3 ms·

Discourse is going nowhere because people think that it's fair for the American Government to enact restrictions on global companies based in America, in a way

Discourse is going nowhere because people think that it's fair for the American Government to enact restrictions on global companies based in America, in a way that makes it impossible for a company from another country to operate fairly on a market (Europe) where American Institutions have absolutely no jurisdiction. How is that even legal in a country where the free market is basically God? Free market as long as it's in the American interest?

w7 7y ago
There is no "fair" here. China routinely puts soft pressure on foreign companies for making statements that it dislikes. That will likely expand in the future as China's soft power grows. See anything Taiwan, Tibet, or Hong Kong related. Clearly some other countries are still sovereign anyways and have gone against the US's wishes. No true free market exists.
krtong 7y ago
People often use "capitalism" or "free market" interchangeably with "laissez faire economics." What you're referring to is laissez faire, not "the free market." Laissez faire occurs in a capitalistic society but it's a subset of capitalism. Really it's an ideology more than anything, usually called names like "libertarianism." It also sort of defeats the point of the economic growth. Economic growth is for national security, specifically to fund and produce supplies for our armies. This is why we talk about economies in the context of nations. This is why nations frequently subsidize businesses or full-industries. This is why Alexander Hamilton sent spies to Britain to steal factory blueprints, or why Xi Jinping subsidizes Huawei, or why the PRC exists at all. America wrote the playbook that china's following. That's why you can trust what America says about China. That's why it's good if america does something but bad if another country does it. Nations are all just horses in the same race. You're supposed to pick one.
- oroul 7y ago
  What are we racing towards though? What is the goal? Nation vs. nation competition seems great up until the point human wellbeing becomes secondary to the ambiguous goal of 'national advancement' .
  - krtong 7y ago
    In this imperialistic "horse race" nations improve the wellbeing of humanity because nations are incentivised to take care of its citizenry since the citizenry is their military. Back in the day either you were either a soldier, or you paid your way out of service by funding the army and paying the salaries of the rest of the soldiers. Things in the last 200 years have changed greatly and I don't know if the ideology holds up anymore. The American Civil War, WWI and WWII showed that nation populations are greater than any transportation system can physically move to the battlefield, so improving the wellbeing of humans has taken a backseat to improving technology since the bottleneck of war isn't how many soldiers you have, it's how fast you can move and how fast you can kill off the other side. The other bottleneck during the last couple major wars (aside from transportation) was the supply of raw materials. If America wasn't mineral rich and shipping ammunition to both sides during WWI the war would've ended a lot sooner. Today I wonder what war would be like because there's a near infinite supply of people, and raw materials. Also there's a seemingly infinite supply of money currently in circulation. Everything seems to be getting bought and sold as global investors frantically try to find enough things to invest in. It's an absurd world we live in and I agree that the meaning of it all has completely broken down.
fredgrott 7y ago
and CHina does not do this? Bull shite

w7 7y ago

There is no "fair" here. China routinely puts soft pressure on foreign companies for making statements that it dislikes. That will likely expand in the future as China's soft power grows. See anything Taiwan, Tibet, or Hong Kong related. Clearly some other countries are still sovereign anyways and have gone against the US's wishes. No true free market exists.

krtong 7y ago

People often use "capitalism" or "free market" interchangeably with "laissez faire economics." What you're referring to is laissez faire, not "the free market." Laissez faire occurs in a capitalistic society but it's a subset of capitalism. Really it's an ideology more than anything, usually called names like "libertarianism." It also sort of defeats the point of the economic growth. Economic growth is for national security, specifically to fund and produce supplies for our armies. This is why we talk about economies in the context of nations. This is why nations frequently subsidize businesses or full-industries. This is why Alexander Hamilton sent spies to Britain to steal factory blueprints, or why Xi Jinping subsidizes Huawei, or why the PRC exists at all. America wrote the playbook that china's following. That's why you can trust what America says about China. That's why it's good if america does something but bad if another country does it. Nations are all just horses in the same race. You're supposed to pick one.

oroul 7y ago
What are we racing towards though? What is the goal? Nation vs. nation competition seems great up until the point human wellbeing becomes secondary to the ambiguous goal of 'national advancement' .
- krtong 7y ago
  In this imperialistic "horse race" nations improve the wellbeing of humanity because nations are incentivised to take care of its citizenry since the citizenry is their military. Back in the day either you were either a soldier, or you paid your way out of service by funding the army and paying the salaries of the rest of the soldiers. Things in the last 200 years have changed greatly and I don't know if the ideology holds up anymore. The American Civil War, WWI and WWII showed that nation populations are greater than any transportation system can physically move to the battlefield, so improving the wellbeing of humans has taken a backseat to improving technology since the bottleneck of war isn't how many soldiers you have, it's how fast you can move and how fast you can kill off the other side. The other bottleneck during the last couple major wars (aside from transportation) was the supply of raw materials. If America wasn't mineral rich and shipping ammunition to both sides during WWI the war would've ended a lot sooner. Today I wonder what war would be like because there's a near infinite supply of people, and raw materials. Also there's a seemingly infinite supply of money currently in circulation. Everything seems to be getting bought and sold as global investors frantically try to find enough things to invest in. It's an absurd world we live in and I agree that the meaning of it all has completely broken down.

fredgrott 7y ago

and CHina does not do this? Bull shite