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

[Lumpenproletariat]

Alternative to competitive market & free trade: Issue a decree making everyone rich and happy.

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 . . .

Of course. So just pass the following law:

"Purpose, employment, and adequate income is hereby decreed to all citizens."

Just pass this bill in Congress, and BINGO! we will automatically produce the PERFECT IDEAL ECONOMY. That's all we need -- nice-sounding words to make everyone feel good. But they won't pass this law, giving everyone everything they want, because the dirty capitalist free-trade pigs are hung up on supply-and-demand and other inconvenient details.

. . . the perfect ideal economy to strive for:

1. No poverty. Extremely high standard of living for everyone with no needs unmet (Star Trek utopia)

No, the dirty capitalists won't let you pass that law outlawing poverty and providing "extremely high standard of living for everyone" because they want competition and profit-motive which cause poverty and reduce everyone's living standard except for the rich only.

2. Everyone encouraged to do meaningful and/or challenging work even if it is only for charity

Meaning even if it's only to provide makework for uncompetitive crybabies we don't need in those factories and which could easily be replaced by cheap labor paid only 1/10 as much.

Because "meaningful and/or challenging work" = factory jobs paying 10 times the value of the workers, even if we don't need those factories or they reduce our living standard because of the high labor cost which drives up the cost of the products.

And that's not possible in a competitive market system, where work is done in order to produce more for the consumers instead of in order to provide "jobs" for uncompetitive crybabies, like U.S. steel workers and auto workers who have to be paid 10 times as much as Asian workers. Whereas in the "perfect ideal economy" workers are paid in order to keep them out of mischief, not in order to produce more efficiently to serve consumers.

So we create the utopian goals of no poverty etc. by putting the workers into factories where we don't need them, because "factories" automatically generate income per se, magically, regardless whether they're needed, and the prosperity automatically is created wherever the factories exist, generating income to the workers within the factories, and the prosperity is caused not by the work they do but by their money being spent by them and which is generated by the factories we put them into.

Because it's really jobs and incomes which factories produce, not products for consumers.

3. Low impact to the environment with no carbon footprint

This really has nothing to do with the topic, which is about whether "jobs" per se are the source of wealth and should be subsidized and paid for by means of higher prices imposed onto consumers and higher taxes to pay for corporate welfare to companies which provide more "jobs" in return (whether or not the "jobs" make the company more profitable).

In Germany, which we're assuming is the ideal economy, the energy cost imposed onto consumers is about the highest in Europe, because conservation and renewable sources make the cost much higher. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power This diminishes the income per household, or real income per capita of individual consumers. This reduces their purchasing power and the demand.

If Germany believed in the need to boost demand, it would stop imposing high energy cost onto consumers, because this reduces consumer demand or consumer spending power. So Germany reduces the carbon footprint by imposing cost onto individual consumers and thus suppressing consumer demand and consumer purchasing power.

So if "low impact to the environment with no carbon footprint" is basic to the ideal economy, and we follow Germany's example, we must disregard the notion of promoting higher demand per se and higher purchasing power per se, and instead impose an austerity which suppresses consumer demand and puts the emphasis instead on utilitarian "greater good" and social benefit measured by how much anything costs, and on reducing anything which costs us more, and thus replacing anything which costs more by something which costs less to the total economy. This logic means eliminating factories which cost more if they can be replaced by something which costs less.

It's probably not true that Germany wastes resources on unneeded factories, as Trump and Bernie Sanders want to do, but if they do practice such waste, this contradicts Germany's logic for reducing the carbon footprint, which is to reduce that which costs more and replace it with whatever costs less to the total economy. Germany's merit is its austerity, which we see in its reduction of carbon emissions, thus imposing higher utility prices onto consumers. But its merit is not in any corporate welfare to companies to get them to produce "jobs" per se, which imposes a long-term higher cost onto the country.

Also IMO of all the countries in the world, Germany appears to be getting to these high advancements faster than any other country.

Its austerity discipline is what produces its advancements, not any corporate welfare and "jobs! jobs! jobs!" pandering to uncompetitive crybabies, like that preached by your heroes Trump and Bernie Sanders.

But Germany is definitely NOT an ultra free trade economy the Lumpens would want for the US!

It's not the corporate welfare and "jobs! jobs! jobs!" economy promoted by your gurus Trump and Bernie Sanders. Every country spouts these crybaby economics slogans, to appease the crybabies, but this produces the opposite of the economic discipline and austerity of the German economy. E.g., Germany's good factory jobs cannot be shipped off to China, to save on costs, like many of the steel jobs and auto jobs in the U.S. which are produced by corporate welfare, or which will be produced if we put crybaby-panderers like Trump and Bernie Sanders into power.

