Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!

[Dad2three]

Then once their monopolistic policies run competition out, they are free to increase prices!

1000% stupid and 100% liberal as always:

1) the more monopolistic a company gets the more competition it inspires
2) regardless, there are no monopolies, only Marx thought there would be
and now we have international competition so even less likely
3) regardless, monopolies are illegal if ever there was one

See why we have to be positive that a liberal will be stupid? Is any other conclusion possible??

Tell that to JD Rock and his standard oil monopoly Bubba, lol

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What a load, as is proven by the accumulation of wealth by the middle class after WWII, and yes they had minimum wage then also...

Pure garbage. That is so stupid I am ROTFLMAO.

There was no competition after WWII. End of discussion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Stick with a minimum wage job and often times opportunity for advancement will present itself.
Many people have risen through the ranks this way.

That's a great point but the thread OP isn't really about that. Think of a world where "minimum wage" never existed? Think of all the types of arrangements which could be made between parties? Maybe I offer an inexperienced laborer and opportunity to train for 90 days at a pay rate of $40 a day... if he completes the training, he is hired as skilled labor making $20 hr. Or maybe I have a job that not many people want to do. When I offer to pay $7.50 hr., people laugh at me... you gotta be kidding, Boss... no way! So not having some arbitrary "baseline" to price labor, I might pay $10hr.. or $15hr. Eventually, I will offer an amount that is attractive to someone who doesn't mind the job. That's how free market systems work.

As it stands, no need for me to offer more... it's a shit job that pays shit wages because the price of labor is baselined. The corporatist has been given a free pass here... you've set up an artificial parameter they can exploit to their advantage by not increasing wages because they can always point to the minimum wage, which their pay scales are based upon. Basically, we've screwed ourselves out of being to negotiate in a free market way for the use of our labor. There could be jobs you wouldn't mind doing for $2 an hr., just so you can get experience. If you're okay with that and they are okay with it, why shouldn't you be able to negotiate it? Well, you can't now because of minimum wage.

When there was no minimum wage in the industrial era, wages were shit wages and working hours were long, people barely made enough to pay for basic necessities.Have you never studied sociology on the pre-modern industrial age?

Wage wasn't the only thing included.

The barrons of the day could basically kill anyone who challenged them.

I love you dorks who can't factor more than one variable at a time into your thinking.

 

[G.T.]

Special ed vs. Boss???? Lol fuckin awesome. Can we get a retard fight subforum?

 

[Andylusion]

Political decisions are not allways made taking into account the rest of the population.

100% stupid!! shopping at Walmart or any place with lower prices because you think it will improve your standard of living is not a political decision.

Ed,
Sometime ago I read an article in which chinese local stores were going broke because of Wallmart.
While Wallmart did have lower prices, many were left without a job, and many others had less income.
Buyers might thing Wallmart is a great thing
Former store owners and employees ... meh , not so much.

Yeah, and you could say the same thing a million times over in relation to any good thing.

The advent of computers was terrible for 'owners and employees of typewriter companies'.

The business of horse breeders and trainers sure hit a nose dive when the model T started rolling around the streets.

Here in Columbus Ohio, there used to be a small host of computer shops in the 90s. Then came this huge store MicroCenter. The computer mega store was the place to go, and all the small shops largely disappeared.

How many people lost jobs making car phones, or pagers, or so on?

Computers used to be hand built. In 1976, and Apple 1 computer was $666. That's almost $3,000 in todays money.

I just recently bought a computer for under $400, 3.7 Ghz Quad-core, 8 GB Mem, TeraByte HD, lot of other nifty things too.

For almost 1/10th the cost, I have a computers that is the relative equivalency of Star Trek technology to a Mongol Horde counting piles of bones.

Oh.... but that's not good, because all the people who hand built Apple 1 computers.... lost their jobs.

Do you see the problem here? Advancement by it's nature is going to result in disruption. Disruption of the economy is normal, and natural, and should be expected.

Those that provide more goods, or better goods, to more people, or at a lower price, and any combination thereof, are by their nature going to displace those that provide fewer goods, or lower quality goods, to fewer people, or at a higher price.

I've been to the Mom&Pop shop. I've worked for a Mom&Pop shop. Quite frankly, if they can't compete they need closed down. And honestly, the average Walmart still employs 280 people.

How many Mom&Pop shops would it take to provide as many jobs as a Walmart? And that's just direct employment. How many truck drivers are employed to supply a Walmart, verses a Mom&Pop shop?

So if you want to focus only on the one guy that lost his over priced, limited selection, local store that had zero benefits and minimal wages for the employees..... ok fine. But the people are better off this way. They only make $2 a day, and you would rather them pay $2 for a cup of rice at the local shop, or $2 for entire pound of rice from Walmart? They know where the better deal is, and you should support them being able to have a better life.

 

[CultureCitizen]

No, you are wrong. Free-trade does not happen, unless both people benefit.

Only someone who doesn't have a clue about any specific deals, and starts talking in nebulous abstract statements, does it harm one at the benefit of the other.

Free trade happens out of political will, not due to popular acclaim.

 

[Andylusion]

No, you are wrong. Free-trade does not happen, unless both people benefit.

Only someone who doesn't have a clue about any specific deals, and starts talking in nebulous abstract statements, does it harm one at the benefit of the other.

Free trade happens out of political will, not due to popular acclaim.

Bull crap dude. Are you nutz?

My company imports goods from China to make our product.

You are telling me, that the reason that trade happened was because some politician came and told us to?

No. Fail.

The reason that trade happened was because our company benefited from buying those supplies from that Chinese company. The reason that company in China sold to us, is because it was beneficial to them to sell to us.

They benefit. We benefit. The entire transaction is mutually beneficial. If it was not mutually beneficial, then it would not happen.

Equally, the reason we sell our finished products to China, is because it is beneficial to us to sell to them, and it's beneficial for them to buy from us.

If it was not mutually beneficial it would not happen.

No amount of political anything, would make that transaction happen, if it was not mutually beneficial.

Stop saying idiotic things.

 

[CultureCitizen]

In the 1950s, Cuba had a standard of living closer to the US. From then, till now, the left has been screaming non-stop that the only reason Cuba is poor, the only reason they can't buy a new car, or or give aspirin to the ill, is all because of the embargo.

Shocking concept.

Interesting . Well , you will probably like to know that Cuba has been outperforming Mexico during the whole NAFTA period. Cuban embargo ,and Mexican mass migration and remittances notwithstanding.

gdp per capita ppp mexico | gdp per capita ppp cuba - Wolfram|Alpha

Shocking isn't it ?
Oh, but there's more... It actually outperformed the rate of growth of the USA.
While the per capita ppp income in America went from 24,000 in 1990 to 54,629 in 2014 or a factor of 2.27
Cuba's gdp per capita ppp went from 8,835 to 20,788 which is a factor of 2.35.

And that of course is just the per capita income , becuse household income has been stagnated for two decades.
So please , continue telling me of the benefits of free trade.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You are telling me, that the reason that trade happened was because some politician came and told us to?

No. Fail.

Well , someone had to set up a special economic zone in China , that was the Chinese government
Someone had to reduce the tariffs on goods imported from China... the government , again.
And someone set the value of the Yuan for a long time, the government, again.

China is the worst example of free trade. China's model is a weird combination :
- Massive SOE (State capitalsm)
- Free trade and investment, but only in special economic zones.
- No foreign indirect investment allowed for a long time.
- Export led growth.

Is the US a net beneficiary of the trade with China ?
I don't think so, I think the benefficiary has been China.
Arguably it has helped them a lot and improved the lifes of millions of human beings, but a balance has to be achieved. The negative trade deficit of the US can't continue growing forever.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Computers used to be hand built. In 1976, and Apple 1 computer was $666. That's almost $3,000 in todays money.

I just recently bought a computer for under $400, 3.7 Ghz Quad-core, 8 GB Mem, TeraByte HD, lot of other nifty things too.

