Jump to content

Who really believes tariffs are good business


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 974
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wrong! Guess who's price went up? BOTH! I had a $10k budget.  the import was $7500, the domestic were $10k, so, I was going to buy domestic. The DOMESTIC is going up, estimate is 1

My biggest and quite real complaints about China are: their own protectionism their rampant IP theft As for globalism itself, that ship sailed quite awhile ago. The invention of

Agreed - the corporations probably didn't expect to get ripped off as they did, and no argument the Chinese have engaged in industrial espionage on a huge scale. Tariffing their products incorpor

Posted Images

On 7/30/2019 at 7:05 AM, BravoBravo said:

The Chinese, Canadians, Mexicans, Europeans, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland,...many many others

So we list Europeans, then go on to list countries in europe as well?

That's like saying the United States population, Michigan, Florida, and Idaho... 

I suspect a slightly improved education could have rectified a lot of your issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Donald J. Trump
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Mr. Trump:
Attempting to justify that which is economically and ethically unjustifiable – namely, the punitive taxes that you impose on Americans who purchase imports from China – you (as reported by the Wall Street Journal) declared yesterday about the Chinese that “If they don’t want to trade with us anymore, that would be fine with me.”
Who in hell, sir, do you think you are? What gives you the moral authority to elevate your personal preferences over those of the millions of Americans who choose to trade with the Chinese? What gives you the right to deny to these fellow citizens the gains from trade that they obviously believe they enjoy as a result of such trading?
Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
Yes, in 2016 you won a nationwide popularity contest. But that victory means neither that your fellow Americans, all 327 million of them, thereby come to share your personal preferences, nor that you’ve acquired the right to elevate your personal preferences above those of any other individual.
All of your huffing, puffing, and pontificating about trade reveal that your eye-popping economic ignorance is matched only by your monstrous arrogance in assuming that you and your sidekicks are entitled to override the peaceful commercial choices of others.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking that a change may be coming in the trade war.

We could be in deep shit by April.

"If the U.S. continues to raise a wall of tariffs on Chinese goods in the coming months and China responds, expect a global recession in three quarters, Morgan Stanley said Monday.

“As we view the risk of further escalation as high, the risks to the global outlook are decidedly skewed to the downside,” Morgan Stanley chief economist Chetan Ahya said. The firm believes a global recession will come in about nine months if the trade war further escalates through the U.S. raising tariffs to 25% “on all imports from China for 4-6 months,” Ahya said. “We would see the global economy entering recession in three quarters,” he said in a note to investors.

President Donald Trump on Thursday unexpectedly announced that, beginning Sept. 1, the U.S. will add levies of 10% on the remaining $300 billion in Chinese imports that had not previously faced duties. These new tariffs “raise downside risks significantly,” Ahya said."


Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/morgan-stanley-escalating-trade-war-means-global-recession-is-coming.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Yes, in 2016 you won a nationwide popularity contest

Ahem, he actually lost the popularity contest.

What, you expect him to actually know..... or care..... about the actual facts?!?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What, you expect him to actually know..... or care..... about the actual facts?!?

- DSK

You mean, Donald Boudreaux?  Yeah, I am sure he wishes he was as well informed as you are.  FYI, he probably likes Trump as much as you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I am thinking that a change may be coming in the trade war.

We could be in deep shit by April.

"If the U.S. continues to raise a wall of tariffs on Chinese goods in the coming months and China responds, expect a global recession in three quarters, Morgan Stanley said Monday.

Never happen - the Republicans are the smart ones with the money.

Everyone knows that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buckle up -

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/china-confirms-it-is-suspending-agricultural-product-purchases-in-response-to-trumps-new-tariffs.html

Excerpt -

China confirmed reports that it was pulling out of U.S. agriculture as a weapon in the ongoing trade war.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce said Chinese companies have stopped purchasing U.S. agricultural products in response to President Trump’s new 10% tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sean said:

Buckle up -

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/china-confirms-it-is-suspending-agricultural-product-purchases-in-response-to-trumps-new-tariffs.html

Excerpt -

China confirmed reports that it was pulling out of U.S. agriculture as a weapon in the ongoing trade war.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce said Chinese companies have stopped purchasing U.S. agricultural products in response to President Trump’s new 10% tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods.

