EPTOn January 09 2010 11:18 T.O.P. wrote:
Glaucus is clearly trolling.
Glaucus is clearly trolling.
Made In China. - Page 3
| Blogs > Disregard |
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
| ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
No one can explain to me why it's wrong. If an unemployment of 10% in the U.S. is causing you shit your pants, what makes you think the Chinese government will abet an unemployment of 50% (1 in every 2 citizens is unemployed) just to keep the country's "wealth"...? You realize why people work right? They don't work for fun. They work because it's productive to society so they get money in return. I'm not saying China should make 50% unemployed. I'm just asking what's so bad if you don't have to work and get to keep all the capital you produce? Right now they work very hard and get almost nothing because it goes to the west. No one seems to understand. This is basic economy guys? Let's say Chinese work very hard and the stuff they produced are dumped into the ocean because if they aren't then they can't keep producing these goods continuously. Now let's just cut production in half and consume the stuff instead of dumping it in the ocean. What's so bad about that? Yes, if you cut half the population off from sharing in the wealth produced those people will rebel. But that's something different. Just because you are employed that doesn't mean you share in the wealth. Governments can create tons of unproductive jobs. It doesn't mean anything in itself. So many economic fallacies going about there... sassme, I think it was you that edited out of your message something in the lines of saying that China needs the west to consume their goods because otherwise there is no one to consume it and there's no point in producing. Do you even realize what that means? Isn't the point in producing that you get to keep the stuff you produce? Chinese can consume their own good perfectly well. You realize money isn't worth anything in itself? | ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
On January 09 2010 10:16 Glaucus wrote: China is being stupid. Their people are working their asses off and their government is giving it away for free to the US and the top .1% richest Chinese. Embracing capitalism was a good idea but that doesn't mean it has to be a client state to the US. Not to mention the human rights in general. Why are you spouting this unfounded nonsense? I just hate the huge pile of misconceptions that exists regarding this topic. First of all, you make it sound like China is a unique case in this respect, while half of South East Asia has done this or is doing it atm. Secondly, the SEA developmental model has proven its value, it has worked for other countries. While yes, the countries who follow this model are the workshop of the world for a certain amount of time, they do get a lot of benefit out of this through spillovers from e.g. backward linkages, by forcing joint ventures (in whatever form), capital inflow through FDI etc. Which are all pretty much a conditio sine qua non for an economy in transition to evolve from sheer poverty and backwardness (the state of things at the end of the Cultural Revolution) to full industrialization. China is pretty much an example for any NIC. Admittedly, how the wealth is divided etc (be it after or before reaching industrialized state) is a whole other discussion but the GINI coefficient for e.g. the US isn't exactly spectacular either. And don't get me started on the whole issue regarding the trade imbalance between the US and China, there is a big gap between public (political) perception and economic reality. I'd give you the paper I had to write on this matter for one of my courses but it's in Dutch. -,,- | ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
| ||
|
asianskill
United States289 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:32 Glaucus wrote: I'm not trolling. What I am saying is completely main stream. There's even the decleration of universal rights. As for the economics, they are extremely simple. No one can explain to me why it's wrong. You realize why people work right? They don't work for fun. They work because it's productive to society so they get money in return. I'm not saying China should make 50% unemployed. I'm just asking what's so bad if you don't have to work and get to keep all the capital you produce? Right now they work very hard and get almost nothing because it goes to the west. No one seems to understand. This is basic economy guys? Let's say Chinese work very hard and the stuff they produced are dumped into the ocean because if they aren't then they can't keep producing these goods continuously. Now let's just cut production in half and consume the stuff instead of dumping it in the ocean. What's so bad about that? Yes, if you cut half the population off from sharing in the wealth produced those people will rebel. But that's something different. Just because you are employed that doesn't mean you share in the wealth. Governments can create tons of unproductive jobs. It doesn't mean anything in itself. So many economic fallacies going about there... sassme, I think it was you that edited out of your message something in the lines of saying that China needs the west to consume their goods because otherwise there is no one to consume it and there's no point in producing. Do you even realize what that means? Isn't the point in producing that you get to keep the stuff you produce? Chinese can consume their own good perfectly well. You realize money isn't worth anything in itself? Can you give me a reason why the west would not "consume" its goods? | ||
|
asianskill
United States289 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:37 Glaucus wrote: Foeffa isn't it strange that the countries that produce are poor and the ones that consume are rich? Don't you get rich by producing and poorer by consuming? How do you resolve this paradox? Isn't strange that all the nations that are consuming more than producing going through major recessions? Times are changing. I give it ten years until the United States will never enjoy the same consumerism we enjoy today. | ||
|
AssuredVacancy
United States1167 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:37 Glaucus wrote: Foeffa isn't it strange that the countries that produce are poor and the ones that consume are rich? Don't you get rich by producing and poorer by consuming? How do you resolve this paradox? Which is why China is developing rapidly while North America is in a recession... You're contradicting yourself. | ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
Can you give me a reason why the west would not "consume" its goods? They would of course if they can. Why would you be poor if you can be rich? Because they feel guilty? You are asking the wrong question. Which is why China is developing rapidly while North America is in a recession... You're contradicting yourself. Wait, China is doing a seemingly irrational thing so that the US goes into a recession? | ||
|
asianskill
United States289 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:44 Glaucus wrote: Ooh wow now suddenly people are turning around... They would of course if they can. Why would you be poor if you can be rich? Because they feel guilty? You are asking the wrong question. No, I'm not coming around. You didn't even give me a legitimate answer. | ||
