or higher prices), without a benefit other than just the "job" itself, as a place to put some job-seekers because we feel sorry for them. E.g., the jobs brought back from China, which were done at lower cost in China (assuming there is some number of such jobs in steel or auto which Trump has "created" with his trade-war tariffs). These new U.S. jobs don't make us any better off, because the production has not improved or increased as a result, but has only increased in cost. So we have paid a cost and in return gained only the jobs for the needy U.S. job-seekers, so it's only for their benefit, or only to get them off the streets, or to appease them, not to make consumers or Americans generally better off.

And similarly the auto jobs in Michigan, due to the subsidy to GM, in return for the factory jobs.

It's reasonable to call these "babysitting slots," but it's not clear how Warren Buffet is a babysitter in this sense.

Ordinary labor is not that much of a benefit to society so the IRS taxes it heavily. But the management of people into productive employment is a HUGE benefit . . .

Instead of "productive employment," this should read "the management of people into the babysitting slots (factory "jobs") is a HUGE benefit" . . . etc. These babysitting slots, or "jobs" created for job-seekers out of pity for them, subsidized by the state (like the Michigan case), are seen by job-creator fanatics as needed to get the rabble off the streets, and thus as beneficial to society, to protect us from the threat, e.g., from the laid-off steel workers or auto workers as plunderers who would "steal" if they aren't provided with these jobs as an alternative to plunder.

So it's not the "productive employment" role which they play, but the role as a deterrent to the plunder. The production had already been taking place in China, at lower cost, so nothing is made more "productive" by this relocation of factory jobs away from China to the U.S. All that's "productive" about this job-creation, such as in Michigan, is the benefit of getting the rabble off the streets and into the babysitting slots. I.e., not any benefit of better production of steel or autos.

. . . is a HUGE benefit to society which is why the IRS does not tax capitalists much at all. In the United States, the taxes will prevent you from becoming very wealthy unless you can successfully babysit a significant number of the adult population.

You don't prove a point by just throwing the word "babysit" around everywhere and calling every capitalist a "babysitter" because they hire some workers.

If they gain a subsidy, or protection, etc., a benefit in return for creating "jobs" which are needed for needy job-seekers, which society has to pay them for, then it can be called "babysitting" -- but this is not the case for all capitalists or all employers.

 

[DBT]

Without purpose, employment or adequate income, society disintegrates and everyone loses....except, maybe, not so much the super rich living in their island hideaways or fortified communities as the rest.

 

[RVonse]

Without purpose, employment or adequate income, society disintegrates and everyone loses....except, maybe, not so much the super rich living in their island hideaways or fortified communities as the rest.

Exactly. And IMO the perfect ideal economy to strive for:
1. No poverty. Extremely high standard of living for everyone with no needs unmet (Star Trek utopia)
2. Everyone encouraged to do meaningful and/or challenging work even if it is only for charity
3. Low impact to the environment with no carbon footprint

Also IMO of all the countries in the world, Germany appears to be getting to these high advancements faster than any other country. But Germany is definitely NOT an ultra free trade economy the Lumpens would want for the US!

Lumpens wants us to be another huge Bangladesh, everyone except the filthy rich living in squalor. No thank you Lumpens!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So it's Mickey Mouse the Chinese are STEALING from us?

And that's what this "Chinese are cheating" fuss is all about?

They just had to give up their intellectual property to the Chinese.

Is that supposed to mean anything serious?

How many companies have gone broke because they gave their "intellectual property" to the Chinese? or lost money?

Actually they didn't "give" it to them -- they traded it to them, in return for something, and the deal made the American companies better off.

What's an example of "intellectual property" they had to give up to the Chinese? I doubt there's anyone who can really give an example of it. We keep hearing this talking point, but the talking-one never seems to know what it means that they "give up their intellectual property." And even so those companies apparently are doing just fine in China. And they would never have agreed to "give up their intellectual property" and would have taken their business elsewhere, if it didn't produce a net gain for them.

