- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
- Points
- 0
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Wall Street = WAR STREET = Capitalism Finishing
- Thread starter flkyflky
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 66,103
- Points
- 113
The same bunch of twits were perfectly happy when Wall Street was booming.
They're protesting now only because they've lost their share of the spoils.
It was a similar story with the Madoff investors. For years, he was their hero who could do no wrong. He was the only fund manager who could "achieve an 18% return" when other funds were bleeding red ink.
They're protesting now only because they've lost their share of the spoils.
It was a similar story with the Madoff investors. For years, he was their hero who could do no wrong. He was the only fund manager who could "achieve an 18% return" when other funds were bleeding red ink.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,494
- Points
- 113
Do not mixed up corporatism with capitalism. The problems US is having is corporatism (gov+corporate = controlled market) and not free market capitalism. Michael Moore ought to be shot for misrepresenting corporatism with capitalism.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
- Points
- 0
The same bunch of twits were perfectly happy when Wall Street was booming.
They're protesting now only because they've lost their share of the spoils.
It was a similar story with the Madoff investors. For years, he was their hero who could do no wrong. He was the only fund manager who could "achieve an 18% return" when other funds were bleeding red ink.
Same as SGP that these good old days will be gone forever won't return.
The world will see a few decades of ironical role reversal, USA going on poverty and Socialism Revolution turning to Communism and may have the next Stalin in White House, while PRC boom in capitalism for the same time, giving humanity aids to hungry jobless Ang Mohs in USA & EU.:*:
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
- Points
- 0
Weather mixed or separated, the both are gone and will perish together.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 66,103
- Points
- 113
Stalin in White House, while PRC boom in capitalism for the same time, giving humanity aids to hungry jobless Ang Mohs in USA & EU.:*:
PRC jobs are dependent upon Western prosperity as the domestic market simply doesn't have sufficient buying power. Without a prosperous West, China will implode in no time at all.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
- Points
- 0
That was the past.
PRCs are getting rich and their own (internal) domestic market is more than 3X the size of USA+EU added up. They have market in well paying customers at home. They can sell to Indians & Arabs etc who have oil money to pay and not owe lifetime of debts and finally ask Beijing to write off. That is the future. Unless Arabs or some other idiots underwrite US debts to PRC and stand as guarantor PRC will not need their worst (un)paying customer, they are too much smarter than sucker Japs & Koreans.
In the past PRC were poor and no confident to spent, USA spent blindly ignoring their own unaffordable capacity. In 80s & 90s that was the case, Deng Xiao Peng era really depended on USA market to bring up PRC economy. Now they are standing up firm and strongly, they spend confidently and can afford to do it. Their own population level is many times of the Wests.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
- Points
- 0
All major US business and brands are selling to PRCs, the latest is Yahoo going to sell to Alibaba. 
A matter of time your favourite Apple & Boeing & Google & MS will all be owned by PRC. US have to eventually sell even their backside. Mortgage their tech firm shares to pay creditor PRC.
A matter of time your favourite Apple & Boeing & Google & MS will all be owned by PRC. US have to eventually sell even their backside. Mortgage their tech firm shares to pay creditor PRC.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 8,846
- Points
- 0
Michael Moore ought to be shot after being shot for presenting Cuba as a socialist paradise
[video=youtube;25_RgM1jHeo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_RgM1jHeo[/video]
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,494
- Points
- 113
Nope. It's either free market or controlled market ( the extreme is monopoly).
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 8,846
- Points
- 0
I don't believe in free-market or regulated economy. These are just words, imho. My self-interest is the only thing that matters. The truth is that you can create wealth in a free-market (Switzerland) just as you can create wealth in a regulated economy (China). If someone were to take photos of you in the nude and sold it on the market, the free-market would be the last thing you would advocate. Conversely, if you were the seller hoping to make a quick buck, you would definitely want the government to fuck off and just let the market run freely without government intervention. It is power that sets you free, not political ideology. 
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 66,103
- Points
- 113
That was the past.
PRCs are getting rich and their own (internal) domestic market is more than 3X the size of USA+EU added up.
That's what Chinese propaganda would have you believe. Reality shows a different picture. Take Western products and markets out of the equation and tell me what you have left.
For more info, go to http://helenhwang.net/2010/03/myth-of-manufacturing/
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,494
- Points
- 113
I don't believe in free-market or regulated economy. These are just words, imho. My self-interest is the only thing that matters. The truth is that you can create wealth in a free-market (Switzerland) just as you can create wealth in a regulated economy (China). If someone were to take photos of you in the nude and sold it on the market, the free-market would be the last thing you would advocate. Conversely, if you were the seller hoping to make a quick buck, you would definitely want the government to fuck off and just let the market run freely without government intervention. It is power that sets you free, not political ideology.
