The NBA-China Disaster Is a Stress Test for Capitalism (we-are-ALL-guilty barf alert)

The Atlantic ^ | October 12, 2019 | Derek Thompson

[Jim W N]

"Capitalism" is a Marxist term. His book Das Kapital was published in 1867. "Capitalism" is a derogatory term meant to deride economic freedom. Dump it in favor of the "free market".

[central_va]

So says central_va, FR’s resident socialist.

So says Washington, Jefferson and Madison too.

[Jim W N]

You know as much about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as you do the Constitution. None of the above accused freedom-lovers as traitors. Only socialists like you make those accusations.

Go back to your hole now.

[central_va]

Mercantilists, like you, would be wearing tar and feather jump suit in 1789.

[central_va]

Can you show me the article and section in the Constitution protecting free trade with foreign nations?

PS: I will be waiting a long time. Forever....

[rollo tomasi]

Marx's capitalism is the reality because "the free market" and "the Federal government" sucks the teat of corporate pimps. The United States has not had a free market since the late 19th century.

Corporatism equals

[Jim W N]

“Crony Capitalism” is another Delusional Lying Leftist lie. You dig down deep enough and you’ll find the feds are the root of almost ALL public corruption including corrupt “subsidies” AKA bribes.

[rollo tomasi]

The Federal Reserve serves as a reactionary outlet when the Federal government began "over-promising" i.e., idiots began electing progressive Presidents and congresscritters in the late 1800s. Once corporations started networking to create barriers and became the Federal government BFF, the free market was critically harmed (So we can have nice shiny cheap products to consume and get really, really excited over the next products).

The gulf between productivity and static wage rates should clue you in that the free market has a lot of MANIPULATION going on, which of course, does not compute to being free.

Do you believe China should "enjoy" most favored nation status, at least give me that (Guess who pimp for that status?).

[DoodleBob]

Everyone likes lower prices.

I agree that for poor people, a $0.99 tube of toothpaste from China is the likely choice vs $1.99 for Crest made in NC. I will never criticize a poor American for buying cheap Chinese goods.

Once you climb up Maslow's Heirchy, however, your utility curve isn't as price-sensitive and your choice set expands- and that's where interesting decisions need to be made. I like low prices, too, but If I also want to live longer than the average Deplorable, maybe I'll chose to eat healthy. In that case, my food bill is likely going to be a little higher. Thus in my utility-maximizing decision I place health above price.

The issue before the NBA is the same - their public utility curve seems to favor woke policies, but in public we see their utility curve places a premium on maximizing profit. There's a shocker.

In a strange sort of way, the liberals have handed this current kerfuffle to the right. Recall in the 1980s and 1990s, the left bemoaned NAFTA, GATT, etc as offshoring etc lead to blue collar jobs vanishing. The right pool-pooh'd these leftists as being ignorant of economics, noting that the American worker will find new jobs in new industries. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Fast forward to today- those workers who were told to Lean to Code by leftist journalists are now blue-collar Deplorables, the right now owns the MADE IN AMERICA issue, and the unemployed leftist journalist doesn't understand why a middle class guy would buy a more-expensive America-assembled Harley and vote for Trump.

[central_va]

Except both your example and logic are flawed. The cost difference between the US made goods and Coolie made imported goods is around 10% not 100% like in your example. It is better to pay 10% more for a US made product and have a job then be unemployed and have no income at all.

[central_va]

The gulf between productivity and static wage rates

IMO it's much bigger than a "gulf". More like an ocean.

[Telepathic Intruder]

You're right, the left once hated NAFTA and globalism. I had a sociologist teacher who was a raging socialist that took part in mass protests against it in the 80's. Both the left and the right saw only from the perspective of the spread of capitalism. The left, of course, hating it; and the right seeing a kind of opportunity. Now I think the left sees it from the perspective of rising global socialism, and the opportunities there.

And however cheap they are, there are two Chinese-made or produced things I always avoid: food and medicine.

[DoodleBob]

Even if you were right (at higher price points you may be right but Amazon sells a bundle of three 4.8oz tubes of Crest for $9.99 vs Mexico-made 6oz Ultra Brite at Dollar General), how would you explain/prove/convince the average American that their livelihood depends on overpaying for goods?

I disagree on the livelihood principle. I *do* agree that a steelworker may benefit from a hedge fund guy buying a Ford vs Japan-made Honda, but the hedge fund guy's livelihood isn't as linked to the steelworker parking part of his retirement fund into an equity long-short fund.

Where I believe the explanations may work is within the context of "civic duty." Part of the reson why "Buy American Cars" failed as a civic duty was because the Big 3 and UAW conspired to become fat, big and stupid and cranked out inferior product. It's hard to convince your wife to buy a Taurus when everyone else's breaks down while the neighbor's Accord has 127,000 miles on it and always works. Nowadays, there seems to be more of a sense of civic duty and pride in Buying American, especially because there is improved quality - that's the linchpin. Today, more Americans seem more likely to yield some cash for fellow Americans' jobs.

[central_va]

how would you explain/prove/convince the average American that their livelihood depends on overpaying for goods?

That is why the tariff is great. It requires no convincing and it is also a voluntary tax. Don't buy don't pay. It raises federal revenue in addition to protecting workers and industry. Its a win-win and that is why the founders LOVED the tariff.

[Jim W N]

Once corporations started networking to create barriers and became the Federal government BFF

Emphasis on the wrong syll-A-ble.

The illegality and corruption here is the federal government, their bribes and kick-backs. Bribes involving the feds are constitutionally forbidden (whereas corporate behavior is not on the constitutional radar).

Your enemy is NOT corporations which deal in the VOLUNTARY exchange of the Free Market. Your enemy is the 80%+ unconstitutional federal government which forces you to fork over your money, your freedom, and your life.

[Jim W N]

Can’t educate a socialist dolt. Anyway, you’re on my No-Fly Zone, so buzz off.

[mewzilla]

To heck with the NBA.

How about public employee pension plans that are heavily invested in the PRC?!

Anyone else thinking that allowing this is a very, very bad idea??

[DoodleBob]

Excellent - you picked a Constitutional approach to the matter. That's better than the libs.

But that you chose the compulsive power of the State as the answer to a query on how you'd " explain/prove/convince" this matter to the average American, helps demonstrate my point.

[central_va]

But that you chose the compulsive power of the State as the answer to a query on how you'd " explain/prove/convince" this matter to the average American, helps demonstrate my point.

The income tax is using the compulsive power of the state. The tariff is not progressive or compulsive AT ALL. It is optional, don't buy don't pay.