|
asianskill
United States289 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:44 Glaucus wrote: Wait, China is doing a seemingly irrational thing so that the US goes into a recession? I'm sure China is going through economic prosperity while the rest of the world is in economic turmoil because of irrational ideas. | ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:37 Glaucus wrote: Foeffa isn't it strange that the countries that produce are poor and the ones that consume are rich? Don't you get rich by producing and poorer by consuming? How do you resolve this paradox? That 's a huge generalization and a wrong one at that and your paradox doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint. Countries that produce aren't poor by definition. The causality is actually the other way around: poor countries produce (initially). Omitting the reason why they are poor, the fact remains that any economy that is at a low(er) tier of technology has comparably high percentage of it's economy dedicated to the secondary sector because that is the way they can make money with a comparably low technological level. In general the focus of their economy will shift to the tertiary sector (or the manufacturing of technologically more advanced goods) as soon as their level of know-how and technology improves. This is a global trend, except for Sub-Saharan Africa but that is due to the problem of the resource curse and becoming a rentier state. | ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
| ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
| ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
Also, the arguments I made aren't actually my arguments but come from people with degrees in economics. Yes, not the mainstream ones. So not the ones who'se silly ideology caused the crisis in the first place. | ||
|
peidongyang
Canada2084 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:59 Glaucus wrote: Ooh the age old fallacy. I don't actually need to have a background in economics because the issues so far have been extremely simple one. You should be able to explain them to a child. Also, the arguments I made aren't actually my arguments but come from people with degrees in economics. Yes, not the mainstream ones. So not the ones who'se silly ideology caused the crisis in the first place. Go back to 4chan please. /b/ | ||
|
skronch
United States2717 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:32 Glaucus wrote: how are you going to "keep all the capital you produce" if you don't work? you aren't producing shit if you don't work. I'm not saying China should make 50% unemployed. I'm just asking what's so bad if you don't have to work and get to keep all the capital you produce? Right now they work very hard and get almost nothing because it goes to the west. No one seems to understand. This is basic economy guys? Let's say Chinese work very hard and the stuff they produced are dumped into the ocean because if they aren't then they can't keep producing these goods continuously. Now let's just cut production in half and consume the stuff instead of dumping it in the ocean. What's so bad about that? you can't just "consume the stuff" like you suggest. what the fuck is a chinese family going to do with the thousands of stuffed animals or whatever it is they make? i really hope you are trolling because it would be a fucking tragedy for someone to be actually as ignorant as you are | ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
On January 09 2010 12:22 skronch wrote: how are you going to "keep all the capital you produce" if you don't work? you aren't producing shit if you don't work. Of course. But wouldn't it be better to produce 50% and keep all of it than to produce 100% and get to consume only 10%? you can't just "consume the stuff" like you suggest. what the fuck is a chinese family going to do with the thousands of stuffed animals or whatever it is they make? There's not enough Chinese demand? They don't have to produce the exact same thing, you know? And even stuffed animals, why wouldn't Chinese children want those when western ones do? Main point is that when stuffed animals are produced they could also have produced something else. i really hope you are trolling because it would be a fucking tragedy for someone to be actually as ignorant as you are  makes me sad...Just expressing what is to be the new mainstream economics. China itself is actually already coming around exactly because of the recession in the US. China exports it's wealth to the US in return for paper. China invests in the US government and props up the dollar. the US keeps squandering all the wealth China creates. Why would China go on with this? How does the average Chinese person benefit from this? No one can explain this to me. No one even tried. Just insults | ||
|
skronch
United States2717 Posts
On January 09 2010 12:27 Glaucus wrote: could you explain this in a way that makes sense?Of course. But wouldn't it be better to produce 50% and keep all of it than to produce 100% and get to consume only 10%? a worker doesn't produce money; he produces a product. what good does it do him to produce 50% of something and keep all of it if it is something that is of no use to him? where is this producing 100% and consuming 10% babble coming from? | ||
|
blue_arrow
1971 Posts
On January 09 2010 12:27 Glaucus wrote: There's not enough Chinese demand? They don't have to produce the exact same thing, you know? And even stuffed animals, why wouldn't Chinese children want those when western ones do? Main point is that when stuffed animals are produced they could also have produced something else. ok if you had even taken the most elementary economics course, or even read a 1-2-3 economics for kidz picutre book you would know why they are producing thousands of stuffed animals. it's called international trading and commerce buddy. trade mutually benefits individuals, and attempts to ensure that the people who are good at something continue doing what theyre good at, instead of wasting time doing some other shit. china doesn't have everything it needs within its own borders, and the chinese can't make everything they so please. let's see if "chinese families' can produce their own diamond rings, mine their own uranium for nuclear power, grow their own wheat, design their own cell phones, and cook up some escargot. holy shit you have nearly no idea what is going on do you. | ||
|
Glaucus
479 Posts
Someone else talked about jobs. People claim that if the west stopped consuming Chinese people would all go unemployed and that would be bad. I'm just saying that having 100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal. People seem to think huge US consumption drives the global economy. The fact is it drags down the global economy. Chinese production, and production from other low wage countries, drive the global economy. But Chinese people aren't benefiting from this. The people in the US and in the west are the ones with all the consumer goods. They are enjoying them and they are to be wealthy. Yet they are dragging down the economy. And how did they pay for them? By loaning money from China... | ||
| ||