 

Donnie will be on twitter shortly to blame this on Jerome and the Feds inaction, there is no way he will take the blame for this debacle he's a very stable genius and a smart businessman.

Even when he's jumping off the cliff,  the leemings will follow.

Winning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donnie picked a fight he might not win, must be crushing......... for the bully.

Hopefully a few more a few more will come to realize that it was his singular ego and self proclaimed business prowess that got him on this collision course.

Wonder what plan B looks like? Wait a minute you don't have?

Winning trade wars was easy you said..........

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really believes tariffs are good business?

Whirlpool. No, wait. Aluminum manufacturers. No, wait. JSW Steel. No wait.
 

Quote

 

The fact that a steelmaker that once praised Trump's tariffs is now learning a painful lesson about the realities of "economic nationalism" might seem like karma—with maybe a touch of schadenfreude too. There's been plenty of that to go around. Aluminum manufacturers have sought protection from the tariffs that were supposed to help them. Appliance-maker Whirlpool initially cheered tariffs on washing machines before getting walloped by tariffs on steel and aluminum. And the American steel industry in general has suffered over the past year, largely because tariffs have increased prices and triggered a decline in demand—which has led to layoffs rather than the promised resurrection of American steelmaking.

But JSW Steel's suit is a welcome development. It's a chance for the courts to review the obvious problems with how the Commerce Department has handed Trump's trade policies.

The lawsuit demonstrates the extent to which Trump's trade policies are failing even for the industries that were supposed to be "winning." More government control over trade doesn't produce prosperity. It produces the special kind of misery that JSW Steel is now experiencing.

 

Offered with the usual apology for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to a Chinese economics professor on - I think Bloomberg? - who basically said the point of all of this now seems to have been to shatter the supply chain co-dependency that had developed.  The US didn't like the Chinese power as the 'inevitable gatekeeper' of large scale manufacturing and that by launching into this trade war and giving China no face-saving way out, it allows other countries in the region can pick up US business - assuming they're nimble enough to do it.

He said "I don't think this was Trump's plan but he has some very long term thinkers advising him".  I think that's a bit of 20:20 hindsight personally but we'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fakenews said:

So the US labeled China a currency manipulator but the currency has only devalued 2.5 percent this year.  They’re not doing a very good job but they might have a little extra incentive now.

China wants to manipulate their currency so we get good deals on their stuff?  Sounds horrible.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I was listening to a Chinese economics professor on - I think Bloomberg? - who basically said the point of all of this now seems to have been to shatter the supply chain co-dependency that had developed.  The US didn't like the Chinese power as the 'inevitable gatekeeper' of large scale manufacturing and that by launching into this trade war and giving China no face-saving way out, it allows other countries in the region can pick up US business - assuming they're nimble enough to do it.

He said "I don't think this was Trump's plan but he has some very long term thinkers advising him".  I think that's a bit of 20:20 hindsight personally but we'll see.

If President Trump has some long-range thinkers advising him, that's good. It's a hell of a lot more optimistic that anything I've observed though.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I am thinking that a change may be coming in the trade war.

We could be in deep shit by April.

"If the U.S. continues to raise a wall of tariffs on Chinese goods in the coming months and China responds, expect a global recession in three quarters, Morgan Stanley said Monday.

“As we view the risk of further escalation as high, the risks to the global outlook are decidedly skewed to the downside,” Morgan Stanley chief economist Chetan Ahya said. The firm believes a global recession will come in about nine months if the trade war further escalates through the U.S. raising tariffs to 25% “on all imports from China for 4-6 months,” Ahya said. “We would see the global economy entering recession in three quarters,” he said in a note to investors.

President Donald Trump on Thursday unexpectedly announced that, beginning Sept. 1, the U.S. will add levies of 10% on the remaining $300 billion in Chinese imports that had not previously faced duties. These new tariffs “raise downside risks significantly,” Ahya said."


Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/morgan-stanley-escalating-trade-war-means-global-recession-is-coming.html

President Trump will blame Obama.  And, the Faithful will do their best bobble-head impression and repeat that lie, ad nauseam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

President Trump will blame Obama.  And, the Faithful will do their best bobble-head impression and repeat that lie, ad nauseam.