Maybe the world would be better off if ALL companies everywhere had to "give up their intellectual property" to everyone. No one ever gives an example how this does any damage to the economy.

Can anyone explain what the damage is from giving up its "intellectual property" to China? Other than just that this phrase scores points with China-bashers?

The concept of intellectual property is huge because without patents no one would want to spend money to invent anything.

This doesn't make any sense. A "patent" is something which precisely forces the inventor to disclose his "intellectual property" to the world. It does not SECURE or WITHHOLD the "intellectual property" but discloses it to everyone, in descriptions which fully explain it, so it's no longer a secret, and it gives the owner the right to collect payment from anyone who profits from the intellectual property or technology etc.

So, what do PATENTS have to do with "giving up intellectual property" to the Chinese? Those same companies have to "give up" that same intellectual property if they patent it in the U.S.

How can you complain that companies going to China "give up their intellectual property" when that's precisely what they do when they patent a product in the U.S.? It's not clear what the complaint is against the Chinese, gaining that intellectual property from companies, when the U.S. does the same thing in issuing patents to them, thus gaining their intellectual property, or disclosing it to the world.

So if there's any legitimate complaint here, it can't be about lack of patents, but about some desire by the company to WITHHOLD or HIDE its intellectual property rather than disclosing it. I.e., about keeping SECRETS from the world rather than disclosing their intellectual property.

In fact, it is so important now every Hollywood movie I have paid my money for forces me read a big FBI lecture before I can actually watch what I paid for. It was so important that the multi-billion corporate empire Disney payed millions in court to extend Micky Mouse rights.

You mean if they have to "give up their intellectual property" to the Chinese, that's the end of Mickey Mouse? We are told companies cannot operate in China unless they agree to "give up their intellectual property" to the Chinese. Which has nothing to do with Disney and Mickey Mouse, because the Chinese and the whole world has Mickey Mouse, without needing Disney to agree to anything.

There is something paranoid and nonsensical about complaints of China forcing companies to "give up their intellectual property." I'd like someone to explain this complaint. I don't think it has anything to do with copyrights or patents or Mickey Mouse, but about trade secrets. And I'm not sure that trade secrets are really necessary. Or, every company is subject to the unpredictability and anarchy of the market regarding its trade secrets. And China offers them a deal they can refuse if it's not in their interest, which is to give up these secrets as a condition to operate in China.

I think that's what it really is, and not about patents or protecting intellectual property. But whatever it is, it sounds like paranoia and xenopobia, and no one seems willing to explain what it really means. The logic which says we must not trade with China because we're paranoid is not good economics.

Yet China just gets to do what they want.

Every country does what it wants to do. China has no advantage over other countries allowing it to get away with anything which other countries cannot also get away with. Larger countries, or larger economies, like the U.S. and Germany and Japan, even Russia and India, have power to "do what they want" as much as the Chinese. Saying China somehow "gets to do what they want" is just crybaby pettiness.

Whatever China is doing could also be done by the U.S. or any of a dozen other countries. So China has no unfair advantage. If they're gaining an advantage by doing something, then the U.S. could do it also, and should, in retaliation. Let someone say precisely what it is that China is doing, which they think other countries are unable to do, and so which somehow gives China an unfair advantage over everyone else. No one has said what this crime is. Instead they just keep up their China-bashing rhetoric, for the xenophobic appeal, and pretend that we all know what it means.

They are not tied to US law so they can steal anything that others have paid to develop.

And the U.S. is not tied to Chinese law, or to Japanese or German law. So any country can "steal" anything others have paid to develop. And they do, in one way or another. And they could "steal" what the Chinese have paid to develop. So what's the complaint? The U.S. can just as easily "steal" something China has developed.

If most countries have agreements to not "steal" what each other has developed, and China has no such agreements, then the U.S. and other countries are just as free to "steal" from China as China is free to "steal" from those countries. So the solution is to "steal" from China until it agrees to terms with other countries not to "steal" from each other.

