China Owns Us: How the Chinese Are Buying Up America - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15184235
Random American wrote:I'm in favor of that too, but it was a right-wing case I was making for regulations. If you want China kept out, you need to green light the idea of regulating businesses.


The reality is, the right wing in America is ok with regulation. They just want it to favor them, and them only.
#15184237
Rancid wrote:The reality is, the right wing in America is ok with regulation. They just want it to favor them, and them only.

They want regulation only when it protects business interests, though ironically, it was their deregulation that caused the problem with China to begin with. If right-wingers are serious, they should stop falling for con-men and put down the Atlas Shrugged books, but that will not happen.
#15184245
late wrote:
I saw the same arguments, almost word for word, back in the 80s. The 'bad guy' was Japan back then.

Attracting foreign capital is something you want in a capitalist economy. After WW2, Ike and the others deliberately developed a global economy. If China has invested a trillion here, they are not going to destroy what they own. That was deliberate, countries that do business almost never go to war.

The problem here is that, in one sense, there is *no* problem. We are in economic competition with China. Instead of getting all whiny and bratty, compete. We used to be really good at competing. It's not hard, you educate your kids, take care of the country and invest in the future. We used to be the best at doing that.

Time to stop whining and get with the program...



Hard for reality to compete with fantasy these days.
#15184309
I just read the last page of replies, i.e. this page.
In other threads I said that China can buy stuff in America. I said a lot of farm land, and then just not plant a crop.
In any case, the US could before the WTO regulate foreign ownership, now it would have to (AFAIK, IMHO) break the treaty.

IMHO, the basic problem is 2 assumptions of neoliberal economics ---
1] Corps. can only have 1 goal and it must be profits at all costs to pay to the stockholders.
2] That if everyone is selfish to the maximum amount, then this will result is the BEST POSSIBLE outcome.

Neither of these is true.
#15184328
Steve_American wrote:I just read the last page of replies, i.e. this page.
In other threads I said that China can buy stuff in America. I said a lot of farm land, and then just not plant a crop.
In any case, the US could before the WTO regulate foreign ownership, now it would have to (AFAIK, IMHO) break the treaty.

IMHO, the basic problem is 2 assumptions of neoliberal economics ---
1] Corps. can only have 1 goal and it must be profits at all costs to pay to the stockholders.
2] That if everyone is selfish to the maximum amount, then this will result is the BEST POSSIBLE outcome.

Neither of these is true.


I had to go before I finished. Let me add ---
1] The 1st is false, because from 1776 to 1976 all the state laws demanded that corps. do buisiness in the public interest in exchange for the protection (in case of bankrupcy) that corps. gave by law to their owners, the stockholders. The corps. didn't like having to consider anything except their selfish interests. So, as it become clear the CO2 was going to cause global warming, they saw a real need to get out from under the requirement to do their business in a way that furthered the common good in addition to making a profit.
2] The 2nd is obviously false, unless you grant some exceptions. Some exceptions that must be in effect are --- a] robbing rich people at gun point is obviously good for the robber, so this must be an exception. b] Attacking the rich man's wife or daughter for sex is good for the man doing the assaulting, so it also must be an exception. c] Not fulling the terms of a contract is obviously good for the violator, so it must be an exception. Gee, so many exceptions.!!
. . . Now that we are allowing exceptions, why not add these? a] Corps. must not pollute the environment so as to cause climate change. b] Corps. must pay their workers enough so that they can buy all the stuff the corps are making and wanting to sell to them. It is impossible for the economy of a nation to be in equilibrium if the rich keep gaining a bigger percentage of the national income. At some point the workers will not be able to live on what they earn. If the corps. don't do this, it is NECESSARY for the GOv. to tax more of their income away and give it to the bottom income earners, so the money can flow back through the economy up-back into the hands of the corps. and the rich people who own them.
.

... Also, Hamas doesn't need to be eradicated. E[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

If I were a Palestinian living under occupation, […]

I wasn't sure exactly what the liberal response w[…]

The importance of out-breeding

https://external-content.duckduckgo.c[…]