PIIGS R’ us?

[gandalf]

Some of the comments on this thread make no sense whatsoever. China is not a model of laissez-faire capitalism. China is a communist country. It’s not free market capitalism. It’s tightly managed and heavily subsidized by a powerful, central communist government that has its hands in everything.

If the tables were turned, and labor costs were cheaper outside China, everyone on this board knows full well the Chinese government would outright prohibit Chinese companies from exporting jobs (and money) from China. There would be tariffs and nationalization of plants, contracts and resources. People would be jailed or disappear. China isn’t a free market.

The UK is not a good model either, for a variety of country-specific reasons. Germany is a socialist western democracy with a relatively high standard of living and has managed the economic pressures reasonably well, including a thriving manufacturing sector. If you want to compare economies, how about taking a closer look at Germany?

[Arraya]

[quote=gandalf]Some of the comments on this thread make no sense whatsoever. China is not a model of laissez-faire capitalism. China is a communist country. It’s not free market capitalism. It’s tightly managed and heavily subsidized by a powerful, central communist government that has its hands in everything.[/quote]

China is state-capitalist if you wanted to be accurate. Interestingly, the libertarian gold bugs that preach the evils of state controlled economies all advocate investing in China. Most notably Peter Schiff, Ron Paul’s economic advisor.

There has really never been a laissez-fair economy – every time the world tried we wound up in a world war. Laissez-fair was planned and it failed. Early capitalist economies were called the “political economy” for a reason. It did not separate to political and economic sciences until the 19th century, which is when they came up with Laissez-fair.

[quote=gandalf]
If the tables were turned, and labor costs were cheaper outside China, everyone on this board knows full well the Chinese government would outright prohibit Chinese companies from exporting jobs (and money) from China. There would be tariffs and nationalization of plants, contracts and resources. People would be jailed or disappear. China isn’t a free market.[/quote]

Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=

[Arraya]

[quote=gandalf]Some of the comments on this thread make no sense whatsoever. China is not a model of laissez-faire capitalism. China is a communist country. It’s not free market capitalism. It’s tightly managed and heavily subsidized by a powerful, central communist government that has its hands in everything.[/quote]

China is state-capitalist if you wanted to be accurate. Interestingly, the libertarian gold bugs that preach the evils of state controlled economies all advocate investing in China. Most notably Peter Schiff, Ron Paul’s economic advisor.

There has really never been a laissez-fair economy – every time the world tried we wound up in a world war. Laissez-fair was planned and it failed. Early capitalist economies were called the “political economy” for a reason. It did not separate to political and economic sciences until the 19th century, which is when they came up with Laissez-fair.

[quote=gandalf]
If the tables were turned, and labor costs were cheaper outside China, everyone on this board knows full well the Chinese government would outright prohibit Chinese companies from exporting jobs (and money) from China. There would be tariffs and nationalization of plants, contracts and resources. People would be jailed or disappear. China isn’t a free market.[/quote]

Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=

[Arraya]

[quote=gandalf]Some of the comments on this thread make no sense whatsoever. China is not a model of laissez-faire capitalism. China is a communist country. It’s not free market capitalism. It’s tightly managed and heavily subsidized by a powerful, central communist government that has its hands in everything.[/quote]

China is state-capitalist if you wanted to be accurate. Interestingly, the libertarian gold bugs that preach the evils of state controlled economies all advocate investing in China. Most notably Peter Schiff, Ron Paul’s economic advisor.

There has really never been a laissez-fair economy – every time the world tried we wound up in a world war. Laissez-fair was planned and it failed. Early capitalist economies were called the “political economy” for a reason. It did not separate to political and economic sciences until the 19th century, which is when they came up with Laissez-fair.

