The Use Of The Term “Fair” As Virtue-Signaling

[PoliticalChic]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

"trade with China ... it's a perfect example of the free market?



Do your attendants know that you've chewed threw the restraints again????

I'll note you did nothing to dispute my point outside of some stupid failed attempt at an insult.

That's what is done when you can't address the point.

Sure I did.....I recognized you as an imbecile.

So we will agree you have no rebuttal.

We agree that you are among the dumbest and least correct of posters.

You're simply one more of the cookie-cutter supporters of totalitarianism that government school turns out by the bushel.


Bet you hear that a lot.

 

[rightwinger]

The tax code was not “fair” to the wealthy
Trump had to change it

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. David Mamet exposes the Leftists who wants ‘fair’ or equality of material wealth.


"The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.


Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!"
Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.”



There is only one entity that correctly establishes what is "fair" and that is capitalism.

Only capitalism regards man as a sovereign individual with an inalienable right to his own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Government recognition and protection of individual rights is the hallmark of a moral, peaceful, productive society.
Sipsey Street Irregulars: The lie before the crime. "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" ("The community comes before the individual")

 

[NightFox]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

 

[pknopp]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

 

[Dragonlady]

Does this also apply to "fair trade" which we hear so much about to justify the trade war?

Yeah it would, "fair" is relative so what might be "fair" to one party might be seen as wholly "unfair" to another party.

Trump is using the word in this case to justify renegotiating the terms of trade, it's up to him to make the case that the existing terms of trade are "unfair", so far it would appear that he's achieved a moderate amount of success in making that case given the concessions that the Chinese seem willing to make.

Personally though I think the Administrations approach has been clumsy, he could have gotten a better deal 3 years ago or he could have built a coalition of trading partners to go at the Chinese as a group, instead he made poorly timed demands that the Chinese would never agree to and did it unilaterally.

So far, the Chinese haven't made ANY concessions. The current deal just puts things back to where you started two years ago, except that American farmers have lost half of their markets. What's worse is that Trump is portray a return to pre-tariff rules as some sort of victory, while the farm bailout has now cost taxpayers more than the auto bailout. Sadly, taxpayers recovered nearly all of the money paid in the auto bailout, but the farm bailout funds are lost.

 

[NightFox]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

 

[NightFox]

Does this also apply to "fair trade" which we hear so much about to justify the trade war?

Yeah it would, "fair" is relative so what might be "fair" to one party might be seen as wholly "unfair" to another party.

Trump is using the word in this case to justify renegotiating the terms of trade, it's up to him to make the case that the existing terms of trade are "unfair", so far it would appear that he's achieved a moderate amount of success in making that case given the concessions that the Chinese seem willing to make.

Personally though I think the Administrations approach has been clumsy, he could have gotten a better deal 3 years ago or he could have built a coalition of trading partners to go at the Chinese as a group, instead he made poorly timed demands that the Chinese would never agree to and did it unilaterally.

So far, the Chinese haven't made ANY concessions.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention, the Chinese have offered a number of concessions (primarily agreements to increased purchases of American goods), most of which the U.S. has either rejected or not made a decision on (publicly).

 

[Dragonlady]

Does this also apply to "fair trade" which we hear so much about to justify the trade war?

Yeah it would, "fair" is relative so what might be "fair" to one party might be seen as wholly "unfair" to another party.

Trump is using the word in this case to justify renegotiating the terms of trade, it's up to him to make the case that the existing terms of trade are "unfair", so far it would appear that he's achieved a moderate amount of success in making that case given the concessions that the Chinese seem willing to make.

Personally though I think the Administrations approach has been clumsy, he could have gotten a better deal 3 years ago or he could have built a coalition of trading partners to go at the Chinese as a group, instead he made poorly timed demands that the Chinese would never agree to and did it unilaterally.

So far, the Chinese haven't made ANY concessions.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention, the Chinese have offered a number of concessions (primarily agreements to increased purchases of American goods), most of which the U.S. has either rejected or not made a decision on (publicly).

Actually, I paid REALLY close attention to what is being offered by the Chinese, and it's all smoke and mirrors, and leaves American farmers worse off than before. I went back and looked at the trade numbers for agricultural goods, and manufactured goods, and all this deal does is reset the trade numbers to pre-tariff numbers by 2022, and trade mark infringements will be negotiated AFTER the 2020 election.

