Is China's growth the product of free market , state owned enterprises or both?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. This is something the market will not address by itself.

of course thats liberal and idiotic. jobs have demanded more and more skills for 1000 years and so people have acquired those skills. IBM for example grew to be the biggest company in the world largely before schools even knew about computer science. What did IBM do? It trained people itself. Sure it would like idiotic govt to do the expensive training for them but the world is better off letting corporations do the exact training need with no sociology or obsolute technical skills thrown in.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The market won't do it by itself, LOL That has been continually disproven. What has been proven is that government sucks at it and has done nothing but harm the economy with waste, inefficiency and overt corruptness.

People are a resource. We in the American business community are clever buggers and we'll figure out more and more ways to use them like we do with all resources. The problem right now is that socialism is disincenting businesses and employees from developing employees as a resource.

Ok kaz, exactly how many factory workers do you know that have actually gone into STEM. I personally know 1. No more.
You may talk marvels about the market , but just let me know exactly how this happens in real life.

As far as I know , some of this employes have only been able to migrate to the service sector, but not to particullarly fancy or high paid jobs: as waiters, cashiers, maids, bus drivers and the like.

 

[CultureCitizen]

. This is something the market will not address by itself.

of course thats liberal and idiotic. jobs have demanded more and more skills for 1000 years and so people have acquired those skills. IBM for example grew to be the biggest company in the world largely before schools even knew about computer science. What did IBM do? It trained people itself. Sure it would like idiotic govt to do the expensive training for them but the world is better off letting corporations do the exact training need with no sociology or obsolute technical skills thrown in.

Wel Ed, we've had this same discusion on another thread. There I argued that a working agreement with the NAFTA partners would allow keeping the production local importing cheap labour ( this at least has the advantage of keeping the taxes in the US plus some spill over from the consumption of foreign workers), but then you said it was stupid and liberal. Can you make up your mind?

It seems to be you think offshoring jobs, income, tax revenues and capital goods is good , but importing cheap labour while retaining revenue and taxes is bad. I really , really can't find the logic to your arguments.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. This is something the market will not address by itself.

of course thats liberal and idiotic. jobs have demanded more and more skills for 1000 years and so people have acquired those skills. IBM for example grew to be the biggest company in the world largely before schools even knew about computer science. What did IBM do? It trained people itself. Sure it would like idiotic govt to do the expensive training for them but the world is better off letting corporations do the exact training need with no sociology or obsolute technical skills thrown in.

Wel Ed, we've had this same discusion on another thread. There I argued that a working agreement with the NAFTA partners would allow keeping the production local importing cheap labour ( this at least has the advantage of keeping the taxes in the US plus some spill over from the consumption of foreign workers), but then you said it was stupid and liberal. Can you make up your mind?

It seems to be you think offshoring jobs, income, tax revenues and capital goods is good , but importing cheap labour while retaining revenue and taxes is bad. I really , really can't find the logic to your arguments.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. This is something the market will not address by itself.

of course thats liberal and idiotic. jobs have demanded more and more skills for 1000 years and so people have acquired those skills. IBM for example grew to be the biggest company in the world largely before schools even knew about computer science. What did IBM do? It trained people itself. Sure it would like idiotic govt to do the expensive training for them but the world is better off letting corporations do the exact training need with no sociology or obsolute technical skills thrown in.

Wel Ed, we've had this same discusion on another thread. There I argued that a working agreement with the NAFTA partners would allow keeping the production local importing cheap labour ( this at least has the advantage of keeping the taxes in the US plus some spill over from the consumption of foreign workers), but then you said it was stupid and liberal. Can you make up your mind?

It seems to be you think offshoring jobs, income, tax revenues and capital goods is good , but importing cheap labour while retaining revenue and taxes is bad. I really , really can't find the logic to your arguments.

too stupid I'm giving you the logical arguments and all you do is change the subject rather than face your ignorance. Get it?? Read a sentence and respond to that sentence?? Don't change the subbject 180 degrees. You would be held in contempt of court.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wel Ed, we've had this same discusion on another thread.

what discussion moron liberal?? I was talking about IBM doing training instead of govt or public schools doing it and you started talking about NAFT partners??? See why you cant learn anything and are stuck in second grade even as an adult??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ok kaz, exactly how many factory workers do you know that have actually gone into STEM. I personally know 1. No more.
You may talk marvels about the market , but just let me know exactly how this happens in real life.

dear, it has happened already in real life; that's why unemployment is 5.5% not 20%, and income only down slightly, even after liberals off shored 30 million jobs to places like China with idiotic policies like unions, highest taxes in world, huge deficits, the war on family and schools, and 20 million illegals to take all the most basic jobs.

Now are you getting the picture? Rather than learn why not play a trick on yourself and begin babbling on an entirely different subject??.

 

[CultureCitizen]

. This is something the market will not address by itself.

of course thats liberal and idiotic. jobs have demanded more and more skills for 1000 years and so people have acquired those skills. IBM for example grew to be the biggest company in the world largely before schools even knew about computer science. What did IBM do? It trained people itself. Sure it would like idiotic govt to do the expensive training for them but the world is better off letting corporations do the exact training need with no sociology or obsolute technical skills thrown in.

Wel Ed, we've had this same discusion on another thread. There I argued that a working agreement with the NAFTA partners would allow keeping the production local importing cheap labour ( this at least has the advantage of keeping the taxes in the US plus some spill over from the consumption of foreign workers), but then you said it was stupid and liberal. Can you make up your mind?