Isn't it sad that so much of what you said is truth? Yet this round may be different. When it starts affecting their bank accounts, the shock comes first, rapidly followed by shrieks of reality. It might just be fun to watch.

,

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Isn't it sad that so much of what you said is truth? Yet this round may be different. When it starts affecting their bank accounts, the shock comes first, rapidly followed by shrieks of reality. It might just be fun to watch.

,

You are rooting for higher taxes and higher inflation so why the oanty pissing meltdown? :blink: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 8:44 PM, Navig8tor said:

 

 

Memo to jzk

You pay the tariff JZK........You exhibit such short attention span thinking,  you are incapable of the correct conclusion.

Snip:

But Trump’s tariffs are not paid by the Chinese government or companies located in China. They are paid by importers of Chinese goods - usually U.S. companies or the U.S.-registered units of foreign companies.

(This statement makes JZK technically correct,  however that is not where it ends:)

Importers often pass the costs of tariffs on to customers, for the most part manufacturers and consumers in the United States.

Educate yourself here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-tariffs-explainer/explainer-who-pays-trumps-tariffs-china-or-u-s-customers-and-companies-idUSKCN1SC1ZC

Donnie's talking up tariffs like he's winning and you're paying for it,  and financially  bailing the Soy Farmers and the Cotton farmers while you do that, did you have a bowl of stupid for breakfast?

Just saw this.  Yes, of course the consumer pays the tariffs.  Or they buy the more expensive US goods, which is the same difference.  Importers don't import for charity.  Either they pass the tariffs along, or they stop importing.  

There is no case to be made for tariffs.  Trump is a clown.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jzk said:

Just saw this.  Yes, of course the consumer pays the tariffs.  Or they buy the more expensive US goods, which is the same difference.  Importers don't import for charity.  Either they pass the tariffs along, or they stop importing.  

There is no case to be made for tariffs.  Trump is a clown.  

Moneywise but only if customers prefer the Chinese stuff. Otherwise it hurts China sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Define 'good for business'.

Whose business?

If you are a farmer you might have a different perspective.  There is a case for ensuring a countries food security to apply tariffs.

There is one best way to tell what is the correct strategy for humans, do the complete opposite to what Jerkz says.  Jerkz is a mouthpiece for non-human entities that have no morals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, random said:

Define 'good for business'.

Whose business?

If you are a farmer you might have a different perspective.  There is a case for ensuring a countries food security to apply tariffs.

We'll see how it plays. I was talking to a fellow farmer (Trump supporter as most here are). He runs his farm on notes already and said if this keeps up, he's already got plans to scram out of the country and start over.

OTOH, Brazil is loving it. Since China said they were buying no more ag products from the US, Brazil just jacked up their prices by 10% to China, so China may have backed itself into a corner if they become unable to maintain buying ag produce through a 3rd party 'undisclosed buyer'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

China may have backed itself into a corner if they become unable to maintain buying ag produce through a 3rd party 'undisclosed buyer'.

As if that would happen.  They would just find another path.

The US is more in a corner than China, they will just continue to adjust the currency to compensate, easy peasey.

The Irony is that China routinely 'manipulates the Yuan as normal business.  When they wanted it to drop, all they had to do was stop propping it up.  So when they stop manipulating, they get accused by the USA of manipulating the Yuan!

YCMTSHU

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

As if that would happen.  They would just find another path.

The US is more in a corner than China, they will just continue to adjust the currency to compensate, easy peasey.

The Irony is that China routinely 'manipulates the Yuan as normal business.  When they wanted it to drop, all they had to do was stop propping it up.  So when they stop manipulating, they get accused by the USA of manipulating the Yuan!

YCMTSHU

Not quite right. They like to peg it to the $. But yeah, they can and have manipulated it as a matter of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, austin1972 said:

Not quite right. They like to peg it to the $. But yeah, they can and have manipulated it as a matter of course.

Well, it is right, because that's what they just did.  Normal ratio of 7Y to $1.  Couple of days ago it dropped 10% to below that ratio.  Haven't checked today but they did it as a warning I believe.  Looks like the US is still having trouble understanding the new order.