Obviously, you don't really understand what free market principle is all about.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 66,103
- Points
- 113
Myth of China’s Manufacturing Prowess
People often compare China’s urbanization to Western industrialization in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. In both cases, a large population moved from the country to the city. Society advanced from agricultural to industrial via manufacturing on a massive scale.
However, there is a key misconception about China’s manufacturing prowess. In the United States and Europe, the manufacturing industry was created due to technology innovation. For example, railways came into existence because of the invention of the steam engine and automobiles were created because of technology breakthroughs in automobile engines.
In China, the manufacturing industry is being created in response to global demand. Chinese manufacturers take orders from Western companies that have designed products for their home markets. They have no involvement with product development, innovation, market research, and even packaging. Chinese manufacturers have no experience in bringing their own products to overseas markets.
Unlike the manufacturing industry in the West that gave birth to a middle class of both white-collar and blue-collar workers, manufacturers in China mostly absorb surplus labor from rural areas with few skills. Those rural migrant workers live in dormitories, earn about $100 to $200 a month, and hardly fit into the category of the middle class. (To be clear, there is a burgeoning middle class in China. Most of them are in urban private businesses, state-owned enterprises, and multinationals).
James Fallows, national correspondent for the Atlantic, visited many factories in China. He saw people working on the assembly lines and was convinced those tasks would only be performed by machines in the United States.
Yes, China is making efforts to drive its economy up the value chain. The 11th Five-year Plan (2006 – 2010) called for “scientific development.” A key initiative is an increase in the R&D-to-GDP ratio from about 1.3 percent in 2005 to 2.5 percent by 2020. However, how much of the funding is actually used for research and development and how well the research is being transferred into manufacturing are both highly questionable.
Given the unpredictability of the regulatory environment, many Chinese manufacturers tend to focus on short term gain. They compete on volume and price, and only enjoy wafer-thin profit margins. This has kept Chinese manufacturers from investing in research and development or training employees.
Recently, some Chinese manufacturers experienced a shortage of low-waged workers. On the other hand, millions of college graduates have been unable to find jobs. With college tuition sky high, more and more young people are turning to vocational schools, which may offer better prospects of employment at lower cost. This means a majority of Chinese workers may be trapped in low-skilled jobs, making China’s move up the value chain even more challenging.
While the rest of the world fears China’s manufacturing power, China is trying to move away from its “sweatshop” manufacturing and become a service-oriented economy. However, China may find itself locked into place, at least for now, due to the hundreds of millions of rural migrants that need jobs.
Contrary to the conventional view, manufacturing in the U. S. has been growing in the past two decades despite the decline in manufacturing jobs. The latest data show that the United States is still the largest manufacturer in the world. In 2008, U.S. manufacturing output was $1.8 trillion, compared to $1.4 trillion in China[1]. This means that the United States is producing goods with higher value, such as airplanes and medical equipment.
In addition, most jobs the United States lost to China are low-skilled jobs. By outsourcing those low-skilled jobs to China, Americans have actually become more competitive in high-skilled jobs such as management, innovation, and marketing. The low-skilled jobs also serve China well as Chinese rural migrants have opportunities to move up in life and gain some skills.
The results are mutual beneficial. On one side of the globe, hundreds of millions of Chinese rural migrant workers earn more, have a higher standard of living, and their children have more training, which leads to more growth. On the other side of the globe, Western consumers are able to afford goods at lower prices and enjoy lower inflation.
People often compare China’s urbanization to Western industrialization in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. In both cases, a large population moved from the country to the city. Society advanced from agricultural to industrial via manufacturing on a massive scale.
However, there is a key misconception about China’s manufacturing prowess. In the United States and Europe, the manufacturing industry was created due to technology innovation. For example, railways came into existence because of the invention of the steam engine and automobiles were created because of technology breakthroughs in automobile engines.
In China, the manufacturing industry is being created in response to global demand. Chinese manufacturers take orders from Western companies that have designed products for their home markets. They have no involvement with product development, innovation, market research, and even packaging. Chinese manufacturers have no experience in bringing their own products to overseas markets.
Unlike the manufacturing industry in the West that gave birth to a middle class of both white-collar and blue-collar workers, manufacturers in China mostly absorb surplus labor from rural areas with few skills. Those rural migrant workers live in dormitories, earn about $100 to $200 a month, and hardly fit into the category of the middle class. (To be clear, there is a burgeoning middle class in China. Most of them are in urban private businesses, state-owned enterprises, and multinationals).
James Fallows, national correspondent for the Atlantic, visited many factories in China. He saw people working on the assembly lines and was convinced those tasks would only be performed by machines in the United States.
Yes, China is making efforts to drive its economy up the value chain. The 11th Five-year Plan (2006 – 2010) called for “scientific development.” A key initiative is an increase in the R&D-to-GDP ratio from about 1.3 percent in 2005 to 2.5 percent by 2020. However, how much of the funding is actually used for research and development and how well the research is being transferred into manufacturing are both highly questionable.