Germany's success is due to the much greater value it places on education and science, not to corporate welfare and "jobs! jobs! jobs!" demagoguery, such as from Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Lumpens wants us to be another huge Bangladesh, . . .

No, Singapore is the best model for free trade. Second might be Hong Kong. These also rank at the top for high living standard. As opposed to Bangladesh which is much more protectionist and anti-global, like promoted by Trump and Bernie Sanders. The following ranks all countries according to economic freedom and openness to trade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

Bangladesh ranks 121 on this list of 180 countries. N. Korea is 180. Hong Kong is 1. U.S. is 12.

. . . everyone except the filthy rich living in squalor.

The free trade countries have the least squalor.

Here is another listing/ranking of countries according to economic freedom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom It's about the same.

It's easy for "cause" and "effect" to get transferred back and forth in a "chicken-and-egg" problem. But for Hong Kong and Singapore all the indications are that the free trade caused the higher economic prosperity. It came first and the prosperity came later.

. . . living in squalor. No thank you Lumpens!

As usual you have no facts, but only your slogans and crybaby economics rhetoric, programmed into you by your gurus Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

(Or maybe it's you and the other uncompetitive crybabies who programmed the demagogues to preach your slogans for you.)

 

[RVonse]

Of course. So just pass the following law:

"Purpose, employment, and adequate income is hereby decreed to all citizens."

Just pass this bill in Congress, and BINGO! we will automatically produce the PERFECT IDEAL ECONOMY. That's all we need -- nice-sounding words to make everyone feel good. But they won't pass this law, giving everyone everything they want, because the dirty capitalist free-trade pigs are hung up on supply-and-demand and other inconvenient details.

Thats kind of exactly what China has and does today. And they seem to be far more successful than the US at least in terms of GNP growth.

Not saying I want to live in a communist dictatorship. But this is a very poor argument to say that style of government cant do better than so called free trading western democracy.

No, Singapore is the best model for free trade. Second might be Hong Kong. These also rank at the top for high living standard. As opposed to Bangladesh which is much more protectionist and anti-global, like promoted by Trump and Bernie Sanders. The following ranks all countries according to economic freedom and openness to trade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

Id much rather live in Germany than either Hong Kong or Singapore. For one thing, Germany has a solid middle class and a very high standard of living for ALL the citizens. Not just the top dogs on the pyramid.

Then look at your own list! Your own listing rates both China and Germany lower than the US, yet both of these countries are manufacturing powerhouses. So your list just proves that the openess of trade of the US has very little to do and perhaps irrelevance to being competitve with either of those 2 countries.

Thank you for supporting my position Lumpens!

 

[Horatio Parker]

There's no such thing as a free market, let alone an ultra-free economy. All markets are regulated, or, if you prefer, backed by authority.

Singapore certainly is not.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

The notion that the US operates either as a free economy or a representative democracy is fiction.

 

[DBT]

It is the nature of business to keep costs down and maximize profits. Management only pays what it needs to pay in order to attract applicants, or many cases, what it can get away with. A certain percentage of workers may be in demand for their skills and get a good return while the rest sign the contracts handed to them with no possibility for negotiation.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Why does no one ever question the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" dogma?

Because:
1. Politicians want to get elected and they know they cant without doing what their voters want.

2. The voters want more jobs. 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 then to steal for it.

3. The voters want a better life style. That comes from making more money as a result of higher wages as a result of higher and higher employment.

This stuff is pretty basic and should be easy to understand Lumpens. More employment is always in the best interest of society.

Bullshit. The politicians do the bidding of the donor class.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It is the nature of business to keep costs down and maximize profits. Management only pays what it needs to pay in order to attract applicants, or many cases, what it can get away with. A certain percentage of workers may be in demand for their skills and get a good return while the rest sign the contracts handed to them with no possibility for negotiation.

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Getcha 2 or 3 to get by.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course. So just pass the following law:

"Purpose, employment, and adequate income is hereby decreed to all citizens."

Just pass this bill in Congress, and BINGO! we will automatically produce the PERFECT IDEAL ECONOMY. That's all we need -- nice-sounding words to make everyone feel good. But they won't pass this law, giving everyone everything they want, because the dirty capitalist free-trade pigs are hung up on supply-and-demand and other inconvenient details.