Shipping in goods from the cheapest place on the planet has not done anyone any good in the long run.  MacDonalds has not done the world any favours selling burgers made from the ashes of the Amazon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, austin1972 said:

 I was talking to a fellow farmer (Trump supporter as most here are). He runs his farm on notes already and said if this keeps up, he's already got plans to scram out of the country and start over.

So even being bankrupted and forced out of the country by Trump doesn't wake them up?

Ron White was more right than anybody could have imagined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

So even being bankrupted and forced out of the country by Trump doesn't wake them up?

Ron White was more right than anybody could have imagined.

They don't talk politics anymore. At least not like when that nigger was in office...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, austin1972 said:

We'll see how it plays. I was talking to a fellow farmer (Trump supporter as most here are). He runs his farm on notes already and said if this keeps up, he's already got plans to scram out of the country and start over.

 

I assume he knows he'll need a passport and working visa?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, austin1972 said:

They don't talk politics anymore. At least not like when that nigger was in office...

I absolutely loved it when Obama was Pres because I knew how those rednecks and other RW fuckwits were suffering.  That's why I wanted Hillary to win, so that the same people would continue to suffer with a Female as their leader.  That's just as bad for them.

So now we are paying the price, and I hope at least some of them have started to realise what they have done.  Those who do not regret it, are truly stupid and unsalvagable as the stupidity and global embarassment is far worse than anyone dared speculate.  Those who thought that the 'checks and balances' of the government machinery would contain the damage did not really contemplate that he would remove the machinery. 

The checks and balances have about as much value as thoughts and prayers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, random said:

Define 'good for business'.

Whose business?

If you are a farmer you might have a different perspective.  There is a case for ensuring a countries food security to apply tariffs.

There is one best way to tell what is the correct strategy for humans, do the complete opposite to what Jerkz says.  Jerkz is a mouthpiece for non-human entities that have no morals.

No their isn't, clown.  What better way to ensure a countries food security than free trade?  That is how a country avoids ever having a famine.  And low prices are better for poor people.  Man you are stupid.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, random said:

Shipping in goods from the cheapest place on the planet has not done anyone any good in the long run. 

Its only lifted a few billion people out of poverty.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

3458671_orig.png?393

 

Yes it did randipshit.  Those people left subsistence farming to make a better life for themselves.  They can go back to eating garbage any time they like.  And the Chinese middle class has been created and is getting more wealthy.  That is why they continue to voluntarily work in those places.

What a dipshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Yes it did randipshit.  Those people left subsistence farming to make a better life for themselves.  They can go back to eating garbage any time they like.  And the Chinese middle class has been created and is getting more wealthy.  That is why they continue to voluntarily work in those places.

What a dipshit.

Yeah, who would want to work in the open air?

7569e150-acff-11e6-b935-0fb7cf94c466_044

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, random said:

Yeah, who would want to work in the open air?

7569e150-acff-11e6-b935-0fb7cf94c466_044

Those people want to work exactly where they are working.  That is why they left the open air and got those jobs to improve their lives.  China has lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter amount of time than anywhere in human history ever.  It used to be the US, but China didn't have to start from scratch the way we did.

Good thing for them that you are not their king.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, random said:

We could do this ...

3763.jpg?width=300&quality=85&auto=forma

or we could do this ..

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIxxDWXtN28hPtoNw3lzl

Holy fucking shit.  Random made a post with which I agree.  Those people can do either one of those things, among many other things as well.  So they do.  They do whichever one they think is best for them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jzk said:

Holy fucking shit.  Random made a post with which I agree.  Those people can do either one of those things, among many other things as well.  So they do.  They do whichever one they think is best for them.  

They thought they were bettering themselves, but instead became slaves.  They once had all the food they could eat in a community of friends and relatives. 

Now they can't work long enough to put food on their table and they are in a city full of uncaring strangers with air that is killing them.

If only they had known.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

They thought they were bettering themselves, but instead became slaves.  They once had all the food they could eat in a community of friends and relatives. 

Now they can't work long enough to put food on their table and they are in a city full of uncaring strangers with air that is killing them.

If only they had known.