For almost 1/10th the cost, I have a computers that is the relative equivalency of Star Trek technology to a Mongol Horde counting piles of bones.

This is a byproduct of Moore's Law and unralated to free trade between nations.

 

[Andylusion]

In the 1950s, Cuba had a standard of living closer to the US. From then, till now, the left has been screaming non-stop that the only reason Cuba is poor, the only reason they can't buy a new car, or or give aspirin to the ill, is all because of the embargo.

Shocking concept.

Interesting . Well , you will probably like to know that Cuba has been outperforming Mexico during the whole NAFTA period. Cuban embargo ,and Mexican mass migration and remittances notwithstanding.

gdp per capita ppp mexico | gdp per capita ppp cuba - Wolfram|Alpha

Shocking isn't it ?
Oh, but there's more... It actually outperformed the rate of growth of the USA.
While the per capita ppp income in America went from 24,000 in 1990 to 54,629 in 2014 or a factor of 2.27
Cuba's gdp per capita ppp went from 8,835 to 20,788 which is a factor of 2.35.

And that of course is just the per capita income , becuse household income has been stagnated for two decades.
So please , continue telling me of the benefits of free trade.

Why would that be shocking?

Cuba has moved towards free trade, and moved towards Capitalism.

We would expect that the economy in a severely depressed economy, would drastically improve. And the lower the wages are to begin with, the higher the jump will be.

You realize that in 2004, the average Cuban wage was roughly 14 Pesos a day. 27 Pesos is a US dollar. So most of them work for 50¢ a day in 2004. One international business is allowed to setup and operate in Cuba, paying $1 a day, and the per capita income is going to double for them.

Why anyone would be shocked that Cuba opening up markets would result in a sudden jump in GDP, is beyond me for sure. You should expect that. Everyone should.

Today the average income is 24 Pesos a day. That's a massive jump in average pay, in just 10 years.

And they have more trade, more economic freedom, private business, private land ownership. The liberalizing of the economy is paying huge dividends.

The BBC did a documentary on private business in Cuba just a week or so ago. There's a guy buying cars (illegal before), and buying imported parts (illegal before), repairing the cars and selling them for a profit (illegal before). Yeah..... dude wages and GDP is going to rise in Cuba.... and FAST.

That's Capitalism in action. Capitalism ALWAYS works. Every single time it's tried.

 

[Spinster]

Today the minimum wage was raised to $15. Another squeeze on the old toothpaste tube, according to you. Out of the tube and no going back, isn't that your analogy?

 

[danielpalos]

In the 1950s, Cuba had a standard of living closer to the US. From then, till now, the left has been screaming non-stop that the only reason Cuba is poor, the only reason they can't buy a new car, or or give aspirin to the ill, is all because of the embargo.

Shocking concept.

Interesting . Well , you will probably like to know that Cuba has been outperforming Mexico during the whole NAFTA period. Cuban embargo ,and Mexican mass migration and remittances notwithstanding.

gdp per capita ppp mexico | gdp per capita ppp cuba - Wolfram|Alpha

Shocking isn't it ?
Oh, but there's more... It actually outperformed the rate of growth of the USA.
While the per capita ppp income in America went from 24,000 in 1990 to 54,629 in 2014 or a factor of 2.27
Cuba's gdp per capita ppp went from 8,835 to 20,788 which is a factor of 2.35.

And that of course is just the per capita income , becuse household income has been stagnated for two decades.
So please , continue telling me of the benefits of free trade.

Why would that be shocking?

Cuba has moved towards free trade, and moved towards Capitalism.

We would expect that the economy in a severely depressed economy, would drastically improve. And the lower the wages are to begin with, the higher the jump will be.

You realize that in 2004, the average Cuban wage was roughly 14 Pesos a day. 27 Pesos is a US dollar. So most of them work for 50¢ a day in 2004. One international business is allowed to setup and operate in Cuba, paying $1 a day, and the per capita income is going to double for them.

Why anyone would be shocked that Cuba opening up markets would result in a sudden jump in GDP, is beyond me for sure. You should expect that. Everyone should.