Thats kind of exactly what China has and does today. And they seem to be far more successful than the US at least in terms of GNP growth.

Not saying I want to live in a communist dictatorship. But this is a very poor argument to say that style of government cant do better than so called free trading western democracy.

You're way out of touch with reality. That high growth rate in China is from capitalism, not communism.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Of course. So just pass the following law:

"Purpose, employment, and adequate income is hereby decreed to all citizens."

Just pass this bill in Congress, and BINGO! we will automatically produce the PERFECT IDEAL ECONOMY. That's all we need -- nice-sounding words to make everyone feel good. But they won't pass this law, giving everyone everything they want, because the dirty capitalist free-trade pigs are hung up on supply-and-demand and other inconvenient details.

Thats kind of exactly what China has and does today. And they seem to be far more successful than the US at least in terms of GNP growth.

Not saying I want to live in a communist dictatorship. But this is a very poor argument to say that style of government cant do better than so called free trading western democracy.

You're way out of touch with reality. That high growth rate in China is from capitalism, not communism.

Isn't that a convenient toggle switch of an argument.

 

[DBT]

It is the nature of business to keep costs down and maximize profits. Management only pays what it needs to pay in order to attract applicants, or many cases, what it can get away with. A certain percentage of workers may be in demand for their skills and get a good return while the rest sign the contracts handed to them with no possibility for negotiation.

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Getcha 2 or 3 to get by.

Minimum wage, work long hours and earn a poor quality of life in some of the richest countries on Earth.

 

[RVonse]

Of course. So just pass the following law:

"Purpose, employment, and adequate income is hereby decreed to all citizens."

Just pass this bill in Congress, and BINGO! we will automatically produce the PERFECT IDEAL ECONOMY. That's all we need -- nice-sounding words to make everyone feel good. But they won't pass this law, giving everyone everything they want, because the dirty capitalist free-trade pigs are hung up on supply-and-demand and other inconvenient details.

Thats kind of exactly what China has and does today. And they seem to be far more successful than the US at least in terms of GNP growth.

Not saying I want to live in a communist dictatorship. But this is a very poor argument to say that style of government cant do better than so called free trading western democracy.

You're way out of touch with reality. That high growth rate in China is from capitalism, not communism.

No it clearly isnt! About half the reported GNP growth is from building empty cities and infrastructure. Its not even real GNP growth but they count it anyway. All due to a central command style economy. Communism.

You are the one out of touch with reality. Take away all the empty buildings and their GNP growth goes way down.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

You're way out of touch with reality. That high growth rate in China is from capitalism, not communism.

No it clearly isnt! About half the reported GNP growth is from building empty cities and infrastructure. Its not even real GNP growth but they count it anyway. All due to a central command style economy. Communism.

You are the one out of touch with reality. Take away all the empty buildings and their GNP growth goes way down.

So basically, they are doing with building empty cities and infrastructure, that which we do with the charade of endless bogus wars of aggression and the stock market. Interesting.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It is the nature of business to keep costs down and maximize profits. Management only pays what it needs to pay in order to attract applicants, or many cases, what it can get away with. A certain percentage of workers may be in demand for their skills and get a good return while the rest sign the contracts handed to them with no possibility for negotiation.

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Getcha 2 or 3 to get by.

Minimum wage, work long hours and earn a poor quality of life in some of the richest countries on Earth.

Neoliberal economic policy = high tech low profile feudalism.

 

[RVonse]

You're way out of touch with reality. That high growth rate in China is from capitalism, not communism.

No it clearly isnt! About half the reported GNP growth is from building empty cities and infrastructure. Its not even real GNP growth but they count it anyway. All due to a central command style economy. Communism.

You are the one out of touch with reality. Take away all the empty buildings and their GNP growth goes way down.

So basically, they are doing with building empty cities and infrastructure, that which we do with the charade of endless bogus wars of aggression and the stock market. Interesting.

Yes. Except they actually get something at the end of the day, even if it is an unoccupied structure. Its not much but atleast with some future utility.

All the we get is people killed and hating us for what we do to them.

So Id say communism is overall smarter than corporate controlled government.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

So basically, they are doing with building empty cities and infrastructure, that which we do with the charade of endless bogus wars of aggression and the stock market. Interesting.

Yes. Except they actually get something at the end of the day, even if it is an unoccupied structure. Its not much but atleast with some future utility.

All the we get is people killed and hating us for what we do to them.