No, dipshit, half of them once died before age 10.  You, of course, can still go live like that if you want to.  And so can they.  I wonder why they don't.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jzk said:

No, dipshit, half of them once died before age 10.  You, of course, can still go live like that if you want to.  And so can they.  I wonder why they don't.  

It can't possibly be nationalized health care, though...... you're pretty sure of that, eh?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

It can't possibly be nationalized health care, though...... you're pretty sure of that, eh?

- DSK

You think China lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty with some nationalized health care system?  Is that really how your brain works?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
14 hours ago, jzk said:

No, dipshit, half of them once died before age 10.  You, of course, can still go live like that if you want to.  And so can they.  I wonder why they don't.  

It can't possibly be nationalized health care, though...... you're pretty sure of that, eh?

This makes sense

You asked a question. I provided an answer, one with a high factual content and high correlation

Then you said

1 hour ago, jzk said:

You think China lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty with some nationalized health care system?  Is that really how your brain works?

Does this make sense to you?

BTW it's very difficult or impossible to "go live like that" referring to subsistence farming. There is no untamed wilderness to homestead any more. Hasn't been for a long time, actually. And the people who own farmable land tend to want to make money off it, not let squatters eke out short miserable lives on it.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should shock how the Trumpists rabidly support massive tax increases on the US public which their Dear Leader propose..but for some reason it doesn't. Seems perfectly predictable. If anything, I would be shocked if they did not. 

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jzk said:

You think China lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty with some nationalized health care system?  Is that really how your brain works?

And the International Definition of Poverty is less than US$1.90 ppp.

I'm sure that's welcome by millions!

So they were once free to farm, had freedom, control of their own lives.  Now they get $2 a day and are slaves.  Nice work on the spin.

china-economy-working-class-production-l

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

It should shock how the Trumpists rabidly support massive tax increases on the US public which their Dear Leader propose..but for some reason it doesn't. Seems perfectly predictable. If anything, I would be shocked if they did not.   

They're too clueless to realize that it will be massive tax increases on them.

They truly think that Mexico will be paying for the wall and China will be paying for the tariffs.

They really are that stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that the "original sin"?  The transference from the hunter-gatherer where you "worked" maybe 5 hours a day with less security to an agricultural society where you became a slave to the land.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Laker said:

Isn't that the "original sin"?  The transference from the hunter-gatherer where you "worked" maybe 5 hours a day with less security to an agricultural society where you became a slave to the land.

I dunno what anthropology books you read, or what you studied, but you seem to have things slightly askew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

I dunno what anthropology books you read, or what you studied, but you seem to have things slightly askew.

Pretty standard theology from the United Church of Christ point of view.  Genesis 1 and 2 were definitely written by two different authors and the fact that they are so separated leads one in that direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laker said:

 the hunter-gatherer where you "worked" maybe 5 hours a day 

:lol: Try worked constantly - and frequently went hungry.

All animals exist at a hunter-gatherer subsistence level. Their entire existence is spent looking for food. A few, like porpoises, are successful enough to have free time for play but they are few & far between.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

Pretty standard theology from the United Church of Christ point of view.  Genesis 1 and 2 were definitely written by two different authors and the fact that they are so separated leads one in that direction.

Those are not anthropology text books. Those are novels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

:lol: Try worked constantly - and frequently went hungry.

All animals exist at a hunter-gatherer subsistence level. Their entire existence is spent looking for food. A few, like porpoises, are successful enough to have free time for play but they are few & far between.

That's the old myth, yeah.  But the reality  -  based on observing modern-day hunter-gatherers, in the few places they've been able to carry on undisturbed  -  is that hunter-gatherers only spend a few hours a day hunting or gathering or cooking; and spend the rest of their time socializing, telling stories, gambling, engaging in ritual, and just hanging out. 

It's not like they can store up excess resources to get them through harder times, after all.  And it explains the colonial complaints about "lazy natives" where-ever and when-ever colonialist have tried to convert them to farming.

The flipside, of course, is the lack of anything resembling security.  Nobody's fat, and everyone's experienced real hunger, first-hand, in their lifetime.  When the dry season comes, or the rainy season, or the cold season... people die.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

:lol: Try worked constantly - and frequently went hungry.

Vast generalisation.