Today the average income is 24 Pesos a day. That's a massive jump in average pay, in just 10 years.

And they have more trade, more economic freedom, private business, private land ownership. The liberalizing of the economy is paying huge dividends.

The BBC did a documentary on private business in Cuba just a week or so ago. There's a guy buying cars (illegal before), and buying imported parts (illegal before), repairing the cars and selling them for a profit (illegal before). Yeah..... dude wages and GDP is going to rise in Cuba.... and FAST.

That's Capitalism in action. Capitalism ALWAYS works. Every single time it's tried.

Yes, it is why Good socialists should merely learn how to use capitalism for all of its worth.

 

[CultureCitizen]

In the 1950s, Cuba had a standard of living closer to the US. From then, till now, the left has been screaming non-stop that the only reason Cuba is poor, the only reason they can't buy a new car, or or give aspirin to the ill, is all because of the embargo.

Shocking concept.

Interesting . Well , you will probably like to know that Cuba has been outperforming Mexico during the whole NAFTA period. Cuban embargo ,and Mexican mass migration and remittances notwithstanding.

gdp per capita ppp mexico | gdp per capita ppp cuba - Wolfram|Alpha

Shocking isn't it ?
Oh, but there's more... It actually outperformed the rate of growth of the USA.
While the per capita ppp income in America went from 24,000 in 1990 to 54,629 in 2014 or a factor of 2.27
Cuba's gdp per capita ppp went from 8,835 to 20,788 which is a factor of 2.35.

And that of course is just the per capita income , becuse household income has been stagnated for two decades.
So please , continue telling me of the benefits of free trade.

Why would that be shocking?

Cuba has moved towards free trade, and moved towards Capitalism.

We would expect that the economy in a severely depressed economy, would drastically improve. And the lower the wages are to begin with, the higher the jump will be.

You realize that in 2004, the average Cuban wage was roughly 14 Pesos a day. 27 Pesos is a US dollar. So most of them work for 50¢ a day in 2004. One international business is allowed to setup and operate in Cuba, paying $1 a day, and the per capita income is going to double for them.

Why anyone would be shocked that Cuba opening up markets would result in a sudden jump in GDP, is beyond me for sure. You should expect that. Everyone should.

Today the average income is 24 Pesos a day. That's a massive jump in average pay, in just 10 years.

And they have more trade, more economic freedom, private business, private land ownership. The liberalizing of the economy is paying huge dividends.

The BBC did a documentary on private business in Cuba just a week or so ago. There's a guy buying cars (illegal before), and buying imported parts (illegal before), repairing the cars and selling them for a profit (illegal before). Yeah..... dude wages and GDP is going to rise in Cuba.... and FAST.

That's Capitalism in action. Capitalism ALWAYS works. Every single time it's tried.

You talk as if central planning and regulations had disapeared from Cuba overnight and the embargo had been lifted 20 years ago. Cuba has embraced capitalism partialy ( as china did ) , but it does not embrace free trade ( how can it be called free trade with an embargo enacted )
Also notice :

"The top individual income tax rate is 50 percent. The top corporate tax rate is 30 percent (35 percent for wholly foreign-owned companies). Other taxes include a tax on property transfers and a sales tax. The overall tax burden is 24.4 percent of GDP. Government spending is around 67 percent of GDP, and public debt is around 35 percent of the domestic economy. Despite reforms, the government continues to play a large role in the economy"

I am sure most Americans would flinch at the perspective of having government in control of 67% of GDP.
There is a clear distinction between capitalism and the different shapes it takes like mercantilism and free trade ( which are opposed ) .

"Free trade is a policy followed by some international markets in which countries' governments do not restrict imports from or exports to other countries. Free trade is exemplified by the European Economic Area and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which have established open markets."

 

[Andylusion]

Computers used to be hand built. In 1976, and Apple 1 computer was $666. That's almost $3,000 in todays money.

I just recently bought a computer for under $400, 3.7 Ghz Quad-core, 8 GB Mem, TeraByte HD, lot of other nifty things too.

