|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 1, 2014 0:03:57 GMT -5
And that's how the free market works. The low wages paid to people in third-world countries don't stay low for long. Wages in China double every few years. Businesses then move elsewhere, but the same process still takes place. Wages increase as more businesses move in and compete for workers. And over time, workers increase their skills driving wages even higher. It's a prosperity machine.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 18:02:01 GMT -5
Oh, that's honkey dory. So businesses go into a country that has low wages. And when those wages go up, these businesses leave and find another low-wage country. So what then happens to the wages of the country they left? Including the U.S. where these businesses have left so they can prosper elsewhere? Huh?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 2, 2014 20:38:36 GMT -5
Oh, that's honkey dory. So businesses go into a country that has low wages. And when those wages go up, these businesses leave and find another low-wage country. So what then happens to the wages of the country they left? Including the U.S. where these businesses have left so they can prosper elsewhere? Huh? In fact Lily, the wages don't drop. The economy of China is still growing in spite of some U.S. companies leaving. Why? Because the Chinese economy is still growing. There are plenty of Chinese businesses that can take up the slack. Here is the data from the World Bank. The Chinese economy is still growing faster than both the USA and Mexico. A growing economy means more jobs and higher wages. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 21:11:47 GMT -5
But that's not what you said. You said:
You didn't mention that wages got higher because the Chinese economy got growing. Or are you saying that the Chinese economy got growing because of foreign busnesses moving in? Because that's what your post sounded like.
I have another question. Were the U.S. busnesses paying the laborers wage directly? Or were they paying the Chinese government who decided how much the laborers were to be paid?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 2, 2014 22:44:22 GMT -5
But that's not what you said. You said: You didn't mention that wages got higher because the Chinese economy got growing. Or are you saying that the Chinese economy got growing because of foreign busnesses moving in? Because that's what your post sounded like. Yes Lily, the Chinese economy started growing because they let foreign businesses move in. But now China has the second largest economy in the world. It's second only to the USA economy. They don't need foreign businesses to move in any more. Yes, the businesses were paying directly. Some businesses contracted the work out to private Chinese companies. They paid the money to the Chinese companies and those companies paid their workers. That was a business to business deal. The Chinese government wasn't involved. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 23:31:10 GMT -5
Do you really have any kind of proof for that, Bob? Because the longish article I read doesn't mention foreign businesses moving in as the causation for the Chinese economy to start to grow. There are two paragraphs from that article I find especially relevant. As I said, this is a longish article. www.economywatch.com/world_economy/china
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 13:27:17 GMT -5
Oh, that's honkey dory. So businesses go into a country that has low wages. And when those wages go up, these businesses leave and find another low-wage country. So what then happens to the wages of the country they left? Including the U.S. where these businesses have left so they can prosper elsewhere? Huh? In fact Lily, the wages don't drop. The economy of China is still growing in spite of some U.S. companies leaving. Why? Because the Chinese economy is still growing. There are plenty of Chinese businesses that can take up the slack. Here is the data from the World Bank. The Chinese economy is still growing faster than both the USA and Mexico. A growing economy means more jobs and higher wages. Bob Like in the US, where wages are still climbing and the economy is booming. Right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 13:28:59 GMT -5
Yes, the businesses were paying directly. Some businesses contracted the work out to private Chinese companies. They paid the money to the Chinese companies and those companies paid their workers. That was a business to business deal. The Chinese government wasn't involved. Bob The Chinese government decided where and when the first privatizations took place, and it decided to keep a good chunk of privatized industries in its own pocket. The Chinese government negotiated with Western governments for favorable trade deals, and did a lot to advertise China as the new booming marketplace of the new century. Even now, most private businesses are still partially owned by the government.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2014 15:39:21 GMT -5