In Australia those original inhabitants inland, yes they worked harder, digging yams in the desert.  Those on the coast had it easy.  They had stone fish traps, oysters on the rocks, stingrays to spear.  Plenty of food.  Biggest problem was stopping freeloaders from taking their patch.

There is nothing more moral or rewarding than hunting for the family, and fun too.  The successful hunter has no problems with entertainment or self worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

This makes sense

You asked a question. I provided an answer, one with a high factual content and high correlation

Then you said

Does this make sense to you?

BTW it's very difficult or impossible to "go live like that" referring to subsistence farming. There is no untamed wilderness to homestead any more. Hasn't been for a long time, actually. And the people who own farmable land tend to want to make money off it, not let squatters eke out short miserable lives on it.

- DSK

Have you been to western China?  Do you have any what you are talking about?  Chinese are migrating from Western and North China to the cities to get jobs.  They can always go back.  I wonder why they aren't.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, random said:

And the International Definition of Poverty is less than US$1.90 ppp.

I'm sure that's welcome by millions!

So they were once free to farm, had freedom, control of their own lives.  Now they get $2 a day and are slaves.  Nice work on the spin.

china-economy-working-class-production-l

Yes, thank you for citing the real definition of poverty.  I wonder why there is no poverty real in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Have you been to western China?  Do you have any what you are talking about?  Chinese are migrating from Western and North China to the cities to get jobs.  They can always go back.  I wonder why they aren't.  

Because they are slaves and can't leave.  No money, no home, no hope.

That's why China has been the factory of the planet.

tiring-working-conditions.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Because they are slaves and can't leave.  No money, no home, no hope.

That's why China has been the factory of the planet.

tiring-working-conditions.jpg

I suspect there is forced labor in China and all sorts of other oppressive things.  But 99% of the workers are free to go wherever they want.  But they choose the factories to make better lives for themselves.  The wage rate in China, in most cases, is now higher than in Mexico.  People are improving their skills, their productivity, and are becoming worth more.

Clowns like you who want to rule over people would prevent them from voluntarily choosing to work in the factory to lift themselves out of poverty. 

You, sir, are one evil bastard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

 

Clowns like you who want to rule over people would prevent them from voluntarily choosing to work in the factory to lift themselves out of poverty. 

You, sir, are one evil bastard.

no one said that you fucking weasel.

 

no offense to weasels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Have you been to western China?  Do you have any what you are talking about?  Chinese are migrating from Western and North China to the cities to get jobs.  They can always go back.  I wonder why they aren't.  

 

Did you actually read -any- of the posts you're "responding" to?

I'm sure you wonder about a lot of things, including why everybody including your mother considers you an idiot

- DSK

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Did you actually read -any- of the posts you're "responding" to?

I'm sure you wonder about a lot of things, including why everybody including your mother considers you an idiot

- DSK

 

 

Just this comment of yours, moron:

"BTW it's very difficult or impossible to "go live like that" referring to subsistence farming."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Just this comment of yours, moron:

"BTW it's very difficult or impossible to "go live like that" referring to subsistence farming."

 

That would explain why so many Chinese aren't doing it

At least, to everyone who isn't a pinhead. No surprise you don't understand it

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the biggest fucking morons, like those that inhabit PA would try to make the case that pre-industrial civilization was "better" than today's civilization.  Go wipe your ass with leaves, sleep outside, and be a hunter gatherer for a few weeks and see how it works out for you.  Even in the US, there are all kinds of public lands available for you to give it a try.

I hear even randipshit lives in a house.  How can that be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

That would explain why so many Chinese aren't doing it

At least, to everyone who isn't a pinhead. No surprise you don't understand it

- DSK

They aren't doing it, moron, because it fucking sucks, not because it is not "available" to them.  And, plenty still are doing it.

You really are stupid.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

:lol: Try worked constantly - and frequently went hungry.

All animals exist at a hunter-gatherer subsistence level. Their entire existence is spent looking for food. A few, like porpoises, are successful enough to have free time for play but they are few & far between.