There have been some cases of this, where countries once did this "stealing" from the U.S. or other countries but then came to terms and have stopped it. It is mutually beneficial to agree to such terms. But as long as there is no agreement, then each country is free to "steal" from the other, and neither has an advantage over the other. So, what's the whining about?

And if you have no rule of law everywhere, capitalism will not survive.

It has survived WITHOUT "rule of law everywhere," and "rule of law" can be increased or decreased, as needed, to make capitalism work better. In some cases the "rule of law" makes everything worse and increases suffering in the world. Everyone has their own individual subjective bias about what the "rule of law" means and where we need more of it, or less. Usually those who complain about it don't care about what's good for everyone, but only about their own individual selfish interest, to the detriment of everyone else. This is obviously the case, e.g., with the demands of steal workers and steal companies, also auto.

Trump can not enforce the laws with court so he uses the tool of tariffs.

Yes, to the benefit of selfish interest groups like steal and auto workers, and to the detriment of all consumers, reducing the general standard of living.

Hardly ever has the "tool of tariffs" been used to benefit the whole nation, but only to serve the narrow interests of uncompetitive crybabies, like steal workers and auto workers, and favored companies, who have strong-armed their way into power, through lobbyists.

The way to use "the tool of tariffs" to benefit everyone would be to apply a uniform low tariff on ALL products, from ALL countries and ALL industries, without distinction of any kind. To provide a legitimate revenue source.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This doesn't make any sense. A "patent" is something which precisely forces the inventor to disclose his "intellectual property" to the world. It does not SECURE or WITHHOLD the "intellectual property" but discloses it to everyone, in descriptions which fully explain it, so it's no longer a secret, and it gives the owner the right to collect payment from anyone who profits from the intellectual property or technology etc.

Have you never heard of trade secrets? They are not disclosed, but companies have to provide the information to China anyway.

And patents don't tell China which patents are used to make which products?

And when it comes to software it's copyright--and copyright registration doesn't include the whole binary.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Anybody else find it funny that the guy complaining about the inefficiency of socialist cooperatives is . . .

Who was complaining about that? There are probably at least 1000 different kinds of socialist cooperatives, some more efficient and others less.

. . . complaining about the inefficiency of socialist cooperatives is also arguing that steel producers in Communist China are more efficient?

They are less costly (more efficient) mainly because of the cheap labor, which we should take advantage of. Cheap labor is good for the economy, regardless whether it's in a capitalist or a socialist country.

Chinese production today is obviously less socialist than Chinese production 70 years ago under the Maoists, and far more efficient.

We should be taking advantage of every extra element of efficiency in production anywhere, under any economic system. E.g., we should take advantage of production in Cuba, if they produce anything we want. The U.S. market should be open to all producers, to compete, regardless whether their nation is called "socialist" or some other label.

It's OK to reward socialist producers somewhere, if their production is more efficient. Whatever serves consumers better should always be rewarded, regardless of ideology or economic theory. In the end it's only the output, or performance, which matters, not the theory.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Let the market (consumers) pick the "winners and losers"

= lower cost wins over higher cost = cheaper labor over higher-cost labor =
(bottom line) Cheap labor is good for the economy!

Anybody else find it funny that the guy complaining about the inefficiency of socialist cooperatives is also arguing that steel producers in Communist China are more efficient?

China isn't socialist anymore.

Its a centralized managed pirating economy. President Xi could teach Al Capone on how to sell furniture.

Whatever you want to call it - the one-party ruled Chinese Government picks winners and losers in their domestic economy and is willing to heavily subsidize industries for political purposes. It's hardly the model for free-market economics...

What they're a "model" for is low cost of the labor. Lower cost is always good, as long as the quality is not compromised. Or, if there's a difference in quality, sometimes it's worth it to sacrifice on quality in return for the lower price, while other times it's better to choose the higher quality and pay a higher cost.