For almost 1/10th the cost, I have a computers that is the relative equivalency of Star Trek technology to a Mongol Horde counting piles of bones.

This is a byproduct of Moore's Law and unralated to free trade between nations.

No, this is byproduct of capitalism. Unrelated to free trade. If computers were still put together by hand, no amount of Moore's Law would cause the price to drop the way it has.

The point is, you were looking at an effect that is inherent to a free-market Capitalistic system.

If Walmart was not allowed in China, it would be WuMart. If you didn't know, WuMart is the Chinese equivalent, and it does exactly the same thing. It provides retail products at a lower price, and wipes out the small local shops.

What difference does it make? The large successful companies are going to wipe out the small expensive lesser businesses. This is normal, and good.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Computers used to be hand built. In 1976, and Apple 1 computer was $666. That's almost $3,000 in todays money.

I just recently bought a computer for under $400, 3.7 Ghz Quad-core, 8 GB Mem, TeraByte HD, lot of other nifty things too.

For almost 1/10th the cost, I have a computers that is the relative equivalency of Star Trek technology to a Mongol Horde counting piles of bones.

This is a byproduct of Moore's Law and unralated to free trade between nations.

No, this is byproduct of capitalism. Unrelated to free trade. If computers were still put together by hand, no amount of Moore's Law would cause the price to drop the way it has.

The point is, you were looking at an effect that is inherent to a free-market Capitalistic system.

If Walmart was not allowed in China, it would be WuMart. If you didn't know, WuMart is the Chinese equivalent, and it does exactly the same thing. It provides retail products at a lower price, and wipes out the small local shops.

What difference does it make? The large successful companies are going to wipe out the small expensive lesser businesses. This is normal, and good.

If this was a byproduct of capitalism we would now have China made cars which ran at 1,000 mph and yielded 1,000 miles per gallon.
Different technologies.
I can't argu against the benefits of competition, but you are ascribing it a feat which is completely unrelated.

 

[Andylusion]

You are telling me, that the reason that trade happened was because some politician came and told us to?

No. Fail.

Well , someone had to set up a special economic zone in China , that was the Chinese government
Someone had to reduce the tariffs on goods imported from China... the government , again.
And someone set the value of the Yuan for a long time, the government, again.

China is the worst example of free trade. China's model is a weird combination :
- Massive SOE (State capitalsm)
- Free trade and investment, but only in special economic zones.
- No foreign indirect investment allowed for a long time.
- Export led growth.

Is the US a net beneficiary of the trade with China ?
I don't think so, I think the benefficiary has been China.
Arguably it has helped them a lot and improved the lifes of millions of human beings, but a balance has to be achieved. The negative trade deficit of the US can't continue growing forever.

The whole reason you need 'economic zones', or as I call them "Socialism-Free Zones", is because the government created all the harmful, economy reducing policies to begin with.

There would be no need of any SEZs, or ETDZs, if there were not these harmful policies to begin with. If the government had not engaged in regulation and protectionism, and taxation to begin with, they wouldn't need a regulation-free, protectionism free, taxation free zones for the economy to be able to grow.

You trying to credit the government for economic growth by allowing Socialism-Free Zones, is like praising the bully who steals kids lunch money at school, because he instituted a 'you can keep a dollar to eat off of' policy. Praise the bully. Thanks to him, kids still have a dollar to eat lunch with.

No, he caused the problem of them not having money to begin with.

Praise Chinese government for setting up "we will allow you to succeed here" areas. Yay government.

No, the government is who was preventing them from succeeding to begin with. And we know that, because government has built entire cities that are empty and abandoned. Why? Because they don't have freedom to succeed. They need a 'gov-free' zone placed over the cities, or they will remain empty indefinitely.

Yes, absolutely we have benefited from trade with China. If we didn't benefit from it, we wouldn't do it. Without trade from China, my company wouldn't even exist.

In fact, several of the companies I have worked for, all wouldn't exist without international trade.

Now I agree, we need to stop borrowing money. That involves less socialist policies that borrow and spend.

