U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2017, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
4,188 posts, read 1,902,866 times
Reputation: 6989

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r View Post

The big difference Jack Ma says is that American business uses globalism to replace jobs. Chinese use globalism to attract business for their own businesses. That's why China mints more millionaires than any other country. The US business elites do not want the people to get richer they want regulations to keep people and small business under control and away from competing against them.
I'd rephrase it slightly. China uses the vast size of its market to attract global companies. It lures in companies with its once cheaper labor workforce and artificially low base inputs (ie. steel) to have companies set up production there, but the hard stick used to draw companies is to require that the products sold there are assembled there. As the US and many free markets have no restrictions on these things, it makes sense to be able to produce in China and export everywhere, as opposed to manufacture in another country and be able to export to some of them. Once the assembly has arrived, the impetus becomes one of bringing the manufacture of the components overseas as well or face amazing tax and operational pressures. Once that production has arrived, the same pressures are then put on that company for their inputs.

That's been China's long ball game....played to near perfection. They've now consumed the world's supply chains, keeping them linked by having NGOs go out to acquire raw materials that can be sold at a loss.

The problem with the US, and the micro-regulation to empower the incumbent powers, is spot on. In an every company for itself outlook, industries that can move will without consequence, while industries that must stay will look for regulation requirements that will prevent new entrants into the space.

As for Jack Ma, it will be interesting to see how far his rabbit hole goes given the wide creditworthiness he's bestowed on a significant portion of China's peer lending. You can't hate the player in a game situation, but citing the US's incoherent approach to globalism is only half the story. The other half is that China's been playing a sneaky in a genteel great game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:15 AM
 
692 posts, read 628,931 times
Reputation: 770
Its certainly not easy to fire employees in China. The labor laws replicate an almost European social model which overly favors the workers and not the employer. But I do agree with everything else you said about Alibaba vs Amazon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2017, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
14,459 posts, read 4,936,236 times
Reputation: 11454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Everyone benefits from liberalized trade. Nobody benefits from right-wing propaganda mills. Long live the NAFTA Superhighway!
Everyone benefits???


There hasn't been an economic or political program since the dawn of time.....where everyone benefits.
That's laughable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2017, 06:24 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 2,259,533 times
Reputation: 3802
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Everyone benefits??? There hasn't been an economic or political program since the dawn of time.....where everyone benefits. That's laughable.
That's a fallacy of equivocation -- use of one meaning of a word where a different one was called for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2017, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,438 posts, read 5,313,162 times
Reputation: 4509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
That's a fallacy of equivocation
In this case the original intention falls flat. In the US alone over 99% of the population has not benefited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 03:55 PM
 
18,847 posts, read 5,125,042 times
Reputation: 12909
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
In this case the original intention falls flat. In the US alone over 99% of the population has not benefited.
And so - you are saying - that 99% of Americans are worse off than what? who? when?

Up until approx 1970 I think things got MUCH better for most Americans generation after generation. Reagan is probably when the chart started turning the other way - and it's been largely that way since.

Enough Americans and voters are ignorant enough to believe in the "there isn't enough for us all" theory and therefore are actually happy when they see income inequality...they see that as more for them (in reality or potentially).

The truth is different. There is plenty. More than enough. So much that we have to virtually dump money, food and manufactured goods over a cliff to keep things "normal". But we are unwilling to care enough for others to put sane policies into force.

Look at Paul Ryan - a guy who would not have survived without help from the government (poor when a child) - watch him actually SMILE at the thought that he will take insurance away from people and charge seniors 5X as much as others. You have to be evil to smile at the idea of causing real suffering.

We need a revolution. Between the Russians hacking, the total control by a minority (which will not even concede that they should care about the majority), etc....it's just not working.

Anyone who thinks health care costs are going to come down is smoking something very powerful. The Republicans want it to cost more...so fewer people will use it and more profits will be made.

Effectively, they want more people to die quicker. That's the plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,438 posts, read 5,313,162 times
Reputation: 4509
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
And so - you are saying - that 99% of Americans are worse off than what? who? when?
Prior to the late 70's, real median income rose at about the same rate as per capita GDP. Since then median incomes have been flat, while per capita GDP has risen over 100%, and the top .01% have experienced >700% increase. The oligarchs have used globalization, finance, fiscal and trade deficits, to put all gains in their own pockets.

To answer your question, over 99% of the US demographic has experienced less than the per capita GDP rate of increase since globalization began. So there aren't many winners at all, but the ones who've won have made out like bandits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2017, 10:31 PM
 
1,751 posts, read 1,204,466 times
Reputation: 2332
I always listen to my Ma
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2017, 07:45 PM
 
6,129 posts, read 3,904,239 times
Reputation: 6023
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
Prior to the late 70's, real median income rose at about the same rate as per capita GDP. Since then median incomes have been flat, while per capita GDP has risen over 100%, and the top .01% have experienced >700% increase. The oligarchs have used globalization, finance, fiscal and trade deficits, to put all gains in their own pockets.

To answer your question, over 99% of the US demographic has experienced less than the per capita GDP rate of increase since globalization began. So there aren't many winners at all, but the ones who've won have made out like bandits.
The issue isn't globalization, the issue is American policies.

We live in an era of zero accountability.

We care more about the Kardashian's than improving out lots in life.

We've become the complacent people. While other nations strive for better, we resist change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2017, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
5,225 posts, read 2,368,505 times
Reputation: 3864
Interesting topic and responses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top