Kamunism

[Patented Phil 1,469]

2 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

INSIGHTS

Analysis of all 37.5 million registered firms in China reveals that 65% of the largest 1,000 private owners have direct equity ties with state owners. All told, over 100,000 private owners had equity ties to the state, comprising 15% of China’s registered capital in 2019.

Large private owners also hold significant stakes in smaller firms that themselves invest in other private owners. This results in 3.5 million "indirectly state-connected" private owners, comprising an additional 18% of China's registered capital in 2019.

The number of private owners with direct equity ties with the state almost tripled between 2000 and 2019, and those with indirect equity ties rose 50-fold. The analysis suggests that equity ties to the state may have aided, not constrained, the growth of China’s private sector.  
 
Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institution - The Rise of the State-Connected Private Sector in China November 1, 2023  

Exactly.  My point here is that the traditional, early 1900’s definitions of Socialism and Communism no longer work.  There are almost no examples in the current world where a government “owns the means of production.”  I’m not even sure people can define what that definition means with real-world examples.  Who truly “owns” anything today?  What does that even mean?  Today it’s more about the degree to which Governments can exert influence over the economy, and that’s primarily defined by the extent of Regulations in play.

Private ownership is rampant in China.  In North Korea there are more privately owned companies than state-run.  SquidTard, @timschochet, and the rest of the Leftists today like to stick with the1920’s definitions so they don’t have to acknowledge that what Kamala is proposing is more closely aligned with some of the most far Left economies of the world than it is to farthest Right.

Tim is also stuck in the 80’s and early 90’s with his neoliberalism nonsense.  That ship has sailed, and it ain’t coming back.  There’s no such thing as “free trade” when there isn’t “fair trade”.  It’s a simple concept, but one he will never understand.  Fortunately others within the Democratic Party have learned it and have adopted Trump’s policies.

What we need going forward is a new economic paradigm, and we are in the midst of seeing it develop.  I hope to God that price controls aren’t a part of what emerges, because it’s been proven over and over that they don’t work.

[The Real timschochet 6,758]

6 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Exactly.  My point here is that the traditional, early 1900’s definitions of Socialism and Communism no longer work.  There are almost no examples in the current world where a government “owns the means of production.”  I’m not even sure people can define what that definition means with real-world examples.  Who truly “owns” anything today?  What does that even mean?  Today it’s more about the degree to which Governments can exert influence over the economy, and that’s primarily defined by the extent of Regulations in play.

Private ownership is rampant in China.  In North Korea there are more privately owned companies than state-run.  SquidTard, @timschochet, and the rest of the Leftists today like to stick with the1920’s definitions so they don’t have to acknowledge that what Kamala is proposing is more closely aligned with some of the most far Left economies of the world than it is to farthest Right.

Tim is also stuck in the 80’s and early 90’s with his neoliberalism nonsense.  That ship has sailed, and it ain’t coming back.  There’s no such thing as “free trade” when there isn’t “fair trade”.  It’s a simple concept, but one he will never understand.  Fortunately others within the Democratic Party have learned it and have adopted Trump’s policies.

What we need going forward is a new economic paradigm, and we are in the midst of seeing it develop.  I hope to God that price controls aren’t a part of what emerges, because it’s been proven over and over that they don’t work.

I don’t mind being called a neoliberal. Call me whatever floats your boat. I think it’s funny though that you acknowledge all the terms have changed but still call Kamala a Communist and somehow fail to see the contradiction. 
Whatever you want to call me, or her, here is what I know: a 10-20% tax on all imports will be an economic catastrophe of such proportions that all your criticisms against Kamala get thrown out the window. It’s like saying “I don’t like broccoli, so give me poison instead please.” It makes all of your arguments a joke. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t mind being called a neoliberal. Call me whatever floats your boat. I think it’s funny though that you acknowledge all the terms have changed but still call Kamala a Communist and somehow fail to see the contradiction. 
Whatever you want to call me, or her, here is what I know: a 10-20% tax on all imports will be an economic catastrophe of such proportions that all your criticisms against Kamala get thrown out the window. It’s like saying “I don’t like broccoli, so give me poison instead please.” It makes all of your arguments a joke. 