For consumer goods it's up to individual consumers to decide how much the higher quality is worth, so it's the market which should decide the "winners and losers" rather than the state pretending to know what's good for us.

What we need is the best deals for consumers, not a "model" for free-market economics. We can appreciate China's lower prices which are due mainly to the cheap labor. But at the same time China only hurts itself, its citizens, with its bad policies to subsidize some industries at the expense of others, picking winners and losers. This actually benefits U.S. consumers more than the Chinese, who have to pay a high cost for it.

When they inflict this harm, the only purpose of it is to provide babysitting slots ("jobs") to people they think otherwise are worthless to society and so need to be put in these slots to keep them out of mischief. This is the only explanation why countries insist on doing this -- or, no one is giving any other explanation why countries choose to do this.

They believe, along with RVonse, that if these babysitting slots are not provided to the rabble, millions of them will go on a rampage of plunder and pillage (or stealing): "And they correctly assume that it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it."

Apparently a large percent of the population believes this plunder and pillage scenario, if we don't provide the babysitting slots to the rabble laid-off factory workers, and so the power elite picks the "winners and losers" and gives priority to companies which hire a large labor force, making the economic decisions based on the need for the babysitting slots rather than the need for better production to serve consumers.

The real "winner" in this is any country which opens its market and accepts the best production -- whatever consumers choose -- from any country, regardless of ideology, and just lets its consumers benefit from the most competitive production taking place, wherever it is happening, and whatever drives it.

 

[RVonse]

And that's what this "Chinese are cheating" fuss is all about?

The concept of intellectual property is huge because without patents no one would want to spend money to invent anything.

This doesn't make any sense. A "patent" is something which precisely forces the inventor to disclose his "intellectual property" to the world. It does not SECURE or WITHHOLD the "intellectual property" but discloses it to everyone, in descriptions which fully explain it, so it's no longer a secret, and it gives the owner the right to collect payment from anyone who profits from the intellectual property or technology etc.

So, what do PATENTS have to do with "giving up intellectual property" to the Chinese? Those same companies have to "give up" that same intellectual property if they patent it in the U.S.

How can you complain that companies going to China "give up their intellectual property" when that's precisely what they do when they patent a product in the U.S.? It's not clear what the complaint is against the Chinese, gaining that intellectual property from companies, when the U.S. does the same thing in issuing patents to them, thus gaining their intellectual property, or disclosing it to the world.

So if there's any legitimate complaint here, it can't be about lack of patents, but about some desire by the company to WITHHOLD or HIDE its intellectual property rather than disclosing it. I.e., about keeping SECRETS from the world rather than disclosing their intellectual property.

In fact, it is so important now every Hollywood movie I have paid my money for forces me read a big FBI lecture before I can actually watch what I paid for. It was so important that the multi-billion corporate empire Disney payed millions in court to extend Micky Mouse rights.

You mean if they have to "give up their intellectual property" to the Chinese, that's the end of Mickey Mouse? We are told companies cannot operate in China unless they agree to "give up their intellectual property" to the Chinese. Which has nothing to do with Disney and Mickey Mouse, because the Chinese and the whole world has Mickey Mouse, without needing Disney to agree to anything.

There is something paranoid and nonsensical about complaints of China forcing companies to "give up their intellectual property." I'd like someone to explain this complaint. I don't think it has anything to do with copyrights or patents or Mickey Mouse, but about trade secrets. And I'm not sure that trade secrets are really necessary. Or, every company is subject to the unpredictability and anarchy of the market regarding its trade secrets. And China offers them a deal they can refuse if it's not in their interest, which is to give up these secrets as a condition to operate in China.

I think that's what it really is, and not about patents or protecting intellectual property. But whatever it is, it sounds like paranoia and xenopobia, and no one seems willing to explain what it really means. The logic which says we must not trade with China because we're paranoid is not good economics.

Its actually called "forced intellectual transfer" using the leverage of China's totalitarian mercantilism communist state.

