USA was really really dumb to move so much manufacturing to China

[Indeependent]

Trump's clothing line was. Just the same as he hired illegals.

Until that all became a campaign platform.

Sure. If I was Trump, I would have done the same, except for illegals.

If you can't make something profitable in the US, then you have to make it outside the US, or not make it. That's how that works. No one is going to make a product in the US that causes them to lose money, just so they can say it was made in the US.

Nevertheless, the MAGA hats were never made in China. