jasonnfree
Gold Member
- May 23, 2012
- 10,512
- 2,336
- 280
It's happening a lot around here. Public entities going to private corporations. I haven't seen prices going down as promised either.
Is China's growth the product of free market , state owned enterprises or both?
- Thread starter CultureCitizen
- Start date
It's happening a lot around here. Public entities going to private corporations. I haven't seen prices going down as promised either.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
1) so 80% of Foxconn's assets for example came from public controlled entities??. What on earth could that mean?? That libturb bureaucrats have an asset machine that they turn on when they need to miraculously generate assets to give to the private sector? See why we say the liberal will always be stupid?
2) Also, notice the way a slimy American liberal will defend the remnants of a brutal liberal regime that slowly starved 60 million to death. Good luck in your after life.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
too stupid if they hadn't agreed China would not have switched to capitalism and eliminated 40% of world poverty, had 9% growth for 30 years, and saved another 60 million from slowly starving to death.
Did you think the Chinese got the idea for capitalism from the Girl Scouts or from American Republicans?
Last edited:
You actually believe that too, don't you?
You see, if government takes money out of the economy and spends it, that creates wealth and grows the economy! Um...OK?
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
CultureCitizen
Silver Member
- Jun 1, 2013
- 1,932
- 140
- 95
- Thread starter
- #46
Too stupid ! ! Baiamonte, I have already shown you why if the private sector keeps the money that money doesn't go back into the pool, so I am not having that discussion with you again.
You can't possibly have shown that, it's ridiculous. The company can do three things with the money:
1) Spend it on a project
2) Invest it where it goes as cash to someone who spends it
3) Pay it to shareholders who put it back in the economy by spending or investing it
The only way to not put it back in the economy is to take it out of the bank as cash and hold it as cash.
Still no explanation how you and liberal lawyers know more about economics than economists?
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
Yes I know, you said they put their money in a mattress and so it can't possibly stimulate the economy. Only problem is they put it in a mattress!! Slow??
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
Yes I know, you said they put their money in a mattress and so it can't possibly stimulate the economy. Only problem is they don't put it in a mattress!! Slow??
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
Yes I know, you said they put their money in a mattress and so it can't possibly stimulate the economy. Only problem is they put it in a mattress!! Slow??
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
Yes I know, you said they put their money in a mattress and so it can't possibly stimulate the economy. Only problem is they don't put it in a mattress!! Slow??
CultureCitizen
Silver Member
- Jun 1, 2013
- 1,932
- 140
- 95
- Thread starter
- #52
That was not my argument at all.
CultureCitizen
Silver Member
- Jun 1, 2013
- 1,932
- 140
- 95
- Thread starter
- #53
It can for example :
You can't possibly have shown that, it's ridiculous. The company can do three things with the money:
1) Spend it on a project
2) Invest it where it goes as cash to someone who spends it
3) Pay it to shareholders who put it back in the economy by spending or investing it
The only way to not put it back in the economy is to take it out of the bank as cash and hold it as cash.
Still no explanation how you and liberal lawyers know more about economics than economists?
Spend it overseas.... ah yes, but there's that little axiom that says that the trade must be balanced, so the money ends returning. Yes kind of true, but as economists say : in the long run. Which means that in the short run a country might have an increasing trade deficit ( does that sound familiar ) .
It can also buy its own stock or other companies'stock which are also buying stocks from other companies instead of investing it in capital goods, creating a stock ( or instrument ) bubble . Does that sound familiar again ?
I agree option 1 will put the money back in the local economy , IF and only IF they invest it within their country.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
too stupid by 100% as if the liberal illiterate can say why a trade deficit would matter more than a trade surplus and as if the govt could act in real time to control it one way or the other with 100's of countries involved each with its own fiscal and monetary policies.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
completely stupid of course since it buys it own stock and the folks from whom it bought the stock then have money to invest in the economy.
what's doubly stupid and 100% liberal is that delays take place when govt spending occurs too. In my town a "shovel ready" project from the stimulus is just getting started now after years of standard liberal bureaucratic monopoly delays.
It can for example :
You can't possibly have shown that, it's ridiculous. The company can do three things with the money:
1) Spend it on a project
2) Invest it where it goes as cash to someone who spends it
3) Pay it to shareholders who put it back in the economy by spending or investing it
The only way to not put it back in the economy is to take it out of the bank as cash and hold it as cash.
Still no explanation how you and liberal lawyers know more about economics than economists?
Spend it overseas.... ah yes, but there's that little axiom that says that the trade must be balanced, so the money ends returning. Yes kind of true, but as economists say : in the long run. Which means that in the short run a country might have an increasing trade deficit ( does that sound familiar ) .
It can also buy its own stock or other companies'stock which are also buying stocks from other companies instead of investing it in capital goods,
I agree option 1 will put the money back in the local economy , IF and only IF they invest it within their country.
Wrong:
- Spend it overseas: Nope, they increased the wealth of the owners of the company. And the economy is global, it's like saying a healthy Minnesota economy doesn't help Ohio. Sure it does.
- Buy it's own stock or another companies stock. - Bizarre answer. They buy their own stock, that money goes to someone in the economy, it didn't disappear. Ditto buy another company's stock. Someone got the money in the economy
as for "creating a stock ( or instrument ) bubble . Does that sound familiar again ?"
Um..what? That's ridiculous
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
yes, so we wait years for a liberal bureaucratic monopoly to build a bridge to nowhere to stimulate the economy and we tax venture capitalists to get the money for it!! It makes perfect sense.... if you want to destimulate an economy as the soviets did!!
CultureCitizen
Silver Member
- Jun 1, 2013
- 1,932
- 140
- 95
- Thread starter
- #58
Ridiculous. Why then has China been growing at an average of +8% rate during the last fifteen years and its foreign reserves skyrocketed to 3.9 trillion while the US growth rate has been 3.9% during the same period of time and both public debt and household debt have increased in the same period of time?
Reallity doesn't seem to check with your "theory".
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,172
- 1,100
dear they have far lower wages so easily beat the civilized world in low cost production now that they are competiting capitalistically.
Simple enough?????
CultureCitizen
Silver Member
- Jun 1, 2013
- 1,932
- 140
- 95
- Thread starter
- #60
And all that foreign investment has translated into a huge gdp growth for the US as well as an increase in the reserves and a significant decrease in the public and private debt level !!! Wow !!!
Oh, please continue ... I am starting to feel enlightened by your sound economic theory.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
Are you worried about turnkey totalitarianism? (A military takeover by Trump.)- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 4
-
The Same People Who Told Us Biden Was Sharp Are Now Trying To Claim Trump Is Low-Energy And Tired- Started by mudwhistle
- Replies: 26
-
-
The Trump Administration announced 100% tariffs on imports of pharmaceuticals to the US. What think USMB?- Started by Zincwarrior
- Replies: 6
