And I agree - Because we let free markets function for so long, without the understanding that the human condition will alter the projection that is shown in textbooks, that we have a corporatists governing system.
Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
And I agree - Because we let free markets function for so long, without the understanding that the human condition will alter the projection that is shown in textbooks, that we have a corporatists governing system.
chop2chip
Well-known member
See. this is much easier to debate
1. Free-market is doing this. Companies looking to de-risk (e.g. Apple) are moving manufacturing out of China. There are strong business incentives to not hold your supply chain hostage at the whims of a government that can randomly decide its shutting down for a month.
2. My wife studied her PhD in Davis, CA (back in the day when Rush Limbaugh was in Sacramento he would refer to Davis as Moscow, that's how liberal this college town is). They have all sorts of restrictions on franchising. It's definitely achieved your desired outcome. Of course, you have to spend $25 on hammer, but mom and pop are protected. Of course, what actually happens is nearby Dixon, CA opened a massive Walmart (and Home Depot and Target etc.). And of course, not too many actually spend the $25 on the hammer. They spend $10 on Amazon and it's delivered the next day. What other red tape and business restrictions are you willing to enact to solve those problems?
3. I'm all for income tax credits for children. You would have to be comfortable stomaching a bigger social safety net (WIC, medicare, free school lunch, etc.) since low income families will be quickest to respond to these initiatives. But there certainly enormous positive externalities with population growth and modern day society does a horrible job incentivizing having children. We had our first child 1.5 years ago and he's been the greatest blessing of my life, but my single and childless friends mostly just see us struggling at restaurants and complaining about lack of sleep.
See. this is much easier to debate
1. Free-market is doing this. Companies looking to de-risk (e.g. Apple) are moving manufacturing out of China. There are strong business incentives to not hold your supply chain hostage at the whims of a government that can randomly decide its shutting down for a month.
2. My wife studied her PhD in Davis, CA (back in the day when Rush Limbaugh was in Sacramento he would refer to Davis as Moscow, that's how liberal this college town is). They have all sorts of restrictions on franchising. It's definitely achieved your desired outcome. Of course, you have to spend $25 on hammer, but mom and pop are protected. Of course, what actually happens is nearby Dixon, CA opened a massive Walmart (and Home Depot and Target etc.). And of course, not too many actually spend the $25 on the hammer. They spend $10 on Amazon and it's delivered the next day. What other red tape and business restrictions are you willing to enact to solve those problems?
3. I'm all for income tax credits for children. You would have to be comfortable stomaching a bigger social safety net (WIC, medicare, free school lunch, etc.) since low income families will be quickest to respond to these initiatives. But there certainly enormous positive externalities with population growth and modern day society does a horrible job incentivizing having children. We had our first child 1.5 years ago and he's been the greatest blessing of my life, but my single and childless friends mostly just see us struggling at restaurants and complaining about lack of sleep.
1. Free markets are doing this because they see the public sentiment which is to get the **** out of China. If that public sentiment wasn't there there wouldn't be a de-leveraging of the CCP relationship. We only learned of these risks because of COVID but in reality those risks were always there and when the public was not aware of them the corporations could still take advantage of the slave labor as I'm sure they will still do at every opportunity.
2. I addressed the fact of online delivery as well. If you restrict the amount of volume that big box stores are doing then their volume discounts will also discrease which will cut into their profit margins which will result in them considering to raise their selling prices.
3. I'm absolutely for a larger social safety net for those people that are making the effort to better their lives. And if you're not doing that then you must provide public service so you don't get a free ride.
I am fully aware that my desired changes do not result in the most efficient outcomes.
BTW - I don't expect you to know all of my posting history (because there is so much) but I've articulated this numerous times but our free-market friends have their head in the sand on this issue and are more than happy enriching the world power that will destabilize the world.
Further on (1) the risks are not just an interruption in supply chain but the idea of moving all COGS to a different country and what that does to the middle class. Sure, you're saving a few bucks on some trash clothing but you're also killing jobs which reduces family stability which opens up countless other problems that destroy the country.
chop2chip
Well-known member
1. Public sentiment is a component of a free market. Muck rakers, safety belts, slavery, etc. all started as public sentiment overcoming business efficiencies. Apple started moving manufacturing out of China prior to Covid.
