 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
The discussion starts out as an exercise in finding the right label to pin to China.
Is it capitalism?
Is it socialism?
They fail, as do most people reading from the false script, to accurately report on the true nature of all involuntary associations.
They fail to accurately report the true characters of political economy.
Is it voluntary socialism?
Is it voluntary capitalism?
Is it involuntary socialism (crime)?
Is it involuntary capitalism (crime)?
The accurate answer is:
China is run by legal criminals, it is crime, whereby the honest productive people in China, within the legal reach of the legal criminals running China, must obey.
There is no other choice.
China is no different than U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) from that base, foundation, of political economy.
China is not voluntary socialism.
U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) is not voluntary capitalism.
There is no free market within the Chinese legal crime enforcement network, the network that connects the legal criminals to the honest productive people, in China, in direct proportion to the flow of power from those who earn that power, involuntarily, to those who steal that power, and then use that stolen power in the work of eliminating competition. The free market is not free when it is no longer free as a result of people willfully making the free market no longer free, and that is self-evident.
There is no free market within the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) crime enforcement network, by the same accurate, self-evident, measure applied to China.
It is not free, each time it is involuntary, in each case, where by a force would have forced quality up, and the same force would have forced cost down, had the involuntary force not prevented the voluntary force to be in force, in each case.
Examples abound, following the actual money trail, whereby money (purchasing power) is stolen from those who produce the power, and then the stolen power flows to the thieves, and then the thieves spend the stolen power in the work of eliminating competition, such as a subsidy, or exclusive license, or whatever word excuses, or "explains", the transfer of power from those who produce power to those who use that power to out-produce the competition.
I have to make higher quality stuff at a lower cost than my competitor in a free market. That is the working definition of a free market, that is how it defines itself, as it works, and as it works that way.
When a competitor forces me to pay him, he force me himself, he gives me an offer I can't refuse, or he hires someone to take "protection money" from me, and then my competitor uses the money he takes from me, to make higher quality things, at lower prices, then that is the opposite of a free market, defining itself, working opposite a free market, as that works that way.
One is one thing - free market
The other is the opposite thing, even if you call it a "Free Market".
I don't know how it works in China. I can illustrate how it works in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) with many examples not limited to the paper trail that documents the flow of power from tax payers, like Elon Musk, and from the people employed by Elon Musk, in the Electric Car "Free Market" business, and then that money is then spent on subsidizing the competition - bailing out General Motors, or flowing to Chinese Electric Car Companies, so as to make Elon Musk pay to strengthen his competitors, while Elon Musk's own Electric Car Company struggles for needed credit, becoming even weaker, as he is forced to use his own power to make his competition stronger, instead of using his own power to make higher quality electric cars at lower costs.
That is not a free market. A free market is defined as a force by which competitors are forced to produce higher quality stuff, at lower costs, or be forced out of the market by someone who can produce higher quality stuff at lower prices. The opposite, may be a "Free Market"; whereby the social network is free from moral conscience, and free from competition, as power flows from those who create power to those who steal power, and then as that stolen power is used to make thieves and liars more powerful, and used to make the victims powerless.
Why act as if a competitive free market is the same thing as an enforced reduction in competition?
A free market is competition. Power used to end competition is not a free market, so why pretend, or act, as if one was the same thing as the other, when one is the exact opposite of the other?
I hear:
"Now, after we've come full circle around, after the economic collapse."
That is an accurate, and concise, description of the legalized crime known as The Business Cycle. A monetary monopoly power increases the supply of money to cause an economic boom on schedule, and then the monetary monopoly power decreases the supply of money to cause an economic bust, on schedule, so as to be in command of the exclusive knowledge of when to sell (at the top of the boom), and when to buy (at the bottom of the bust), so as to transfer surplus wealth from those who produce wealth, to those who run The Business Cycle.
Why does anyone act, anyone who supposedly knows something, as if The Business Cycle was some kind of accident of nature?
Why does anyone ignore, anyone who supposedly knows something, the fact that The Business Cycle is created and maintained by actual people who plan for, and then execute, The Business cycle on their schedule?
Can you guess?
How about asking?
Why do you, anyone, ignore the fact that The Business cycle is a serious crime in progress?
Paul? Anyone?
I hear "by not letting market forces run so free"
Why do people confuse one thing with the opposite of the thing?
A market force is not a crime. A crime is not a market force. If a crime is committed, then a crime in committed. Why would someone blame a crime on a market force?
Example:
If the "expert" authority on political economy is concerned about criminal cases of pollution, which I hear is a growing problem in China, why would said "expert" want to blame such crimes on the "Free Market"?
Answer:
Said expert confuses crime with the free market.
Said expert thinks that crime is the Free Market.
Said expert does not know that the free market is just a term that accurately identifies the process by which quality is forced up, and cost is forced down, by competitors competing for the scarce supply of consumer purchasing power.
Said expert wants victims to think that the lie is true.
Take your pick?
A. free market = working competition
B. Free Market = crime (people willfully injuring innocent people by way of pollution)
Why confuse one with the other, what is the point of confusing one with the other?