But you are looking at over all growth, and comparing that to China, as if the two are connected. They are not.

The reason our economy has been sluggish, is not because of trade at all. It's because we've attacked jobs, attacked our corporations, attacked the wealthy that make the economy go. In short, it's because we've been anti-Capitalist.

The reason their economy has performed much better, is not entirely due to trade. It's because they have supported jobs, supported corporations, and supported wealthy investing in their country, that makes the economy go. In short, it's because they have been pro-Capitalist.

Any country that moves more towards Capitalism, will grow faster. Any that moves towards Socialism will grow slower. That why what you see the trends with the US and China.

China is a fantastic example.

Yes, China has free-trade in limited areas..... those are the areas that have the massive growth. You don't see other areas growing, as much as the areas with free-trade.

Just like, before 1978, when they were entirely protectionist, compared to Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been entirely Free-Trade forever. Which did better? Clearly the free-trade did. Of course they also had the accompanying low-taxes, lax employment laws, low government spending, and low regulations on business.

Yes, China has State Owned Enterprises. Well there's a shock... since for 50 plus years, private enterprise was nearly banned. The fact that SOEs only employ 20% of the labor force today, and only account for 30% of the economy, and nearly all the growth is from private industry, and nearly all SOEs have private stake holders, and ALL are planned to be privatized in the future.... Not a big factor anymore.

SOEs are dying out. Even now, of China's top 10 companies, private firms that have only existed a few decades, are taking over for State companies that have been around for 70 years. Noble Group Limited, 10th largest company in China, created in 1986. Entirely private. Ping An Insurance insurance, 7th largest company in China (according to Forbes), founded in 1988.

The SOE dinosaurs, are going away. Capitalism always wins over socialism.

Export led growth.....

Again, this is natural and expected, and good. No one should be shocked by this.

The rest of the nation still has tons of controls, regulations, taxes and so on. It's a little hard to have domestic internal growth, when the rest of the domestic internal economy still has high burdensome taxes, regulations, red tape and controls.

You end up with ghost cities like Ordos China. They look at the boom in the socialism-free zones, and think that all they have to do is build a bunch of stuff, and the boom will start up there. False.

But it's more than that. People that have no money, can't buy anything. In order to have a dramatic growth of imports, you have to have people with money.

The whole reason we in America have large imports, is because we have people that buy stuff. I just bought this computer. I have the money to buy it.

In China, prior to 1978, 2/3rds of the people were earning $2 a day or less. What the heck do you think they can afford to buy that's imported?

So of course, if there is going to be growth, it will be through exports.

 

[Andylusion]

Computers used to be hand built. In 1976, and Apple 1 computer was $666. That's almost $3,000 in todays money.

I just recently bought a computer for under $400, 3.7 Ghz Quad-core, 8 GB Mem, TeraByte HD, lot of other nifty things too.

For almost 1/10th the cost, I have a computers that is the relative equivalency of Star Trek technology to a Mongol Horde counting piles of bones.

This is a byproduct of Moore's Law and unralated to free trade between nations.

No, this is byproduct of capitalism. Unrelated to free trade. If computers were still put together by hand, no amount of Moore's Law would cause the price to drop the way it has.

The point is, you were looking at an effect that is inherent to a free-market Capitalistic system.

If Walmart was not allowed in China, it would be WuMart. If you didn't know, WuMart is the Chinese equivalent, and it does exactly the same thing. It provides retail products at a lower price, and wipes out the small local shops.

What difference does it make? The large successful companies are going to wipe out the small expensive lesser businesses. This is normal, and good.

If this was a byproduct of capitalism we would now have China made cars which ran at 1,000 mph and yielded 1,000 miles per gallon.
Different technologies.
I can't argu against the benefits of competition, but you are ascribing it a feat which is completely unrelated.

What are you talking about? That's not a logical, or scientifically sound claim. China is building cars, and they are planning to import them here in America.

But all the Capitalism in the world, can't change the laws of physics, so that you can magically run 1,000 MPH, and get 1,000 miles per gallon.