2. Bezos: "Your margin is my opportunity". Do you break up Amazon? Price controls for products? Not sure I like these communist ideas, comrade.
3. Who subsidizes daycare while these parents provide public service?
Last edited:
1) And when the uninterested population dives back into their IG feeds corporations will go right back to the CCP production lines
2) I absolutely believe that Amazon should be broken up. Not just because of the monopoly they have on existing goods but since they own the space of 'shoppers' you are almost forced to list your product on their site. Amazon then tracks which products are doing well and knock them off in incredible times and not only undercut the price but ensure the algorithm sends people to their version of the original idea.
3) Well - My granting of funds for these activities is based on a cohesive family unit which means two parents so the system can not be abused and there is an incentive for 'making it work'. There will always be outliers that mess up the projections and as they come up I'm willing to adjust parameters to received funds.
chop2chip
Well-known member
1. It takes years to open an OEM (longer to open an OEM in a new country). Tim Cook's not keeping track of what's trending to decide which countries gets to make iPhones today. Further, investment follows political stability and clear messaging. This is why energy companies aren't in a rush to build refineries in the US. Its why companies are building microchips plants in Vietnam, India, US, etc.
2. Amazon has created more wealth/value for the middle class than anybody the last 20 years (except maybe Apple). Amazon basically held the global economy together during Covid.
3. Agreed.
chop2chip
Well-known member
No one outside of the purist Friedmanites will argue that free markets are perfect. They are not.
But they are still far better than any system dependent on protectionism, socialism, and feudalism. Not much innovation coming out of protectionist nations like Saudi Arabia.
But they are still far better than any system dependent on protectionism, socialism, and feudalism. Not much innovation coming out of protectionist nations like Saudi Arabia.
(1) This is what Tim Cook said in late 2017:
'The number one reason why we like to be in China is the people. China has extraordinary skills.'
Source: https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz...-iphones-in-china-its-not-what-you-think.html
He isn't moving based on risk since the risks were always there with the CCP well prior to to the pandemic. Trump changed the whole conversation and made it mainstream to want to 'buy/make in America'. These companies now want to say that they are producing things more locally and if this change of paradigm never happened nothing would be moved from China.
(2) And amazon is also crippling many other dreams by knocking off their goods and holding all the leverage in business partnerships.
(3) The old Conservative/Libertarian movement is going to die based on their insistence to not move on this issue.
And I agree that its the best system when all players are playing fair.
We have a slave labor state that wants to rule the world.
We have monopolies that are restricting competition.
We have anything but a free-market system now and must adjust the status quo to preserve the concept.
Last edited:
chop2chip
Well-known member
1. That quote is true. Chinese are incredibly talented and smart and disciplined. If their government wasn’t insane, there would be no reason for any company not to outsource as much as they could to China. Either way, manufacturing is moving outside of China at record numbers. Thank goodness the free markets did that while waiting for our inept government to do figure out the issue.
2. That’s truly sad, but the world will be better off with 3-5 Amazons instead of 3-5k Uncle Larry’s Tool Barn.
3. Libertarian styled conservatism is healthier than ever.
(1) I would love a full democracy in China. That would change the game and be the best thing for the world moving forward.
Your version of free markets is really just the people demanding change. That is not free markets (100% efficiency) as much as it is implementing obvious changes to stabilize the world)
(2) Respectfully disagree. Is it a much less inefficient/inconvenient system? Of course. But I think the latter is much better for global stability.
(3) Please expand on these thoughts - What I'm seeing is completely different.
Much less than the amount of small businesses that Amazon has destroyed.
Which means that the number of small businesses helped by Amazon is still a tremendously large number btw.
Last edited:
chop2chip
Well-known member
I stand by my statement.
And even with all these businesses they are sucking the profit margins dry so businesses 'operate' on AWS but not to the financial efficiency as they could have in a system that supported individual business owners over a global conglomerate.