Yes, the businesses were paying directly. Some businesses contracted the work out to private Chinese companies. They paid the money to the Chinese companies and those companies paid their workers. That was a business to business deal. The Chinese government wasn't involved. Bob The Chinese government decided where and when the first privatizations took place, and it decided to keep a good chunk of privatized industries in its own pocket. The Chinese government negotiated with Western governments for favorable trade deals, and did a lot to advertise China as the new booming marketplace of the new century. Of course the government had to make those decisions for the simple reason that the government controlled the entire economy! And your source for this fact is...? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2014 15:40:51 GMT -5
In fact Lily, the wages don't drop. The economy of China is still growing in spite of some U.S. companies leaving. Why? Because the Chinese economy is still growing. There are plenty of Chinese businesses that can take up the slack. Here is the data from the World Bank. The Chinese economy is still growing faster than both the USA and Mexico. A growing economy means more jobs and higher wages. Bob Like in the US, where wages are still climbing and the economy is booming. Right? Of course not. The government interferes too much here, and the interference is increasing. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2014 15:45:27 GMT -5
Do you really have any kind of proof for that, Bob? Because the longish article I read doesn't mention foreign businesses moving in as the causation for the Chinese economy to start to grow. There are two paragraphs from that article I find especially relevant. Your right Lily. My mistake. Letting foreign businesses in is only one of the causes for the growth of the Chinese economy. Wow! Thanks for that link Lily. That growth is amazing. Sure 170 million are still poor, but 600 million people were raised out of poverty in just 30 years. That sounds like a pretty good record to me. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 15:52:42 GMT -5
Who says it had any cause whatsoever? You still haven't given proof for that and it WAS NOT mentioned in the article about the growth of the Chinese economy. The only ones that prospered from exploitation of cheap labor in Chinese factories were the foreign busnesses themselves and I don't appreciate your using my article that way, as if, it backed your conclusion in any way.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2014 16:02:28 GMT -5
Who says it had any cause whatsoever? Then it would be the first event in history that had no cause at all. But Lily, when businesses open shop in a foreign country, they have to hire workers. That has to improve the economy because more people are working and earning money. And that is money and jobs that wasn't there before. The Chinese workers did benefit too. Remember that they took those jobs voluntarily. No one forced them. And they were earning more than they did before. And look what happened. Their wages went up so much that now some of those foreign companies are moving elsewhere. But Lily, your article said that the Chinese economy grew 10% a year for 30 years and that 600 million Chinese were raised out of poverty. I've been saying that for months now. The only thing is I thought it was 300 to 400 million people raised out of poverty. Your article says it was more. So it does back what I was saying. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 16:12:56 GMT -5
Bpb! It didn't say it was because of foreign businesses setting up shop to exploit low wages. Why are you doing this? Why, why why!!! It's really like hell debating with you. I'm done. Have it your way.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2014 16:18:36 GMT -5
Bpb! It didn't say it was because of foreign businesses setting up shop to exploit low wages. Why are you doing this? Why, why why!!! It's really like hell debating with you. I'm done. Have it your way. Lily, you said " The only ones that prospered from exploitation of cheap labor in Chinese factories were the foreign busnesses themselves..." That is what I was responding to. I pointed out that those Chinese workers also got something good out of that deal. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 21:57:06 GMT -5
Like in the US, where wages are still climbing and the economy is booming. Right? Of course not. The government interferes too much here, and the interference is increasing. Bob Ah. So you are going to keep ignoring that the US is a freer economy than China, because it doesn't fit your story of capitalism triumphant. I'm disappointed, but not really surprised, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2014 22:36:17 GMT -5
Of course not. The government interferes too much here, and the interference is increasing. Bob Ah. So you are going to keep ignoring that the US is a freer economy than China, because it doesn't fit your story of capitalism triumphant. I'm disappointed, but not really surprised, to be honest. Ah. So you keep ignoring the fact that my claim is that increasing freedom in the economy causes it to grow while increasing "regulation" causes it to stagnate. I suppose it is easier for you to argue against your strawman. I'm not really surprised, to be honest. Also, if you check through a list of valid arguments, "McAnswer is disappointed" would not be on them. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 20:55:16 GMT -5