I actually think your first paragraph is a fair point.  So I’ll just call her policy terrible rather than get into the semantics nonsense.

But I think you’re dead wrong on the second point, and your opinion on that is becoming very much in the minority across all levels of the political spectrum.  Until there is fair trade there is no free trade.  Sorry.

[The Real timschochet 6,758]

1 minute ago, Patented Phil said:

  Until there is fair trade there is no free trade.  Sorry.

Even if you were right about this ( you’re not ) you fail to realize that Trump’s tariffs aren’t meant to be a temporary penalty designed to bring about fairer trading practices. If that was the case he wouldn’t install them on every country regardless of what their current trading practices are. He means for these to be permanent. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

25 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Even if you were right about this ( you’re not ) you fail to realize that Trump’s tariffs aren’t meant to be a temporary penalty designed to bring about fairer trading practices. If that was the case he wouldn’t install them on every country regardless of what their current trading practices are. He means for these to be permanent. 

You mean Biden’s tariffs?  You do realize that Biden has brought in more tariff revenue than Trump.

[HellToupee 1,773]

4 hours ago, squistion said:

If someone is going to throw around the term "Communist" they should have some clue what it actually means.

Settle down Beavis

[The Real timschochet 6,758]

2 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

You mean Biden’s tariffs?  You do realize that Biden has brought in more tariff revenue than Trump.

Biden has been awful too. But no I’m talking about Trump’’s new proposed tariffs which will be far worse than any President has ever done, way worse than Smoot-Hawley which brought about the Great Depression. 

Seriously Phil- you strike me as a principled conservative and I respect that. We’re never going to see eye to eye on most issues because I admit to be a lily-livered pinko fellow traveling bleeding heart. Fair enough. But even you have to see how terrible Trump’s proposal on this is, how economically it swamps everything Kamala is trying to do. Kamala is your typical big city spending liberal- she will be like my wife in a shopping mall with a credit card run amok. But we can survive that. We can’t survive what Trump wants to do. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

15 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Biden has been awful too. But no I’m talking about Trump’’s new proposed tariffs which will be far worse than any President has ever done, way worse than Smoot-Hawley which brought about the Great Depression. 

Seriously Phil- you strike me as a principled conservative and I respect that. We’re never going to see eye to eye on most issues because I admit to be a lily-livered pinko fellow traveling bleeding heart. Fair enough. But even you have to see how terrible Trump’s proposal on this is, how economically it swamps everything Kamala is trying to do. Kamala is your typical big city spending liberal- she will be like my wife in a shopping mall with a credit card run amok. But we can survive that. We can’t survive what Trump wants to do. 

I’m a bit torn on tariffs to be honest.  I’d prefer that they be used as leverage to negotiate fair trade.  But China has been a bad actor and hasn’t negotiated in good faith.  It doesn’t do us any good to get cheap Chines parts made if we can’t sell them the end goods.

A lot of economists have come around to the realization that neoliberal free trade is pretty much a thing of the past.

[avoiding injuries 1,580]

Kamunism  

[squistion 2,197]

1 hour ago, avoiding injuries said:

Kamunism  

Seriously. Some one should make a poll for the dumbest thread title of 2024 and this would be the runaway winner to date. 

[HellToupee 1,773]

46 minutes ago, squistion said:

Seriously. Some one should make a poll for the dumbest thread title of 2024 and this would be the runaway winner to date. 

Dood.

[seafoam1 3,017]

On 1/6/2024 at 8:55 PM, HellToupee said:

#Kamunism

Kamala Harris can’t even fathom basic economics

 

 

Spot on. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

Seriously. Some one should make a poll for the dumbest thread title of 2024 and this would be the runaway winner to date. 

Her father was a self-described Marxist.  Even your focking fact checkers say it’s true.

[Reality 3,121]

11 hours ago, squistion said:

Seriously. Some one should make a poll for the dumbest thread title of 2024 and this would be the runaway winner to date. 

Title fits considering the small amount of policy that she's released. 

What's the issue here? 

[Fireballer 2,642]

Strength through Joy