[quote=gandalf]
If the tables were turned, and labor costs were cheaper outside China, everyone on this board knows full well the Chinese government would outright prohibit Chinese companies from exporting jobs (and money) from China. There would be tariffs and nationalization of plants, contracts and resources. People would be jailed or disappear. China isn’t a free market.[/quote]

Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=

[Arraya]

[quote=gandalf]Some of the comments on this thread make no sense whatsoever. China is not a model of laissez-faire capitalism. China is a communist country. It’s not free market capitalism. It’s tightly managed and heavily subsidized by a powerful, central communist government that has its hands in everything.[/quote]

China is state-capitalist if you wanted to be accurate. Interestingly, the libertarian gold bugs that preach the evils of state controlled economies all advocate investing in China. Most notably Peter Schiff, Ron Paul’s economic advisor.

There has really never been a laissez-fair economy – every time the world tried we wound up in a world war. Laissez-fair was planned and it failed. Early capitalist economies were called the “political economy” for a reason. It did not separate to political and economic sciences until the 19th century, which is when they came up with Laissez-fair.

[quote=gandalf]
If the tables were turned, and labor costs were cheaper outside China, everyone on this board knows full well the Chinese government would outright prohibit Chinese companies from exporting jobs (and money) from China. There would be tariffs and nationalization of plants, contracts and resources. People would be jailed or disappear. China isn’t a free market.[/quote]

Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=

[Arraya]

[quote=gandalf]Some of the comments on this thread make no sense whatsoever. China is not a model of laissez-faire capitalism. China is a communist country. It’s not free market capitalism. It’s tightly managed and heavily subsidized by a powerful, central communist government that has its hands in everything.[/quote]

China is state-capitalist if you wanted to be accurate. Interestingly, the libertarian gold bugs that preach the evils of state controlled economies all advocate investing in China. Most notably Peter Schiff, Ron Paul’s economic advisor.

There has really never been a laissez-fair economy – every time the world tried we wound up in a world war. Laissez-fair was planned and it failed. Early capitalist economies were called the “political economy” for a reason. It did not separate to political and economic sciences until the 19th century, which is when they came up with Laissez-fair.

[quote=gandalf]
If the tables were turned, and labor costs were cheaper outside China, everyone on this board knows full well the Chinese government would outright prohibit Chinese companies from exporting jobs (and money) from China. There would be tariffs and nationalization of plants, contracts and resources. People would be jailed or disappear. China isn’t a free market.[/quote]

Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]

Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]

But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.

BTW, Japanese car manufacturers who really did produce better cars, yet still managed to have pretty decent labor and environmental standards are not the same kind of threat that “American” companies who outsource jobs solely because of the lack of labor and environmental standards in “developing” nations.

I don’t have a problem with American workers competing on a level playing field — same wages/labor standards and environmental standards, but if someone can actually make a **better** product, they should be the ones to succeed. What we’re doing in China (and Mexico, and Vietnam, and Cambodia, etc.) is NOT about competing to make superior goods, it is pure wage arbitrage, and it will end up sinking labor around the world.

Of course, I think we need to support American labor over foreign labor because we need to be self-sufficient and productive in our own country. Without American labor, our country will collapse (unless one thinks we can all get rich flipping houses/stocks/bonds/commodities/etc. to one another at ever-increasing prices).

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]

Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]

But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.

BTW, Japanese car manufacturers who really did produce better cars, yet still managed to have pretty decent labor and environmental standards are not the same kind of threat that “American” companies who outsource jobs solely because of the lack of labor and environmental standards in “developing” nations.

I don’t have a problem with American workers competing on a level playing field — same wages/labor standards and environmental standards, but if someone can actually make a **better** product, they should be the ones to succeed. What we’re doing in China (and Mexico, and Vietnam, and Cambodia, etc.) is NOT about competing to make superior goods, it is pure wage arbitrage, and it will end up sinking labor around the world.

Of course, I think we need to support American labor over foreign labor because we need to be self-sufficient and productive in our own country. Without American labor, our country will collapse (unless one thinks we can all get rich flipping houses/stocks/bonds/commodities/etc. to one another at ever-increasing prices).

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]

Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]

But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.

BTW, Japanese car manufacturers who really did produce better cars, yet still managed to have pretty decent labor and environmental standards are not the same kind of threat that “American” companies who outsource jobs solely because of the lack of labor and environmental standards in “developing” nations.