Ah. So you are going to keep ignoring that the US is a freer economy than China, because it doesn't fit your story of capitalism triumphant. I'm disappointed, but not really surprised, to be honest. Ah. So you keep ignoring the fact that my claim is that increasing freedom in the economy causes it to grow while increasing "regulation" causes it to stagnate. I suppose it is easier for you to argue against your strawman. I'm not really surprised, to be honest. Also, if you check through a list of valid arguments, "McAnswer is disappointed" would not be on them. Bob What strawman? You said "The government interferes too much here, and the interference is increasing." The US government "interferes" to a far lesser degree, and in a significantly less invasive manner, than Communist China has done at any point in its history, past or present. That is not in contention, that is a fact, and even a superficial glance at the Chinese economy will confirm that. Point me to any point in history where the US government ran a majority of US businesses, and then we can talk about how the US government has become so much more "interventionist" than China.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2014 21:09:33 GMT -5
Ah. So you keep ignoring the fact that my claim is that increasing freedom in the economy causes it to grow while increasing "regulation" causes it to stagnate. I suppose it is easier for you to argue against your strawman. I'm not really surprised, to be honest. Also, if you check through a list of valid arguments, "McAnswer is disappointed" would not be on them. Bob What strawman? You said "The government interferes too much here, and the interference is increasing." Yes. This is true. But that is not my argument at all. My argument has to do exclusively with the direction of state intervention. Is it increasing or decreasing? 1) If state intervention is decreasing, the economy will tend to grow. 2) If state intervention is increasing, the economy will tend to stagnate or shrink. What you are doing here is looking at a snapshot of the economies. What you have to do is look at a motion picture. That is what my argument is about. The dynamics, not the statics. This is why your above criticism is not relevant here. Yes, the U.S. economy is freer that China's right now at this point in time. But as we speak, more and more regulations are being imposed. This makes id more difficult for businesses to plan. China, on the other hand, reduced regulation. If they continue to do that, they will continue to grow. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 7:21:06 GMT -5
What you are doing here is looking at a snapshot of the economies. What you have to do is look at a motion picture. That is what my argument is about. The dynamics, not the statics. This is why your above criticism is not relevant here. Yes, the U.S. economy is freer that China's right now at this point in time. But as we speak, more and more regulations are being imposed. This makes id more difficult for businesses to plan. China, on the other hand, reduced regulation. If they continue to do that, they will continue to grow. China has been steadily increasing regulation of its markets and legislatory protection of its businesses since the 1990s. They have introduced patent law, copyright, and several similarly far reaching regulations since that time. On the other hand, the US - and on a broader scale, the entire Western world - have steadily decreased government ownership and control over private businesses, and reduced environmental regulations, labor rights, workplace protections, and similar protections between 1980 and the late 1990s. Even if we compare the two economies as dynamic processes, your argument is bogus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 7:27:39 GMT -5
Also, this whole argument is a Red Herring. My initial response was in reference to Lily's post here: Oh, that's honkey dory. So businesses go into a country that has low wages. And when those wages go up, these businesses leave and find another low-wage country. So what then happens to the wages of the country they left? Including the U.S. where these businesses have left so they can prosper elsewhere? Huh? You answered that Chinese businesses (and wages) would just keep growing no matter how many businesses left for low-wage countries. I pointed out that this is not what happened in the US. So why do you think China's economy would grow indefinitely, despite its businesses moving abroad?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2014 17:35:40 GMT -5
What you are doing here is looking at a snapshot of the economies. What you have to do is look at a motion picture. That is what my argument is about. The dynamics, not the statics. This is why your above criticism is not relevant here. Yes, the U.S. economy is freer that China's right now at this point in time. But as we speak, more and more regulations are being imposed. This makes id more difficult for businesses to plan. China, on the other hand, reduced regulation. If they continue to do that, they will continue to grow. China has been steadily increasing regulation of its markets and legislatory protection of its businesses since the 1990s. They have introduced patent law, copyright, and several similarly far reaching regulations since that time. Patent law and copyrights defend private property, which is a legitimate government function. Thank you for providing more evidence for my case. That period you mentioned, 1980 to the late 1990's with steadily decreased government controls, happened to coincide with with dynamic growth in the U.S. economy. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2014 17:43:25 GMT -5