Yet China just gets to do what they want.

Every country does what it wants to do.

No they don't. Western democracy's trade with each other on pretty much equal footing due to the fact they do not impose a totalitarian government on their people. If labor is not free than trade is not free either.

They are not tied to US law so they can steal anything that others have paid to develop.

And the U.S. is not tied to Chinese law, or to Japanese or German law. So any country can "steal" anything others have paid to develop. And they do, in one way or another. And they could "steal" what the Chinese have paid to develop. So what's the complaint? The U.S. can just as easily "steal" something China has developed.

If most countries have agreements to not "steal" what each other has developed, and China has no such agreements, then the U.S. and other countries are just as free to "steal" from China as China is free to "steal" from those countries. So the solution is to "steal" from China until it agrees to terms with other countries not to "steal" from each other.

There have been some cases of this, where countries once did this "stealing" from the U.S. or other countries but then came to terms and have stopped it. It is mutually beneficial to agree to such terms. But as long as there is no agreement, then each country is free to "steal" from the other, and neither has an advantage over the other. So, what's the whining about?

What is all the whining about when the bandit breaks into a store and steals the merchandise? That may be ok with you but it is not ok with the rest of us.

And if you have no rule of law everywhere, capitalism will not survive.

It has survived WITHOUT "rule of law everywhere," and "rule of law" can be increased or decreased, as needed, to make capitalism work better.

Capitalism will not survive unless private property is respected. And there is no such thing as private property in China.

Corporate cronyism can still survive and thrive. But true capitalism requires the concept of private property and liberty.

 

[RVonse]

Corporate cronyism can still survive and thrive. But true capitalism requires the concept of private property and liberty.

Right now under Lumpen's so called free trade -

We have slaves in China producing cheap crap for the unemployed/underemployed impoverished in the US.

This is NOT a sustainable economic model.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No one can explain why we need "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" -- So let's change the topic.

How about this distortion of history -- China's example shows that non-free-market "socialist" economics works:

Loren Pechtel: China isn't socialist anymore.

Whatever you want to call it - the one-party ruled Chinese Government picks winners and losers in their domestic economy and is willing to heavily subsidize industries for political purposes. It's hardly the model for free-market economics...

Exactly correct.

No, China is a model for showing how cheap labor is beneficial and helps any market better serve consumers. While its protectionism or picking winners and losers is bad for the economy, especially for China's consumers, it's beneficial for U.S. consumers.

I used to believe most of the free market crap Lumpens or the Republicans advertise. And I still do believe that free market capitalism is a great way to price goods to efficiently bring them to consumers. As well as encourage a good allocation of production assets utilized to the proper places.

But saying you have to have free market capitalism in order to produce wealth for the society of that country just isn't true. China has just proven it to us all that it isn't at all true.

No, China has moved in the direction of a competitive market economy, as opposed to what it was prior to the U.S.-China trade. Even if you call it "socialist" or "picking winners and losers" etc., the fact is that it has become LESS of that in the last 50 years and more market-based, especially more global. So its successes are due to its change toward more free trade and market-based competitiveness. Just because China is still far from an ideal free-market economy doesn't change the fact that it has moved in that direction over the last 50 years, not away from a free market.

It's the movement in one direction or the other you have to pay attention to.

And actually, I believe Nazi Germany has proved it as well.

You're going way off topic. The question is whether a country improves anything by propping up unnecessary factories in order to promote "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" like in the Michigan case, and like Trump is doing (and Bernie Sanders would do) by "bringing back the factories" and other crybaby economic policies. Obviously this does not make the economy better, because it drives up costs, which consumers and taxpayers must pay, thus reducing the standard of living, even though it does pander to some special interests who profit from it, like uncompetitive (or overpaid) steel workers and auto workers. But you want to avoid that question.

Take away Germany's ww2 loss and they would have demonstrated an incredible economy. There was nothing free market about Nazi Germany yet their economy may have even exceeded what Xi has accomplished.