So Id say communism is overall smarter than corporate controlled government.

All the we get is people killed and hating us for what we do to them.

Oh well hey, we do that all over the planet, our economic system runs on it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're way out of touch with reality. That high growth rate in China is from capitalism, not communism.

No it clearly isnt! About half the reported GNP growth is from building empty cities and infrastructure. Its not even real GNP growth but they count it anyway. All due to a central command style economy. Communism.

You are the one out of touch with reality. Take away all the empty buildings and their GNP growth goes way down.

It's not a command economy by any means. The ghost city problem is very much like the run-up to the housing crisis here--private enterprise taking advantage of the way the system worked. It's just the government is so afraid of a crash that they have been changing the laws to allow it to continue. (For me the really scary one was allowing people to use their home as collateral in brokerage accounts to avoid margin calls.)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Because of China trade and cheap labor --

your standard of living is HIGHER! despite crybaby-pandering demagogues Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

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.

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

How is it "forced" when the companies are free to refuse and not do business in China?

Obviously they are better off to disclose their "intellectual property" and operate in China, or they would refuse. If you have a free choice to do it or not, how is that "forced"?

All businesses must comply with requirements of any state in which they operate. How is it bad for the economy if companies disclose their "trade secrets" or whatever you want to call them? When they patent or copyright products they are disclosing information which otherwise would be "secret," so what's the difference?

Throwing around buzzwords like "totalitarian" and "communist" doesn't explain how China is doing any harm to the U.S. by requiring the "transfer" of the intellectual property. Other countries could require the same if they choose. If it were bad for the companies, they would refuse, so apparently they aren't made worse off by doing this.

All China is guilty of is forcing us to admit the reality that

Cheap labor is GOOD for the economy.

Why don't we get over it and just recognize this truth, and tell the crybabies to grow up?

The reality is that China uses its cheap labor option to the extreme so as to increase its competitiveness in the global market, and that's it. They have no other advantage. They are not "cheating" or oppressing anyone or "stealing" or all those other emotion-packed hate words that China-bashers use. China is just beating out some other countries, or increasing its ability to compete, with its cheap labor. Other countries could do the same, but they don't want to suffer that cost.

Also Chinese consumers suffer a high cost in order to promote the aggressive trade policy and gain dominance in some sectors. This hurts China more than the U.S. or other countries.

There's not one thing the Chinese do which other countries could not do also, but they choose not to because the sacrifice or hardship is too much for them to bear. The mercantilism is a miscalculation based on snake-oil economics, while the cheap labor policy is producing most of the long-term gains for China, due to the extreme competitiveness.

The Chinese are like the scab labor which undercuts the high-paid workers who go on strike. This undercutting the competition in order to capture some of the business is a legitimate method of competing, if one (or one's country) is willing to make the sacrifice.

Yet China just gets to do what they want.

Every country does what it wants to do.

No they don't. Western democracies trade with each other on pretty much equal footing due to the fact . . .

That's what I said -- they do what they want. They don't want to make the sacrifice of doing the cheap labor kind of competition as China chooses to do. It's not "equal footing" between the Western countries, but there's a general consensus against the extreme cheap labor of the Chinese. Most of them accept the benefit of the cheap imports from China, and they choose not to reduce their wages low enough to compete with it. They might retaliate a bit with tariffs against China, but still not enough to exclude China from their market, because we all know that we benefit from the Chinese offering this cheap labor.

There's nothing wrong about China choosing to offer cheap labor. This doesn't mean there's no "equal footing" with other countries. Other countries too could choose the cheap labor policy of China, but they don't want to make that sacrifice, while China is willing to make the sacrifice. Japan also did it for many years, and now maybe Viet Nam or Cambodia etc. are even undercutting China on labor cost. There's nothing wrong with it. It's not "cheating" or "unequal footing" or anything else bad. It's just a sacrifice they choose which most other countries choose not to do.

. . . due to the fact they do not impose a totalitarian government on their people.

Some countries impose worse conditions than others. Your delusion that China is the only "evil empire" in the world is part of your China-bashing xenophobic hate. If there was no China, you'd find some other country to scapegoat instead. You hate any country where the workers are more competitive than you and threaten to take your job because they serve the consumers better than you do. You hate them because they outperform you. The problem is your hate, not the Chinese government, as all governments can be condemned for their various faults.

The Chinese system today is much better than it was 50 or 60 years ago when they did not threaten your job with cheap labor and you did not hate them like you do now. It's only because their workers are better than you that you hate them, and not for any other phony reason you're trying to come up with in order to hide your hate and xenophobia.