It seems to be you think offshoring jobs, income, tax revenues and capital goods is good , but importing cheap labour while retaining revenue and taxes is bad. I really , really can't find the logic to your arguments.

too stupid I'm giving you the logical arguments and all you do is change the subject rather than face your ignorance. Get it?? Read a sentence and respond to that sentence?? Don't change the subbject 180 degrees. You would be held in contempt of court.

Ok Ed,
I did not change arguments . You wrote :
"jobs have demanded more and more skills for 1000 years and so people have acquired those skills."

Now , if you follow the discussion I have with kaz, you'll see, I agree, that change does happen, but they do so at a slow pace : from one generation to the other mostly. So far I've only personally known 1 person who was able to shift his skills from factory worker into a STEM carreer ( and he was rather young , under 30). The rest of the people I know don't usually shift from non-skilled to skilled labour easily.

 

[kaz]

Ok kaz, exactly how many factory workers do you know that have actually gone into STEM. I personally know 1. No more.

What is STEM? And what is the point of anecdotal arguments?

You may talk marvels about the market , but just let me know exactly how this happens in real life.

1) The field of economics

2) My MBA in finance which is a branch of economics and the economics courses I took along the way

3) Reading on the extensive research done in the field of economics

3) My math major which was a great way to understand the math underlying the field of economics

4) My career in management, management consulting and entrepreneurship living it since 1988

As far as I know , some of this employes have only been able to migrate to the service sector, but not to particullarly fancy or high paid jobs: as waiters, cashiers, maids, bus drivers and the like.

That's on them. I have continually re-trained through my career. No one promised them to learn one skill then they can ply it for life. I have taken many side steps in my career to keep developing my skills. I took a big step down after 9/11 to keep a job in a terrible economy. It ended up being a great long term move because I got experience I hadn't had before. Ironically offshoring IT operations to India.

Where did they get the idea their jobs skills are not their responsibility? That's just ridiculous. Our careers are on us, not the government.

Companies would do far more re-training, but the government completely discourages that by dumping endless costs on us when we try to give people a chance. Unemployment, minimum wage, Obamacare. The government thinks we give someone a shot and we just adopted them

 

[GHook93]

too stupid as always. Businessmen invent things not govt bureaucrats. If China thought bureaucrats were any good at inventing they would not be switching from them to capitalists, and they would not have eliminated 40% of world poverty. Slow??

Oh Baiamonte, China and Inda have been the largest world economy from year 1 up to year 1850.
For mere 170 years western Europe and the US have temporarily occupied this positions, but that situation has already come to an end.

too stupid as always. Nice try at changing the subject when you lost another debate. Our subject is freedom versus govt not your totally irrelevant BS attempt to change the subject. You cant get educated if you cant focus.

Not changing subject Ed, just giving you a historical perspective.
You insist in capitalism, and yet china is a mixed economy with a HUGE government intervention.

Truth be told, SO DOES THE US!!! In fact, in many cases more so. We have over burdensome laws and regulations. 2,000 page laws that require a team of attorneys to interpret and another team of compliance people to implement is government intervention.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ok Ed,
I did not change arguments . You wrote :
"jobs have demanded more and more skills for 1000 years and so people have acquired those skills."

Now , if you follow the discussion I have with kaz, you'll see, I agree, that change does happen, but they do so at a slow pace : from one generation to the other mostly. So far I've only personally known 1 person who was able to shift his skills from factory worker into a STEM carreer ( and he was rather young , under 30). The rest of the people I know don't usually shift from non-skilled to skilled labour easily.

yes dear and I said that was obvious BS based on 5.5% unemployment despite idiotic liberals sending 40 million jobs offshore with unions, taxes, deficits, etc etc. You have no idea what you're doing in a debate. What a shock , you're confused about debate and economics, i.e, very very slow which is 100% liberal..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You insist in capitalism, and yet china is a mixed economy with a HUGE government intervention.

all economies are mixed. China has skyrocketed with more and more capitalism and their plan is to continue what has skyrocketed their economy not revert to the liberal intervention that killed 60 million!!!


I believe the market can work magic. And paradoxically, the Chinese Commu-nist Party says it wants to rely on that magic too. In the most important eco-nomic policy statement in decades, the November 2013 Third Plenum, it de-clared that the market would henceforth play the “decisive role” in the economy.

Sent from my iPhoneSo the Communist Party must face this paradox: For all its efforts and successes since launching economic reform in 1978, what the party must do, if it truly wants China to evolve into a global leader, is the hardest thing yet. It must commit itself to setting the economy free. Hank Paulson

 

[CultureCitizen]

That's on them. I have continually re-trained through my career. No one promised them to learn one skill then they can ply it for life. I have taken many side steps in my career to keep developing my skills. I took a big step down after 9/11 to keep a job in a terrible economy. It ended up being a great long term move because I got experience I hadn't had before. Ironically offshoring IT operations to India.

Where did they get the idea their jobs skills are not their responsibility? That's just ridiculous. Our careers are on us, not the government.

Companies would do far more re-training, but the government completely discourages that by dumping endless costs on us when we try to give people a chance. Unemployment, minimum wage, Obamacare. The government thinks we give someone a shot and we just adopted them

STEM = Science technology engineering and mathematics.

Indeed, once you reach a graduate level it is easier to expand your skills. The hard part is getting from highschool level to a graduate level. The actual value of such education is acquiring the ability to learn by yourself.

I actually support "the Khan academy" and "Crash course" which have the goal of making education for everyone everywhere. In the future this may be the case and you mighnt not need to college to get the education equivalent to a degree. Meanwhile upgrading your skills is not an option for poeple who got stuck with highschool education.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Meanwhile upgrading your skills is not an option for poeple who got stuck with highschool education.

utter liberal BS of course. All you have to do is turn on the TV during the day to see dozens of technical schools for teaching blue collar skills.