The German economic accomplishment was happening long before the Nazis. Part of it was due to expanded trade after the customs union which created a large free-trade zone and promoted free-trade discipline. The factors beneficial to the German economy were in place long before the Nazis and created the momentum leading to Germany's high output in the 1930s and its war production. (Those fundamentals were strong and remained in place despite the setbacks of WW1.) They obviously did not benefit from protectionism or corporate welfare or building factories for the sake of "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" etc. Whatever there was of that had nothing to do with promoting Germany's economic performance but detracted from it.

So since America has not enjoyed prosperity by free market capitalism it must have been . . .

It was partly by free market capitalism. Definitely cheap labor and competition played a large role, including the heavy immigration before the 1920s. Meanwhile, all the evidence is that propping up "jobs" artificially, like Trump is doing (and Bernie Sanders would do also), and like Michigan did with its corporate welfare to GM, ends up making the economy LESS prosperous.

Science and technology and education explain much of the economic progress in the more advanced countries. Not corporate welfare schemes or promoting "jobs! jobs! jobs!" to get the rabble off the streets.

. . . it must have been by plundering such a land full of valuable resources from the Indians. I'm thinking now we simply had better and more resources that we plundered more efficiently than anyone else.

Plunder plays a role too, as in all cases, giving you something to fall back on in order to circumvent the real topic, which is why we have such a clamor for "jobs! jobs! jobs!" that we are willing to run up the costs and drive down the general living standard in order to provide these babysitting slots for crybabies, who vote for demagogues like Trump and Bernie Sanders who pander to them, feeding them the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble they want to hear.

It's obvious that if you didn't have panderer Trump to vote for, to get the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" required to shut you and your crybaby comrades up, you'd vote for a panderer on the Left -- whoever is best at preaching the slogans that the whining rabble idiots want to hear.

 

[RVonse]

Corporate cronyism can still survive and thrive. But true capitalism requires the concept of private property and liberty.

Right now under Lumpen's so called free trade -

We have slaves in China producing cheap crap for the unemployed/underemployed impoverished in the US.

This is NOT a sustainable economic model.

But in the best possible world we would have-

Robots and AI producing free crap for the former slaves in China AND former unemployed in the US.

But in order for such an economic model to work, it would take some sort of government entity to control and/or own the robotic assets. And that sounds just too much like communism. Furthermore, there would have to be some kind of argument which government (US or China) ends up owning the most AI assets.

But it would provide a star trek type utopia for everyone with NO poverty.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

2 choices: 1. Jobs based on need to get work done, and 2. Jobs to accommodate rabble who otherwise would steal and plunder.

The question to be answered by Trump and Bernie Sanders and the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" fanatics is: Why do we need the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" instead of just letting the competitive market take care of meeting the market demand? Or, why are you deluded into thinking we need all these "jobs! jobs! jobs!" in order to keep RVonse and others off the streets to prevent them from stealing, plundering, pillaging? Why are you hallucinating that we need to "bring back the factories" etc. in order to provide "jobs" for the rabble?

Yes, I get it you think we are all delusional. But the logic of the situation can only take you to these 2 options:

1. More jobs causing more consumption derived from higher wages, . . .

No, the "more jobs" you mean are the Trump (or Bernie Sanders) variety, which don't mean "more consumption" or "higher wages" overall, though it's true some uncompetitive U.S. workers would be overpaid doing these jobs which are done at much lower wage levels in Asia. But "higher wages" are not good for the economy if "higher" means higher than the market value = higher cost to consumers = lower living standard overall.

You mean low-value jobs brought back from China ("low-value" meaning anyone can do them and can easily be replaced by other workers who are a dime-a-dozen), Trump's "more jobs" produced by "bringing back the factories" and other artificial job "creation" to put people into jobs slots where we don't need them because the jobs cost more than their value or can be done with cheap labor rather than at the higher labor cost U.S. companies have to pay, and thus jobs which drive up the prices 330 million consumers have to pay and thus driving down their living standard because the production now costs more than before and there's no improvement or increase in the production. Meaning our cost of living is higher at the same level of production. Yes, that's one option, and it's one making our country worse off, not better.