If you think my claim was that Capitalism suspends the laws of physics, then you have some issues that this debate can't help.

But if you are simply trying to deny that Capitalism pushes advancement..... then I'd have to ask how many examples would you like?

Cuba running old clunkers from the 1950s? Living in homes without windows? People being carried to hospitals in wheel burrows?

How about India's Hindustan Ambassador?

Hindustan Ambassador - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This cars design was purchased by Hindustan from Morris Motors out of the UK, in 1956. They started producing the car in 1958. Morris Motors car ceased production in 1959. But the Hindustan Ambassador went on behind protectionist walls until 2014.

In fact, the Ambassador had only a minor face-lift in 1962, and from '62 until 1979 it was literally unchanged.

What happened in 1979? Suzuki got permission to build cars in India in 1979. Just knowing that another car company from Japan was going to compete against them, forced them to update a car that had been unchanged for 20 years.

From 1979, the design competing against the unchanged Suzuki Maruti 800, remained itself unchanged until 1990-1992, where the Ambassodor Nova, and Ambassador 1800 ISZ came out.

What happened in 1990-1992? India allowed massive trade and foreign companies to come into the country. Without restrictions of competition, the Ambassador had to be improved upon.

For example.... from 1959, to 1992, the Ambassador was still using the exact same 1.5L 55 HP engine that the Morris Oxford had in 1956.

For example.... until 1992, the Ambassador didn't have a speed-o-meter.

Why not? Because they didn't need it. No competition. They were 'protected' behind protectionist barriers. Every single time the protectionist walls were removed, suddenly they had to innovate.

You want to see innovation in America disappear? Just put in place massive protectionism. We can stay in stagnant isolation too. But at least no Hindustan Ambassador workers lost their jobs building a crappy poor handling weakly powered clown car from the 1950s. That's a 'good' thing right?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yes, China has State Owned Enterprises. Well there's a shock... since for 50 plus years, private enterprise was nearly banned. The fact that SOEs only employ 20% of the labor force today, and only account for 30% of the economy, and nearly all the growth is from private industry, and nearly all SOEs have private stake holders, and ALL are planned to be privatized in the future.... Not a big factor anymore.

Uh ... some of your posts are so long I sometimes feel like skiping them altogether.

What about taking a look at asset shares ?

"With all these evidences in hand, we can now answer the question raised before: How big are Chinese SOEs? Even though their share in the economy continued to decline in the past decade, SOEs still make up a substantial part of the national economy – roughly controlling 30 percent of the total secondary and tertiary assets, or over 50 percent of total industrial assets. The average size of SOEs is much bigger than their non-SOE peers, with average assets of the former equaling over 13 times of the latter."

50% of industrial assets !! Sory , but I can't consider that "not a big factor anymore".


State-owned enterprises in China: How big are they?

 

[CultureCitizen]

You want to see innovation in America disappear? Just put in place massive protectionism. We can stay in stagnant isolation too. But at least no Hindustan Ambassador workers lost their jobs building a crappy poor handling weakly powered clown car from the 1950s. That's a 'good' thing right?

You are taking my statement out of context.
1) Competition is necesary period. I don't argue that.
2) That said , doing the average joe washington concensus neo liberal free trade agreement does not benefit the less developed economy.

3) As an alternative Asian countries have established a diferent model , allowing "limited competition", protecting certain industries by government intervention or by tariffs.
While this has prooved a great for nations in development , it has prooved the doom for the USA.
It is woefully miopic that 99% of the people I duscuss can't see the difference between 1 and 2.

4) Ultimately China's own excesive investment has created excesive production capacity and production at the cost of a gigantic private debt . That is a bubble which is about to burst ( I give it 1 year max).

5) You make a terrible mistake : you can't distinguish free trade with controlled trade. Nor China, nor Cuba nor SK followed a free trade strategy. In the first two cases the state remained a key element of the production for many years.
In the second infant industry was successfully protected by tariffs, this is also what the US made to avoid direct competition with the British Empire.