So you want better paying jobs?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

1) I don't see any books calling it mercantilism( see below)
2) China competes and wins capitalistically based on price and quality
3) Today all economists agree the mercantilism makes a country poorer, not richer which is why mercantilism disappeared in 18th century.
4) "tapping in"?? Tapping in based on price and quality is called capitalism.

Now do you understand?




"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"


"How China Became Capitalist"

In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis: in 2011, China’s state-controlled firms only accounted for about a quarter of the country’s industrial output; and their share in exports has dropped to about 11% today; in 2012, state firms were only responsible for about one-tenth of fixed investment in manufacturing. And in terms of employment, SOEs employed about 13% of China’s labor force in 2011, a dramatic decline compared with the 60% figure recorded in 1999.

 

[Correll]

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

1) I don't see any books calling it mercantilism( see below)
2) China competes and wins capitalistically based on price and quality
3) Today all economists agree the mercantilism makes a country poorer, not richer which is why mercantilism disappeared in 18th century.
4) "tapping in"?? Tapping in based on price and quality is called capitalism.

Now do you understand?

....

1. "Books?" No, I am not aware of any books calling it that either. It is simply an accurate description of their Export driven growth policies over the last couple of decades.

2. REally? How much of that Price advantage is from an artificially low currency? How much of that trade balance would disappear if they respected Intellectual Property RIghts? HOw many other ways do they "F**k US that we don't even hear about because no one who knows cares to tell US?

3. That's BS. Export led Trade surpluses created the Japanese Economy and the Chinese Economy.

4. Nope. It's Mercantilism. They are playing to win at our expense, they have been, while we are pretending there is a level playing field.

 

[danielpalos]

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

1) I don't see any books calling it mercantilism( see below)
2) China competes and wins capitalistically based on price and quality
3) Today all economists agree the mercantilism makes a country poorer, not richer which is why mercantilism disappeared in 18th century.
4) "tapping in"?? Tapping in based on price and quality is called capitalism.

Now do you understand?




"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"


"How China Became Capitalist"

In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis: in 2011, China’s state-controlled firms only accounted for about a quarter of the country’s industrial output; and their share in exports has dropped to about 11% today; in 2012, state firms were only responsible for about one-tenth of fixed investment in manufacturing. And in terms of employment, SOEs employed about 13% of China’s labor force in 2011, a dramatic decline compared with the 60% figure recorded in 1999.

i believe "better management" could have better enabled, "from each according to their ability to each according to their need", in the housing market instead of "punishing themselves" with lucre and a real estate market via Capitalism.

 

[Boss]

YOu have discussed the Rich as a group, arguing that the size and success of the group of the Rich is a sign of the success of the American model.

I agree.

I also believe that the size and success of the Middle Class is also a sign of the success of the American model and think that INCREASING THAT Size and success would be a sign of ever increasing success of the American model.

(assuming the growth came out of lower levels primarily)

Well I've argued in context of what people are discussing at the time, so I have probably mentioned "middle class" or "the rich" in conversation numerous times. That has nothing to do with the fact of the matter-- that there is no set group of people who are perpetually "middle class" forever. Some people might very well be in that group from the time they are born until the time they die... but they don't have to be in America, they can be as wealthy as they desire to be. We're not confined to our class here... that's 19th century Europe and Asia.

And let's say something about the so-called "rich" ...what exactly IS that? Would a poor person who happened to win $250k in the lottery one year be "rich" in your mind? According to tax law they would be... or so say the Liberals. What about a guy who has worked his whole life to build a successful business and he realizes a profit for the first time in years of $300k... is he "rich" in your book? How about a guy who pays no income tax and lives off his grandmother's inheritance, which after taxes, was a couple million dollars? How about that guy's uncle who is retired and living off social security but has $50 million in a Swiss bank account?

I live in a decent house and have basically every comfort I desire. I am semi-retired and don't earn a lot of taxable income anymore. I have investments which provide me with a nice fixed income and I am doing what I want in life. I don't consider myself "rich" but perhaps someone living in a cardboard box would. I've been to black tie affairs where some very rich people were... but there are even levels of "rich" among the rich! And guess what? Very few of these uber-rich people had ANY "earned income" to tax.... And... just because someone is "rich" today, doesn't mean they'll always be "rich" forever.

 

[Friends]

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity.

Boss says that socialistic policies have failed, and you reply that they are popular...

Communism fell in the Soviet Union, although not before raising Russia from semi feudalism to t he space age and doing most of the fighting to defeat Nazi Germany.

Democratic socialism has never existed anywhere.

Social democracy works well in Scandinavia, Germany, and in the British Commonwealth.

