3 ms·

Corporate freedom, not individual freedom. Make your shite without government getting in the way with pesky regulations about adequate safety, working condition

Corporate freedom, not individual freedom. Make your shite without government getting in the way with pesky regulations about adequate safety, working conditions, environmental impact and a living wage, etc. Move to somewhere else if you can make it a dollar cheaper. We're already seeing places lined up to replace China for cheapest production. Those opportunities might turn out to have been fleeting.

simonh 7y ago
Individual freedom. The freedom of entrepreneurs in China to build factories and make deals with the West. The freedom for Chinese workers to apply for and take jobs in those factories. They're all individuals. You can't take those freedoms away without hurting individuals either. We don't pass laws that apply on a company by company basis. A law that allows one entrepreneur to start a new business can allow a thousand others to do the same. That's how capitalism works. It's what it is. China and the USA didn't pass a Jack Ma law that allowed Jack Ma to trade with America. He took advantage of individual freedoms available to anyone. I'm sure he had particular opportunities too, but he was free to take advantage of them, as others were free to take advantage of opportunities they had. China is working it's way up the economic ladder. Low end assembly isn't moving out of China because other countries are getting cheaper. It's moving out because there are more higher paid jobs in China now, so it's harder (more expensive) to persuade Chinese workers to do low end jobs. Average factory worker wages in Chine are now 5x those in India, because their value-add has rocketed. Chinese workers have better opportunities now.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It's what it is today because that's how it's been adjusted by the capitalists, economists and politicians. I'll avoid the inevitable diversion into neoliberalism. The fifties and sixties had a sustained period of increasingly shared worker participation, believed in by both sides of the political fence. Rising pay, conditions, pensions, fringe benefits, and reducing inequalities. Regulation to combat the ills of capitalism and markets, to prevent a repeat of 1929, to be suspicious of overly large corporations, to improve the lives both of worker and residents near the factory. It was Republican Nixon who formed the EPA and brought the clean air act. By placing commerce above nation you restrict the impact of government, the shared deal is defenestrated, and it becomes a global race to the bottom. It makes it super-easy to trade one nation against another, and move profit around to avoid paying the rightful tax. Just because. The corporation is now above its government. Make it wherever's cheapest or has fewest restrictions. The current home of manufacture rises, the globe as a whole does not. Environmentally, climatically and regulationally it got worse. Not to say I object to other nations rising, I don't at all. It could have been done without throwing baby out with the bath water.
  - simonh 7y ago
    What has happened that is hurting us in the West is that wages have stagnated. Our standard of living is still going up, but that's largely driven by cheaper goods from developing countries (cough China cough) and better technology. I suspect this is simply due to the fact that there are now hundreds of millions more middle class people in the world that can do our jobs just as well as we can. However I can't bring myself to cry foul. Why shouldn't they get a fair bite at the apple? Inequality is definitely an issue, but frankly if we're going to vote in billionaires so they can give themselves and their rich mates historically unprecedented tax breaks, while profiting enormously from their position of privilege, maybe we deserve it.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Aye it's hard to talk against your last point. Though did they choose it or were they marketed to vote that way? It's a remarkable success story that so many have voted against their own best interests over the last 30 or 40 years. Though there was a decided lack of alternative views, just degree.

simonh 7y ago

Individual freedom. The freedom of entrepreneurs in China to build factories and make deals with the West. The freedom for Chinese workers to apply for and take jobs in those factories. They're all individuals. You can't take those freedoms away without hurting individuals either. We don't pass laws that apply on a company by company basis. A law that allows one entrepreneur to start a new business can allow a thousand others to do the same. That's how capitalism works. It's what it is. China and the USA didn't pass a Jack Ma law that allowed Jack Ma to trade with America. He took advantage of individual freedoms available to anyone. I'm sure he had particular opportunities too, but he was free to take advantage of them, as others were free to take advantage of opportunities they had. China is working it's way up the economic ladder. Low end assembly isn't moving out of China because other countries are getting cheaper. It's moving out because there are more higher paid jobs in China now, so it's harder (more expensive) to persuade Chinese workers to do low end jobs. Average factory worker wages in Chine are now 5x those in India, because their value-add has rocketed. Chinese workers have better opportunities now.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
It's what it is today because that's how it's been adjusted by the capitalists, economists and politicians. I'll avoid the inevitable diversion into neoliberalism. The fifties and sixties had a sustained period of increasingly shared worker participation, believed in by both sides of the political fence. Rising pay, conditions, pensions, fringe benefits, and reducing inequalities. Regulation to combat the ills of capitalism and markets, to prevent a repeat of 1929, to be suspicious of overly large corporations, to improve the lives both of worker and residents near the factory. It was Republican Nixon who formed the EPA and brought the clean air act. By placing commerce above nation you restrict the impact of government, the shared deal is defenestrated, and it becomes a global race to the bottom. It makes it super-easy to trade one nation against another, and move profit around to avoid paying the rightful tax. Just because. The corporation is now above its government. Make it wherever's cheapest or has fewest restrictions. The current home of manufacture rises, the globe as a whole does not. Environmentally, climatically and regulationally it got worse. Not to say I object to other nations rising, I don't at all. It could have been done without throwing baby out with the bath water.
- simonh 7y ago
  What has happened that is hurting us in the West is that wages have stagnated. Our standard of living is still going up, but that's largely driven by cheaper goods from developing countries (cough China cough) and better technology. I suspect this is simply due to the fact that there are now hundreds of millions more middle class people in the world that can do our jobs just as well as we can. However I can't bring myself to cry foul. Why shouldn't they get a fair bite at the apple? Inequality is definitely an issue, but frankly if we're going to vote in billionaires so they can give themselves and their rich mates historically unprecedented tax breaks, while profiting enormously from their position of privilege, maybe we deserve it.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Aye it's hard to talk against your last point. Though did they choose it or were they marketed to vote that way? It's a remarkable success story that so many have voted against their own best interests over the last 30 or 40 years. Though there was a decided lack of alternative views, just degree.