I don’t have a problem with American workers competing on a level playing field — same wages/labor standards and environmental standards, but if someone can actually make a **better** product, they should be the ones to succeed. What we’re doing in China (and Mexico, and Vietnam, and Cambodia, etc.) is NOT about competing to make superior goods, it is pure wage arbitrage, and it will end up sinking labor around the world.

Of course, I think we need to support American labor over foreign labor because we need to be self-sufficient and productive in our own country. Without American labor, our country will collapse (unless one thinks we can all get rich flipping houses/stocks/bonds/commodities/etc. to one another at ever-increasing prices).

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]

Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]

But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.

BTW, Japanese car manufacturers who really did produce better cars, yet still managed to have pretty decent labor and environmental standards are not the same kind of threat that “American” companies who outsource jobs solely because of the lack of labor and environmental standards in “developing” nations.

I don’t have a problem with American workers competing on a level playing field — same wages/labor standards and environmental standards, but if someone can actually make a **better** product, they should be the ones to succeed. What we’re doing in China (and Mexico, and Vietnam, and Cambodia, etc.) is NOT about competing to make superior goods, it is pure wage arbitrage, and it will end up sinking labor around the world.

Of course, I think we need to support American labor over foreign labor because we need to be self-sufficient and productive in our own country. Without American labor, our country will collapse (unless one thinks we can all get rich flipping houses/stocks/bonds/commodities/etc. to one another at ever-increasing prices).

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]

Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]

But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.

BTW, Japanese car manufacturers who really did produce better cars, yet still managed to have pretty decent labor and environmental standards are not the same kind of threat that “American” companies who outsource jobs solely because of the lack of labor and environmental standards in “developing” nations.

I don’t have a problem with American workers competing on a level playing field — same wages/labor standards and environmental standards, but if someone can actually make a **better** product, they should be the ones to succeed. What we’re doing in China (and Mexico, and Vietnam, and Cambodia, etc.) is NOT about competing to make superior goods, it is pure wage arbitrage, and it will end up sinking labor around the world.

Of course, I think we need to support American labor over foreign labor because we need to be self-sufficient and productive in our own country. Without American labor, our country will collapse (unless one thinks we can all get rich flipping houses/stocks/bonds/commodities/etc. to one another at ever-increasing prices).

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=[/quote]

That’s exactly it. We need to support industries that make sense for us.

No need to make shoes and other consumables in America.

Our problem is that while we were pushing financial innovations, and while we were distracted with wars and terrorism, China has moved upmarket. They are now making cars, trains, planes, computers and everything else.

I guess we still have education and pharma. the problem with pharma is that we need to create sick people to consume the drugs. And if they are not sick, they need to think that they are sick.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=[/quote]

That’s exactly it. We need to support industries that make sense for us.

No need to make shoes and other consumables in America.

Our problem is that while we were pushing financial innovations, and while we were distracted with wars and terrorism, China has moved upmarket. They are now making cars, trains, planes, computers and everything else.

I guess we still have education and pharma. the problem with pharma is that we need to create sick people to consume the drugs. And if they are not sick, they need to think that they are sick.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=[/quote]

That’s exactly it. We need to support industries that make sense for us.

No need to make shoes and other consumables in America.

Our problem is that while we were pushing financial innovations, and while we were distracted with wars and terrorism, China has moved upmarket. They are now making cars, trains, planes, computers and everything else.

I guess we still have education and pharma. the problem with pharma is that we need to create sick people to consume the drugs. And if they are not sick, they need to think that they are sick.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] Well, I think there is a difference between being despotic and having government stabilization and interventions of markets. And nationalized critical industries. Every government in the world intervenes in markets, otherwise they trend towards disequilibrium and run into problems. This does not make one communist. Nor do protectionist measures or nationalization.
=[/quote]

That’s exactly it. We need to support industries that make sense for us.

No need to make shoes and other consumables in America.

Our problem is that while we were pushing financial innovations, and while we were distracted with wars and terrorism, China has moved upmarket. They are now making cars, trains, planes, computers and everything else.

I guess we still have education and pharma. the problem with pharma is that we need to create sick people to consume the drugs. And if they are not sick, they need to think that they are sick.

[Author]

Posts