Confusing one with the other makes the good one appear to be less good as the bad one dilutes the power of the good one.
Confusing one with the other makes the bad one look better as the bad one appears to be diluted by the good one.
This is a function of the power of falsehood. The liar knows the truth, the victim of the lie is ignorant of the truth, otherwise the lie is harmless, and therefore powerless, and therefore not an effective lie. When the truth is shared, when the truth is no longer an exclusive property of the criminal fraud, the power of the lie is rendered powerless, a fable, a story, a joke, a fools errand that no longer has a fool to fool.
Do you want to be a fool?
I hear this "expert" claiming that the U.S. (open market) suffers, while China (authoritarian) wins, as a result of this recent crisis.
How convenient can lies be?
In the case of the example of Elon Musk, a producer of Electric Cars here in California, before the BUST of 2006/2008 (roughly), Tesla Motors was on track to begin producing a new Sedan model, in addition to their sports car already in production, and they then crashed along with everyone else.
Tax payer money goes from those productive people, and many others, to "Washington" in this supposedly "open" market, and then that money flows where?
They don't say.
Mums the word.
There are clues.
Warren Buffet
Did Warren get a bail out? Did Warren choose to invest in California, like Elon Musk, while paying all the costs required to meet stringent air pollution standards in California, or did Warren choose to invest in exploiting (criminalizing) honest Chinese productive people?
Did some of the money go to General Motors so as to make more gasoline powered cars, or to make competitive Electric Cars, as power flows from Elon Musk, and his employees, to Washington, or The FED, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and that stolen power is then used to subsidize the competition, effectively eliminating the force of competition.
Money taken from a competitor, Elon Musk, and then spent on making another competitor more powerful, Chinese Electric Cars, and General Motors Electric cars, built in China, where the workers are paid less than a living wage, less then enough to pay for their own medical costs that they will suffer as a result of increased pollution, is not a free market, it is the opposite.
This guy, in this Real News Report, is sounding more and more like a Snake Oil Salesman.
I just heard something that stinks, as in: I smell a rat.
Paul Jay asks something along the lines of: Why doesn't the Chinese leadership use all that power (capital) they have in the work of empowering the honest productive people in China.
The reason why I smell a rat is because I have a good answer to that question.
The good answer to that question is this:
If the Chinese leadership invests the power they get from the honest productive Chinese people into empowering the honest productive Chinese people, then they will very soon be less powerful than the honest productive Chinese people, therefore they do not empower the honest productive Chinese people.
There are very many honest productive Chinese people, so each of which having a little more power, is a whole lot of collective power, and there are very, very, very, few members of the Chinese Elite, "authorities", so one must be careful, no, in where one allows power to flow, if you have the power to allow, or not allow, power to flow.
The Dictator's Dilemma is not a new thing.
The smelly rat answer to the power flow question was something along the lines of dollar denominated capital has to be spent outside China, not inside China, which is stupid.
If, for example, the Chinese leadership did want to empower the honest productive Chinese people, they could take those billions of dollars, and offer the honest productive Chinese people interest free home mortgage loans, and interest free business property loans, for farms, shops, offices, anything, and then the honest productive Chinese people can pay back the loans, in dollars, or in Chinese currency, either/or, and that would then begin an age of monetary competition in China, instead of a monopoly money extortion racket in China, which could be the answer, if the question really was asking for an accurate answer.
Since the answer was a smelly rat answer, a political lie, and economic cost, the question remains unanswered, at least in The Real News Report.
I'll listen further.
I heard something along the lines of Chinese factory workers moving from the cities to the countries, and, here is another rat I smell, the next thing I hear is that food prices around the world are going up.
So there you have more people ready and willing, able, to produce more food, as they move back to the farm lands, from the cities, while food prices go up?
Why do food prices go up, if there are too many people ready and able to make more food?
More rats.
The expert says that Chinese food prices are going up due to inflation, or some other supposed fact.
If food prices go up, then food producers can sell more food, hire more food workers, and meet the obvious demand for more food, and that is separate from the price or demand for money.
If the money supply is being inflated, which is a major cause of inflation, the definition of inflation depending up how the word is used, then the additional money, the newly created money, the inflated money supply money, isn't going, obviously, to finance new farms, to make more food, or new water wells, to irrigate more food, because if there is too much food, the price goes down, not up.
Who would pay for food if food rained down like sunlight?
Who pays for sunlight?
If a Chinese city is no longer getting any sunlight, in the middle of the day, because the legal criminals are pumping out enough pollution to block out the sun, then some people may move out, and pay the price they are then forced to pay for sunlight.
When honest productive people, in China, or anywhere, learn to disconnect themselves from the legal criminals: power will no longer flow in the direction that makes honest productive people weaker, while that power flow makes the legal criminals stronger.
It is not a capitalist versus socialist power struggle, it is a crime versus victim struggle.
Confusing one with the other moves power from the victims to the criminals, it is a process called fraud.
The victims are confused, not the criminals.