. . . and higher living standards for everyone.

No, LOWER living standard, because there's no improved production with jobs like this, and yet there's a higher cost we all must pay for the production. No change other than the higher cost = LOWER LIVING STANDARD for all.

Even if there are more U.S. "jobs" as a result, there is no improvement in what is produced, and it all costs us more than before when the jobs were done abroad. The result will be the same as that of replacing robots, which do the jobs at lower cost, by humans costing more. It's a net loss for the economy, because the robots gave us the same production at lower cost.

When the output is the same but the cost is higher (e.g., Trump's jobs), it's a net loss for society, for everyone including the poor who have to pay higher prices as a result.

. . . (the German economy).

Not today's German economy, where the jobs are the higher-value jobs and the workers are less easily replaceable.

But perhaps you mean the old East German economy before reunification, with the makework programs to create uncompetitive jobs.

Or today's Chinese economy, where the consumers suffer, and the old Soviet economy, where everyone had a "job" but the living standard was made lower.

or

2. Less jobs causing more unemployment, . . .

Yes, today's East Germany with higher unemployment than before the Wall came down, because the economy is more competitive than before and the "jobs" are not protected like they were under communism. For Trump's higher employment you need the artificial makework jobs, with higher cost of production and less efficiency --> lower living standard. But at least everyone gets a "job" to keep him/her out of mischief. Conceivably you're right that your makework program would mean higher employment numbers, as more uncompetitive workers are given slots out of pity for them, to get them off the streets. But the living standard is lower when the jobs are created out of pity to job-seekers rather than out of need of companies to get work done.

. . . more crime and . . .

You might argue that your makework "jobs" are needed in order to get the rabble off the streets and keep them out of mischief = lower crime rate. Maybe. In some cases. Maybe you're right that your steel job and other jobs created by Trump have done some good getting troublemakers like you off the streets. Not any good for consumers, who are made worse off by the higher prices, but maybe for some workers like you who otherwise would resort to stealing.

. . . more crime and corruption, and . . .

No, the "corruption" is higher in the economy with the government creating makework jobs to keep people out of mischief. That goes in the first option -- the "1. more jobs" etc. category, like Trump creating more steel and auto jobs. Such corporate welfare leads to more corruption, as companies are promised half a million per job, etc. It's arbitrary which companies will receive these corporate welfare deals, so the risk of bribery to politicians is much higher.

. . . lower living standards."

No, the lower living standard is in the first option, the "1. more jobs" etc. category, because it means transfer of production to the U.S. where the costs are higher, so the same production takes place but costs consumers higher prices, because of the much higher labor cost. And increase in cost with no improved production means lower living standard, because the higher cost = lower real income to all consumers having to pay those higher costs.

And also the GM corporate welfare in Michigan = "1. more jobs" etc. category, meaning higher taxes to pay for it = lower living standards, as we get this higher cost but no improvement in production, nothing in return, except the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" per se. When the only change is "jobs! jobs! jobs!" and higher cost with no improved production, it means reduced living standard. The higher living standard cannot happen without improved performance by producers, which we don't get from Trump's (and Sanders') corporate welfare "more jobs" anticompetitive wheeling-and-dealing and pandering to crybabies.

But higher profits for CEO's and financial holders of equity.

Only when their performance improves and they are more competitive. It's good for the producers to gain higher profits if it's due to more competition and their improved performance to serve consumers. Bringing down the costs, such as lower labor cost, is beneficial for the whole economy, even though the producers get richer from it. If they make society richer with increased competition, they deserve the reward.

. . . (the Mexico or Bangladesh economy)

Any economy -- it doesn't matter which. More competition and better performance can mean higher profits to the more competitive higher-performing companies, rewarding them for serving the consumers better.