 

[Correll]

YOu have discussed the Rich as a group, arguing that the size and success of the group of the Rich is a sign of the success of the American model.

I agree.

I also believe that the size and success of the Middle Class is also a sign of the success of the American model and think that INCREASING THAT Size and success would be a sign of ever increasing success of the American model.

(assuming the growth came out of lower levels primarily)

Well I've argued in context of what people are discussing at the time, so I have probably mentioned "middle class" or "the rich" in conversation numerous times. That has nothing to do with the fact of the matter-- that there is no set group of people who are perpetually "middle class" forever. Some people might very well be in that group from the time they are born until the time they die... but they don't have to be in America, they can be as wealthy as they desire to be. We're not confined to our class here... that's 19th century Europe and Asia.

And let's say something about the so-called "rich" ...what exactly IS that? Would a poor person who happened to win $250k in the lottery one year be "rich" in your mind? According to tax law they would be... or so say the Liberals. What about a guy who has worked his whole life to build a successful business and he realizes a profit for the first time in years of $300k... is he "rich" in your book? How about a guy who pays no income tax and lives off his grandmother's inheritance, which after taxes, was a couple million dollars? How about that guy's uncle who is retired and living off social security but has $50 million in a Swiss bank account?

I live in a decent house and have basically every comfort I desire. I am semi-retired and don't earn a lot of taxable income anymore. I have investments which provide me with a nice fixed income and I am doing what I want in life. I don't consider myself "rich" but perhaps someone living in a cardboard box would. I've been to black tie affairs where some very rich people were... but there are even levels of "rich" among the rich! And guess what? Very few of these uber-rich people had ANY "earned income" to tax.... And... just because someone is "rich" today, doesn't mean they'll always be "rich" forever.

Even in your graph, by it's definitions, the "middle" is the single largest portion of the population at 40%..

IMO, it would be best to have policy aimed at increasing the income of that segment of earners ALSO.

IMO, the guy who wins the lottery for 250k is not rich. And I want policy aimed at serving his interests.

IMO, the guy who worked his whole life and finally has a profit of 300k is not rich. And I want policy aimed at serving his interests.

IMO, the guy who lives off his inheritance is rich, and I want policy aimed at serving his interests.

IMO, that guys uncle is rich, and I want policy aimed at serving his interests.

 

[Correll]

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity.

Boss says that socialistic policies have failed, and you reply that they are popular...

Communism fell in the Soviet Union, although not before raising Russia from semi feudalism to t he space age and doing most of the fighting to defeat Nazi Germany.

Democratic socialism has never existed anywhere.

Social democracy works well in Scandinavia, Germany, and in the British Commonwealth.

Interesting that you have to claim "saving graces" for Communism...

The Social Democracies of Scandinavia, Germany and Britain are not financially sustainable, and that is with the long history of indirect subsidy from the US carrying much of their defense burden.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism starts with a social contract; capitalism failed in 1929.

 

[Correll]

socialism starts with a social contract; capitalism failed in 1929.

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism starts with a social contract; capitalism failed in 1929.

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

 

[Correll]

socialism starts with a social contract; capitalism failed in 1929.

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

 

[danielpalos]

socialism starts with a social contract; capitalism failed in 1929.

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

 

[Correll]

socialism starts with a social contract; capitalism failed in 1929.

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism starts with a social contract; capitalism failed in 1929.

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

no, it hasn't. it has been the nationalized and socialized economy that has brought us to the level of development we have; there is no true private sector in the US that is not affected by the public sector as that form of Nurture within Nature.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

socialism starts with a social contract; capitalism failed in 1929.

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

 

[danielpalos]

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

what a difference a Social Contract and Constitution can make.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

what a difference a Social Contract and Constitution can make.

100% stupid and always. Cuba and Florida both have contracts and Constitutions. Florida's are capitalist and Cuba's are communist.

See why we have to be positive that a liberal will be stupid??

 

[danielpalos]

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

what a difference a Social Contract and Constitution can make.

100% stupid and always. Cuba and Florida both have contracts and Constitutions. Florida's are capitalist and Cuba's are communist.

See why we have to be positive that a liberal will be stupid??

the point, dear; is that our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention with out federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. That is what matters, most supremely, in our Republic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the point, dear; is that our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention with out federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

100% stupid illiterate gibberish!! Does anybody know what the fool was trying to say??

 

[danielpalos]

the point, dear; is that our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention with out federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

100% stupid illiterate gibberish!! Does anybody know what the fool was trying to say??

What a difference a social Contract and Constitution makes.