Also, this whole argument is a Red Herring. My initial response was in reference to Lily's post here: Oh, that's honkey dory. So businesses go into a country that has low wages. And when those wages go up, these businesses leave and find another low-wage country. So what then happens to the wages of the country they left? Including the U.S. where these businesses have left so they can prosper elsewhere? Huh? You answered that Chinese businesses (and wages) would just keep growing no matter how many businesses left for low-wage countries. Yes. That is because China's economy has reached a takeoff point and has less need of foreign companies setting up shop in China. There are plenty of Chinese companies to do that now. But the U.S. economy is still growing, although at a much slower pace. China's economy will keep growing as long as the Chinese government keeps reducing its interference in the economy. Keep in mind that it is not all businesses that are moving out. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 5:20:16 GMT -5
China has been steadily increasing regulation of its markets and legislatory protection of its businesses since the 1990s. They have introduced patent law, copyright, and several similarly far reaching regulations since that time. Patent law and copyrights defend private property, which is a legitimate government function. They also increase government control over the economy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2014 9:53:34 GMT -5
Patent law and copyrights defend private property, which is a legitimate government function. They also increase government control over the economy. No they don't. They only prevent theft of private property. Would you want someone to break into your house and steal your computer? If you were a computer engineer, would you want someone to steal your design for a computer? Same thing. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 5:49:00 GMT -5
They also increase government control over the economy. No they don't. They only prevent theft of private property. Would you want someone to break into your house and steal your computer? If you were a computer engineer, would you want someone to steal your design for a computer? Same thing. Bob So what you are saying is that your definition of "government control" excludes any and all beneficial forms of government control.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2014 9:54:56 GMT -5
No they don't. They only prevent theft of private property. Would you want someone to break into your house and steal your computer? If you were a computer engineer, would you want someone to steal your design for a computer? Same thing. Bob So what you are saying is that your definition of "government control" excludes any and all beneficial forms of government control. Of course not. That's another of your Strawmen. First of all, you haven't given your definition of "beneficial forms of government control." All you have done here is simply proclaim a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Argument by Proclaimation. From what you say here, prevention of stealing is not beneficial. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2014 5:50:28 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that your definition of "government control" excludes any and all beneficial forms of government control. Of course not. That's another of your Strawmen. First of all, you haven't given your definition of "beneficial forms of government control." You just named two in the post I responded to: Protection from fraud. Protection of copyright. If the government has the ability to regulate and adjudicate what counts as fraud and what doesn't, or who is the rightful owner of a particular name, brand, or design, then that is an instance of the government regulating the market for (presumably) its own benefit.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 11, 2014 15:26:43 GMT -5
Of course not. That's another of your Strawmen. First of all, you haven't given your definition of "beneficial forms of government control." You just named two in the post I responded to: Protection from fraud. Protection of copyright. If the government has the ability to regulate and adjudicate what counts as fraud and what doesn't, or who is the rightful owner of a particular name, brand, or design, then that is an instance of the government regulating the market for (presumably) its own benefit. Soy you would be perfectly happy if fraud were permitted? Is that what you are saying? How about robbery, assault, and murder? Are you also offended that the government defines these as well? Strange that you are not also outraged that the government gets to define who is "rich" and "poor" and then gets to define how much money must be redistributed. But presumably the government would never do that for its own benefit. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2014 8:01:01 GMT -5
Where have I ever said that public control over economic activity is a bad thing?
Why don't you adress what I actually said instead of going off on strange non sequiturs?
|
|