If you are in the middle class you desire #1 but if you are an equity holder you will desire #2.

No, an equity holder with shares in U.S. Steel wants Trump's "more jobs" babble, and corporate welfare to U.S. Steel.

99% of consumers, or 99.9%, are made better off by the option which leaves it to the competitive market to create the jobs as needed, rather than driving up costs with Trump's makework jobs, like your steel job, brought back from China to appease some job-seekers rather than improve the production.

This is what it all boils down to. It is simple enough there is no need to try to fool yourself and/or others with the bullshit wall of text.

To you, what's good for the country is bullshit.

The two choices are:

1. Let the market serve all the consumers, through competition and the law of supply-and-demand, hiring only workers needed and paying them only their market value = good for the country rather than any narrow interest group.

2. Corporate welfare and artificial "job creation" to drive up the employment numbers, causing higher prices and lower standard of living to 330 million consumers, but benefiting the special interest companies and some workers who are paid more than their value out of pity for them, to the detriment of everyone else.

The jobs really are important and everyone except for you knows this.

Not "everyone," but many pander to you, agreeing that without your makework jobs, such as your steel job which was done more efficiently in China, you and some others would turn to crime, as you confirmed when you said you'd resort to stealing if we didn't give you your makework job at the steel mill. So it's true that "jobs really are important" to the panderers who see your crowd as a threat to society if we don't appease you with your makework job.

If you claim the high cost of these artificial "jobs" is worth it, for the social benefit of getting the rabble off the streets, then you're saying in effect that the scale of your crimes would be high if your demand for your artificial "job" had gone unmet.

 

[RVonse]

You mean low-value jobs brought back from China ("low-value" meaning anyone can do them and can easily be replaced by other workers who are a dime-a-dozen),

No I mean high value manufacturing jobs. Yes, anyone can do these jobs but they are leveraged with automation and capital which means they command high wages and high disposable consumer income. Basically what the US had in the 1960's and what Germany and Japan presently have today.

It's a net loss for the economy, because the robots gave us the same production at lower cost.

To derive the maximum wealth for the nation, the labor needs to be leveraged with automation and the products need to be exported to other areas of the world.

Not today's German economy, where the jobs are the higher-value jobs and the workers are less easily replaceable.

They are manufacturing jobs that any monkey can do. But they are leveraged to automation AND (most importantly) union scale wages. In Germany, the union leaders actually sit on the corporate board. Furthermore, they are mostly products (automobiles mostly) that are exported to other regions of the world. That brings in dollars to allow Germany to have a positive overall balance of trade account .

Yes, today's East Germany with higher unemployment than before the Wall came down, because the economy is more competitive than before and the "jobs" are not protected like they were under communism.

Im not talking about east Germany at all. Communist east Germany is just your red herring to add confusion. Germany (the country I gave as an example) has an economy based on manufacturing with high wage union scale jobs. They do this today. Exactly what the US and/or any nation needs that wants to have a prosperous middle class.

You might argue that your makework "jobs" are needed in order to get the rabble off the streets and keep them out of mischief = lower crime rate.

Whatever. Look at Germany. Look at Germany today, not east Germany or some other place you want to dream up. Germany is doing it right today. And we know this because in all of the European Union, that country stands pretty much alone in propping up the economy in Europe.

We also know they are doing something right by casually observing the fact that poverty is almost non existent there. Furthermore, of all the countries in the world, Germany stands alone (with the possible exception of China) with the the critical investments in clean energy infrastructure for the future.

. . . lower living standards."

Not in Germany.

Trump's makework jobs, like your steel job, brought back from China to appease some job-seekers rather than improve the production.

Its even more than that though. You can not be the exceptional first rate super power unless you make your own steel and aluminum. Trump should just give up on people like you who can not see this. And simply justify his actions on national defense anyway. People like you can argue all day about your "free trade" which really isn't free trade. But there can be no argument a superpower = a very strong steel and aluminum industry.