3 ms·
You've done what looks to be a sincere job of blaming capitalism while complaining about a manufacturing monopoly hosted by a self proclaimed communist party. T
by trimethylpurine 3y ago
You've done what looks to be a sincere job of blaming capitalism while complaining about a manufacturing monopoly hosted by a self proclaimed communist party. That is to say, for me, your example paints a dark picture of communism being weaponized against capitalism through the exploitation of well meaning globalist agenda. Trust in good foreign relations, in this example, has allowed a foreign bad actor to skirt around antitrust rules.
Capitalism sure has its flaws, but naivety is an aspect of politics, not economics.
- foul 3y agoNaivety is an aspect of economics when the globalization/dropshipping dynamics comes at play. For a lot of Western brands it's cash in, cash out, just some worries about sales-related personnel and maybe (not in this domain) some R&D. Unless you want to treat stories like Amazon and its sellers or rise of brands like Xiaomi/Mi as a cost optimization, in that case you're right that naivety goes entirely out of the field of view.
- trimethylpurine 3y agoI may have missed the meaning. Are you saying that the fact of foreign relations is inherently economic? Any economic system would be just as vulnerable if foreign trade is allowed to exploit extra judicial privileges. Imagine a communist economy where workers determined to make a product are undermined by the incentive of trading raw materials to a foreign company for personal gain. Foreign trade in this example, much like the microwave monopoly, is outside of judicial reach. It doesn't have to be. But it's not a problem that would be solved by switching to a new economic system. It's absolutely something to solve through legislation. So, for this microwave monopoly, it doesn't make sense to blame capitalism, as best I can tell.