This deal is a facing saving exercise to give Trump some sort of victory he can take into the 2020 election campaign, but it does nothing for American manufacturing and worse than nothing for American farmers who can't afford to wait until 2022 to get half their market back.

When you go into a negotiation, you need to know as much as possible about the other side - to know their strengths and weaknesses. Trump doesn't do that. He goes by his "feelings" when he enters the room. This is why every one of Trump's negotiations on behalf of the American people have ended with Trump getting fleeced.

Trump doesn't negotiate - he bullys. He thought the size of the American market is such that he can dictate who and how nations can deal with US markets and they'll cave rather than lose the market. Because he doesn't study his opposition, he has no idea how his tactics can or will be countered.

Trump slapped tariffs on a broad range of Chinese goods. The Chinese not only slapped tariffs on American farmers (a very vulnerable segment of the economy which was highly dependent on trade with China), and then cancelled all orders for American soy beans. The American soybean industry has been effectively destroyed, and China has developed new sources in South America, and is busy building seaports in South America to facilitate transports from this new Chinese source across the Pacific.

So once again, Trump fails to do his due dilligence before entering negotiations. His opening gambit is to bully and threaten, and then ask for his demands to be met, or else. And Xi totally outplayed him. Has their been pain for China? Yes, but not nearly as much as for Americans, and Xi is President for life. He's not facing re-election next year.

Xi, Putin, Erdogan and Kim all want Trump re-elected, because all of the leaders are smarter than Dumb Donald and are playing him like a fiddle, while America is drowning in drugs, guns, with a President who exploits all of the problems for his own personal benefit.

 

[pknopp]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

So we aren't free market capitalists?

 

[NightFox]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Spare me your ham handed attempts to put words into my mouth, K?

That's not what I wrote and I meant EXACTLY what I wrote, what is that you don't understand? be specific and I'll attempt to put it into terms that you can comprehend.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. As government school students are trained not to question what they are ‘taught’, they simply gloss over the suggestion that religion is based on superstition…but Marxism, socialism, and every failed Leftist iteration isn’t.

"Republicans are still heavily enamored with capitalism, with no noticeable change since polling conducted in 2010.
Notably, only 47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, a drop of 9 points (from 56%) in only two years."
POLL: Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism



Worse than ‘superstition’…it is a perennial failure.


"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."

Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144


And, in fact, they don’t believe it themselves:

“Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually, I paid REALLY close attention to what is being offered by the Chinese, and it's all smoke and mirrors, and leaves American farmers worse off than before....

You are not wrong, that is for sure. Was reading this just yesterday.

"Dimmed" Hopes That China Will Double U.S. Farm Purchases, as Phase-One Deal Signing on Schedule • Farm Policy News

 

[NightFox]

Does this also apply to "fair trade" which we hear so much about to justify the trade war?

Yeah it would, "fair" is relative so what might be "fair" to one party might be seen as wholly "unfair" to another party.

Trump is using the word in this case to justify renegotiating the terms of trade, it's up to him to make the case that the existing terms of trade are "unfair", so far it would appear that he's achieved a moderate amount of success in making that case given the concessions that the Chinese seem willing to make.

Personally though I think the Administrations approach has been clumsy, he could have gotten a better deal 3 years ago or he could have built a coalition of trading partners to go at the Chinese as a group, instead he made poorly timed demands that the Chinese would never agree to and did it unilaterally.

So far, the Chinese haven't made ANY concessions.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention, the Chinese have offered a number of concessions (primarily agreements to increased purchases of American goods), most of which the U.S. has either rejected or not made a decision on (publicly).

Actually, I paid REALLY close attention to what is being offered by the Chinese,

If you've paid "REALLY close attention", then how come in your previous post you claimed that the "Chinese haven't made ANY concessions", yet in your very next post you go on to explain why you believe the concessions offered by the Chinese weren't advantageous to U.S. interests?

You've contradicted yourself without even realizing it.

 

[pknopp]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Spare me your ham handed attempts to put words into my mouth,

I did not say you said that. I asked you a question. That is how this works. You say something and I ask questions based upon what you said.

That's not what I wrote and I meant EXACTLY what I wrote, what is that you don't understand? be specific and I'll attempt to put it into terms that you can comprehend.