It may seem so, but for culture to advance, which we have, there must be surplus.  In their case it was time, in our case it is materials.  Making of religious places that are essentially rings of stone takes a lot of time.  There is great variability across cultures, but contrasts between modern hunter-gatherers such as in South Africa and modern goat herders in Iran show that the hunter-gatherers have plenty of time.  They can advance their civilization although they haven't.  The goat herders have none and can't.  There is the factor of life insecurity for the hunter-gatherer.  One can see that may be a reason for acceptance of the tyranny of agricultural existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Parable of the Mexican Fisherman comes to mind in this discussion.  Where a stock broker talks to a Mexican fisherman about working harder and smarter just to remain in the same place.  The working harder and smarter only adds the dimension of security.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Laker said:

Isn't that the "original sin"?  The transference from the hunter-gatherer where you "worked" maybe 5 hours a day with less security to an agricultural society where you became a slave to the land.

 It's a stretch to assume that people transitioned to agriculture because it was harder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mark K said:
20 hours ago, Laker said:

Isn't that the "original sin"?  The transference from the hunter-gatherer where you "worked" maybe 5 hours a day with less security to an agricultural society where you became a slave to the land.

 It's a stretch to assume that people transitioned to agriculture because it was harder. 

Correct. It may be based on the subconscious egotistical need to tell oneself "I am so-o much smarter than all those primitive people back then" when the opposite is almost certainly true.

It's all about security. Going hungry sucks. Once a small group of people starts deliberately growing edible plants, watering and fertilizing them, etc etc, it would be very difficult for neighbors with a strong memory of famine to not copy them. Next thing you know, a whole region of people depending on crops.

And this plays back to "original sin" which I don't think was the transition, it was the farmer telling the nomad "stay the fuck out of my fields" when the nomad doesn't think of land as belonging to anybody, just that he need to wander around looking for food. And farmers would be more numerous and better armed than nomads.

If you like this kind of thing, 'Guns, Germs, And Steel' by Jared Diamond is the place to go get more of it.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They're too clueless to realize that it will be massive tax increases on them.

They truly think that Mexico will be paying for the wall and China will be paying for the tariffs.

They really are that stupid.

They also don’t seem to realize that the billions in tariff “reparations” fRump is handing out come from evil taxes.  

Of course they’ve been living off farm subsidies so long they’re immune to understanding that they are part of the taker community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Correct. It may be based on the subconscious egotistical need to tell oneself "I am so-o much smarter than all those primitive people back then" when the opposite is almost certainly true.

It's all about security. Going hungry sucks. Once a small group of people starts deliberately growing edible plants, watering and fertilizing them, etc etc, it would be very difficult for neighbors with a strong memory of famine to not copy them. Next thing you know, a whole region of people depending on crops.

And this plays back to "original sin" which I don't think was the transition, it was the farmer telling the nomad "stay the fuck out of my fields" when the nomad doesn't think of land as belonging to anybody, just that he need to wander around looking for food. And farmers would be more numerous and better armed than nomads.

If you like this kind of thing, 'Guns, Germs, And Steel' by Jared Diamond is the place to go get more of it.

- DSK

Original sin was about the apple and the fickle nature of Adam's Rib and the evil nature of snakes. As the tree was planted there by God, Adam wasn't an orchardist, so I don't see the relevance.

The "five hours a day" and "slave to the land" seems odd to me. Are you sure that farming required more than an average of "five hours a day"...like every day?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jzk said:

It is very common for the Chinese to take a nap during their breaks.  What about it, dipshit?

The exposé of China's forced labour camps shows why you might be wearing slave-made clothes

With China’s western-most province of Xinjiang being turned into a mass internment camp, this week's ABC Four Corners program reported on the Chinese Communist Party’s alleged plans to put up to a million detained Uyghurs to work.

The exposé highlights how global supply chains make it possible for the clothes you’re wearing, and many other things you own, to have been made using slavery.

The program featured the cases of several women who say they have been forced to work in textile factories. According to China scholar Adrian Zenz, government documents reveal plans for “re-education” through labour. Satellite photos show what look like large warehouses close to detention camps.

Target, Cotton On, Jeanswest, Dangerfield, IKEA and H&M are among the brands in Australia sourcing cotton from Xinjiang, according to Four Corners. In response to questions from the ABC, Target and Cotton On declared they would investigate their relationships with suppliers.

Link to post
Share on other sites