Given the unpredictability of the regulatory environment, many Chinese manufacturers tend to focus on short term gain. They compete on volume and price, and only enjoy wafer-thin profit margins. This has kept Chinese manufacturers from investing in research and development or training employees.
Recently, some Chinese manufacturers experienced a shortage of low-waged workers. On the other hand, millions of college graduates have been unable to find jobs. With college tuition sky high, more and more young people are turning to vocational schools, which may offer better prospects of employment at lower cost. This means a majority of Chinese workers may be trapped in low-skilled jobs, making China’s move up the value chain even more challenging.
While the rest of the world fears China’s manufacturing power, China is trying to move away from its “sweatshop” manufacturing and become a service-oriented economy. However, China may find itself locked into place, at least for now, due to the hundreds of millions of rural migrants that need jobs.
Contrary to the conventional view, manufacturing in the U. S. has been growing in the past two decades despite the decline in manufacturing jobs. The latest data show that the United States is still the largest manufacturer in the world. In 2008, U.S. manufacturing output was $1.8 trillion, compared to $1.4 trillion in China[1]. This means that the United States is producing goods with higher value, such as airplanes and medical equipment.
In addition, most jobs the United States lost to China are low-skilled jobs. By outsourcing those low-skilled jobs to China, Americans have actually become more competitive in high-skilled jobs such as management, innovation, and marketing. The low-skilled jobs also serve China well as Chinese rural migrants have opportunities to move up in life and gain some skills.
The results are mutual beneficial. On one side of the globe, hundreds of millions of Chinese rural migrant workers earn more, have a higher standard of living, and their children have more training, which leads to more growth. On the other side of the globe, Western consumers are able to afford goods at lower prices and enjoy lower inflation.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 8,846
- Points
- 0
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
- Points
- 0
The westerners are very silly. More so are Asians who are blindly worshipping & believing Ang Mohs.
Manufacturing & economy is NOT new in China, it has profound & longer history than in the west, 2000-3000 years approx. That silk and china were mass produced and sold to the west in the oldest free economic history known as SILK ROAD. But the West like to think they were the master of these old tricks.
Worse are the Singaporeans like LKY who thinks only the Ang Moh knows.If the Ang Mohs knew in the 1st place, they won't be in today's deep deep deep shit.
I am laughing at LKY!Capitalist west had been fixed by Communist PRC via capitalism tricks, and yet like LKY they will still try to teach the winners how to suck eggs when they are the losers.
There WILL BE diff between how PRC do their businesses vs the west. That is because they don't blindly follow the Ang Moh & eat Ang Moh shits like LKY. The narrowly thinking SG and Ang Moh however believed that only the western ways are right ways, even after they had been proven failed by Communist PRC.
How the PRC succeeded? They will not share with Ang Moh their secrets. Any diff showed up I tend to assume that Chinese are right and Ang Moh are wrong 1st, before I begin to find out more.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,494
- Points
- 113
Enlighten me then
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZhWgDVS-AdA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pdNC_NpgM1s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,494
- Points
- 113
If you want to learn more about the basic of capitalism and free market principles, here's a book that is simple to read and understand.
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes-Peter Schiff
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
You can also get it from our library if it's not on loan.
http://catalogue.nlb.gov.sg/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?fullRecord+25217+3002+13600796+1+0
Here's a video of the book.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bFxvy9XyUtg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes-Peter Schiff
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
You can also get it from our library if it's not on loan.
http://catalogue.nlb.gov.sg/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?fullRecord+25217+3002+13600796+1+0
Here's a video of the book.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bFxvy9XyUtg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 66,103
- Points
- 113
If the Ang Mohs knew in the 1st place, they won't be in today's deep deep deep shit.
Ang Moh GOVERNMENTS are in deep shit simply because they're perpetuating a welfare system that is unsustainable. Ang Moh PRIVATE ENTERPRISE is doing fine. There's a big difference.
In order to understand what's going on, you need to take a look at a similar situation on a smaller scale, a good example being the state of California.
The State of California is BROKE. However, you only need to spend a couple of months in silicon valley to realise that there is an insane amount of wealth in the bank accounts of a sizeable number of its inhabitants.
California is the home of Google, Apple, Intel and Facebook plus thousands of other multimillion dollar companies. So why is the State on the verge of bankruptcy? If you can grasp what's happening at this macro level, you'll understand why the West is still way ahead of China.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 8,846
- Points
- 0
I'm well acquainted with Austrian economics. What I really wanna know is what exactly did I say that betrays a lack of understanding of something as simple as the free-market? And btw, the stats don't like. You could argue that they are not sustainable but the size of corporatist economies such as America and China are incontrovertible. They are the two largest economies in the world but surely you wouldn't call them laissez-faire, would you?
Similar threads