I'll note, you didn't answer my question.

 

[NightFox]

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Spare me your ham handed attempts to put words into my mouth,

I did not say you said that. I asked you a question. That is how this works. You say something and I ask questions based upon what you said.

I guess I forgot to remove the "I was born yesterday" sticker from my forehead, don't play stupid, you asked a leading question as if it was a valid conclusion to what I posted, it's an old deflection trick that people that just had their assertions invalidated by reason attempt to use.

I'll note, you didn't answer my question.

Because your question was completely unrelated to what I posted in the first place, which I assume you did because I completely destroyed your simple minded assertion that Chinese-U.S. trade was a "perfect example of the free market".

Now you want me to school you on what is and what is not a free-market capitalist which, given your affinity for avoiding admitting your obvious errors isn't worth the effort, it would just be inviting more pointless bullshit from you.

 

[pknopp]

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Spare me your ham handed attempts to put words into my mouth,

I did not say you said that. I asked you a question. That is how this works. You say something and I ask questions based upon what you said.

I guess I forgot to remove the "I was born yesterday" sticker from my forehead, don't play stupid, you asked a leading question as if it was a valid conclusion to what I posted, it's an old deflection trick that people that just had their assertions invalidated by reason attempt to use.

It's a simple question. You either know or you don't.

Because your question was completely unrelated to what I posted in the first place, which I assume you did because I completely destroyed your simple minded assertion that Chinese-U.S. trade was a "perfect example of the free market".

Now you want me to school you on what is and what is not a free-market capitalist which, given your affinity for avoiding admitting your obvious errors isn't worth the effort, it would just be inviting more pointless bullshit from you.

They have something we want and we trade them money for that. Is that not how it is supposed to work?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. There are only two choices: either the individual is in charge of his own life, or one must bend the knee and the neck to bureaucrats, special individuals imbued with the knowledge akin to God.


"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."
Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144

…or, Hussein, called god by the Liberals.





Under the collectivist way: Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism and Progressivism, the belief is that government knows best what is “fair.”



7. “…how can we judge someone else’s economic worth? You might want bakers to be paid more than bankers. I might want teachers to be paid more than movie stars. Since we all have our own preferences, the only way to measure the economic value of a service is to see how much others are prepared to pay for it. That’s what the market does: it aggregates our preferences. It doesn’t ask us, in the abstract, what we think someone else deserves. It tests, in reality, how many hours of our own labor we are prepared to put in in exchange for a product or a service.

Under every other economic system, our relations are mediated by accidents of birth and social caste; financial rewards are determined by favoritism. The free market alone gives everyone the same rights. My money is as good as yours.

You can’t get fairer than that.”
What Is "Fair"?

 

[rightwinger]

5. As government school students are trained not to question what they are ‘taught’, they simply gloss over the suggestion that religion is based on superstition…but Marxism, socialism, and every failed Leftist iteration isn’t.

"Republicans are still heavily enamored with capitalism, with no noticeable change since polling conducted in 2010.
Notably, only 47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, a drop of 9 points (from 56%) in only two years."
POLL: Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism



Worse than ‘superstition’…it is a perennial failure.


"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."

Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144


And, in fact, they don’t believe it themselves:

“Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Biggest threat to our society is Home School where innocent children are indoctrinated to hate by untrained parent “teechers”

 

[Dragonlady]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Being free market capitalists is actually hurting the USA in these negotiations. When XI ordered Chinese buyers to stop buying US soybeans, overnight all possible orders were cancelled. When Trump told American businesses to find other supply lines, the CEO's told Trump to go fuck himself. The difference being that in an authoritarian dictatorship, what the President says, goes. This is why Xi is able to effectively counter Trump's scattershot approach.

The other issue is that Trump doesn't have a plan, going in. I've said it before, Trump is the worst negotiator ever. He's been fleeced on every deal he negotiated since he's been in office, and gotten NOTHING for the American people in any of his negotiations.

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats saved NAFTA 2.0 from being worse for American workers than the original version. Kim now has ICBM nuclear capability and a massive nuclear arsenal, and Trump got a box of bones from the Korean War, and Otto Warmbier. And then he signed a promise to pay $2 million for poor Otto - a promise he had no intention of keeping. Then he tore up the Iran deal and now the Iranians won't negotiate with him because he bargains in bad faith.