If labor is not free than trade is not free either.

The Chinese are better off today, including freer, with their cheap labor system, than they were 50 years ago when you did not hate them like you hate them now. It has nothing to with the labor conditions, but only your hate for someone who is proving that you're a crybaby parasite because they perform your job better than you do, and you can't stand it.

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's not what China is doing. You can't name anything they are "stealing." If you mean violating some copyrights or patents, the U.S. is free to do the same with Chinese products or inventions or creations. And individual Americans do "steal" from others, by violating copyrights and patents, in many different ways. Some of this is legitimate. Countries can enter into agreements to respect each other's intellectual property. But if they do not, then it's fair game to take what the other country created, and it's not "stealing." People copy each other in many ways and it's not "stealing" -- not the same as breaking in and stealing merchandise.

In some cases it's better to institute protections and enforce them, but not in all cases. In some cases the creator of something has to accept the fact that his creation will be copied by others. That's just tough. If you don't like it, don't invest in it. It's not practical to try to protect everything. The creator should be glad that someone thought his creation was worth copying.


What is China's "UNFAIR" advantage?

If China is "getting away" with something and there's no agreement we can reach with them on patents/copyrights, then the right response is to reciprocate and "steal" Chinese intellectual property -- tit for tat. Calling it "stealing" doesn't make it bad. If there's no agreement reached, then "stealing" is best for everyone, by both sides, and when China sees harm from it and wants it stopped, they will come to terms on protecting the patents/copyrights. But until then it's best for consumers if the "stealing" is allowed, or better, it's not really STEALING if the two countries can't agree on the terms for the protections. If there are no such agreed terms, then it's fair game for either side to "steal" the other side's intellectual property, as it's already going on anyway, in many forms, and we're better off as a result, not worse off.

We benefit from YouTube where there are many movies available which are not supposed to be available. This is not really "stealing." And YouTube deletes some of them, so there is some protection for the owners. But it's not always desirable to enforce the protections, or there's a limit to the benefit of it, and beyond a point the enforcement does more harm than good. It's also good that we can copy whole books if we want to (though it's usually not worth it). The law is not strictly enforced, nor should it be. There is too much whining by creators that their work is being "stolen."

And someone who undersells another, such as offering cheaper labor, is not "stealing" or "cheating" or doing anything wrong. They are doing a favor for consumers, which is never wrong.

That may be ok with you but it is not ok with the rest of us.

It IS OK if we all benefit. We'd be worse off if we had 100% enforcement of intellectual property rights. Patents and copyrights are often abused by the owners, who themselves are often the real criminals "stealing" from others who created something earlier which is then "stolen" by a competitor who gains the patent or copyright illegitimately. A patent/copyright is not always honest but frequently is itself an act of theft by the one who holds it, using it to deprive another creator of something they created on their own.

We have the appropriate option if there's really a problem with China, as there is nothing to prevent U.S. companies "stealing" from the Chinese as long as there is no intellectual property agreement between the U.S. and China. There is no advantage China has over the U.S. Just because you call it "stealing" doesn't make it bad. As long as consumers are the winners, there is nothing wrong with it.

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.

"respected"?

If you really respect private property, then you must leave consumers alone to spend their money as they choose. I.e., leave them free to take advantage of cheap foreign labor and foreign imports from China and elsewhere. To curtail their access to this is an abridgement of their property rights. Including their right to cheap steel, or products made from cheap steel, which you want to deprive them of, thus denying and disrespecting their property rights.

And you also disrespect the Chinese workers who produced that cheap steel and want us to buy it from them and are glad to have their low-paying job and are hated by you because of their greater contribution today in comparison to 50 years ago, making them far better off than their grandparents who were in an oppressive system which you wish they had stayed in, despite your pretense of wanting their labor to be "free." Rather, it's because they are more free than before that you hate them as being a competitor who is better than you.

And there is no such thing as private property in China.

Stop lying. Here's a feature on billionaires in China who are enjoying plenty of private property:



Of course there are limits to private property, in China or anywhere else -- and philosophical differences from one country to another. If you want total freedom of private property ownership, you have to abolish all protectionist restrictions on trade and allow consumers full access to all foreign production, no matter from what industry or country, and regardless of the internal policies of a particular country. E.g., there is not full property rights if we're banned from traveling to Cuba. Every additional restriction diminishes our property rights still further.

Corporate cronyism can still survive and thrive.

So you admit that's your version of capitalism, and especially cronyism for your particular employer, to protect your job, even though it screws other companies and workers who need foreign steel in order to produce their products better for the benefit of consumers, which is not the "capitalism" you want, because it would force you to compete in order to succeed, when you prefer to leech off others who have to subsidize your job.

But true capitalism requires the concept of private property and liberty.

There's no such thing as THE concept of private property and liberty. There are other concepts of it than yours only. The only "private property" and "liberty" you promote is that of select parasitic steel producers to leech off consumers. Or auto workers in Michigan to leech off taxpayers.

Your champion Donald Trump is trashing the property rights and liberty of others (as Bernie Sanders also would) by pandering to crybabies like you whose only way to get ahead is to leech off the rest of society who must pay higher cost in order to subsidize your babysitting slot ("job").

 

[DBT]

Cheap labour is good for business owners, shareholders, the CEO and upper management. It is not good for the workers, their families or for the national economy, which would benefit from higher incomes for workers because they spend more of their money on goods and services, thereby boosting the economy and creating a fairer society.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Cheap labor & competition & consumer choice has always worked and is the only sustainable economic model.

Right now under Lumpen's so called free trade - We have slaves in China producing . . .

And what were they before this "free trade"? Right now they are freer and more prosperous than they were back then. If they are "slaves" now, what were they before when it was much worse for them?

Only a pervert would say they are worse "right now" than they were back then. Maybe becoming a "slave" isn't so bad if it means life improves, as it has for the Chinese since they started trading with the U.S.

. . . producing cheap crap for the unemployed/underemployed . . .

An example of this "cheap crap" is a small heater I bought 20-30 years ago, made in China, which still works fine. And recently I bought another Chinese heater, at WalMart, better still, and costing only 1/3 as much (in nominal dollars, so actually 1/4 or 1/5 as much). Earlier I had bought a U.S.-made heater, which cost more and broke down, and also was more hazardous (smelled like it was burning up). So if these Chinese products were "cheap crap," what was the earlier American-made product which was even worse? and cost more?

Of course a lower-priced product is sometimes inferior, or lower in quality. That's called CONSUMER CHOICE, where the buyer may decide if the higher quality is worth paying the higher price, which often it is not. FREE TRADE means letting consumers have that choice, while Trump's protectionism means denying that choice to consumers and forcing them to pay higher prices, in order to subsidize the "jobs" of uncompetitive steel workers and auto workers and other crybabies.

. . . for the unemployed/underemployed impoverished in the US.

Their living standard is higher than that of the employed/overemployed Chinese workers producing the "cheap crap" which then raises the living standard of those unemployed/underemployed WalMart shoppers. Who's better off -- the employed Chinese worker whose living standard is much lower and can't afford to buy the stuff he works 80 hours per week to produce, or the unemployed "impoverished" American WalMart shopper strolling down the aisle putting the "cheap crap" into his/her shopping cart?

Actually both are better off -- even the Chinese workers are better off than their predecessors 50 years ago who did not have the U.S. consumers to buy their products and lift them up to a higher living standard. Just as cheap labor in America 100 years ago improved the living standards back then. The same as cheap labor always raises the living standards of everyone -- both the workers and the consumers.

Everyone in the U.S. is better off as a result of China trade -- from rich to poor, and everyone in between. Including the crybabies who whine about the foreign imports "cheap crap" from China. To them of course anything made outside the U.S. is by definition "cheap crap" which makes America worse off.

This ["Lumpen's free trade"] is NOT a sustainable economic model.

It's not -- if you're a pseudo-patriot xenophobe who defines a "sustainable" national economy as based on hating other nations which are improving and becoming more competitive and thus more threatening to our nation. When your goal in life is to keep everyone else down, in order to make you look better, it's difficult to find a sustainable model.

 

[RVonse]

It IS OK if we all benefit. We'd be worse off if we had 100% enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Do you really believe this Lumpens? Because if you do, I give up because now I am debating a free trader who is also a socialist. In your world view, Hollywood movies can be copied and distributed with no remunerations ever going to the producers.

Surely even you can connect the dots Lumpens... capitalism would quickly collapse under your such rule of law. Because no producer would ever spend a dime doing anything if they knew their work would be legally copied and freely distributed to everyone in the public.

Free distribution of intellectual property is NOT OK if everyone but the producer benefits. You may benefit and I may benefit but that does not make it right or help it work. Ask Venezuela how your kind of socialist economy is working for them.