5 ms·
Nope. It was well understood that the American worker was on the chopping block back in the time of Triffin and even Keynes. "Win-win" was always a line sold by
by smallmancontrov 1y ago
Nope. It was well understood that the American worker was on the chopping block back in the time of Triffin and even Keynes. "Win-win" was always a line sold by people who understood that it would actually be "win-lose" but who expected to be on the winning side (and generally were).
More recently, US capital owners for the last 20 years 100% understood that they were selling off the industrial capability of the USA to the CCP. It was their monetary gain but our problem, so they went forward with it.
- nine_k 1y agoYes, but it could be sold as a "win-win". For last 20 years, I can agree; but the boom of outsourcung started nearly 40 years ago.
- AtlasBarfed 1y agoExternalize your costs, internalize your profits, build moats, gain cartel power, seek rent. These are the goals of any "free market" company. One of my great critiques of capitalism and the economic analysis of it is that all the economists seem to believe that every company wants to happily exist in a open market with lots of competitors optimizing entirely working to reduce costs for the consumer. All you have to do is read my first paragraph and to see how utterly fantastical that notion is, and why regulation is needed to counteract every one of those simple game theory power politics end goals
- nine_k 1y agoParadoxically for some, the state's power is needed to keep the markets free and competitive. An obvious example is the protection of property, hence state-financed police and courts. A slightly less obvious, but as important, are anti-monopoly protections. Game theory should be taught much wider, I agree.
- wbl 1y agoThe American worker has gotten continuously richer over that time. Is it so bad to be a nurse rather than feeding widgets into the widget machine?
- nottorp 1y agoAdjusted to purchasing power?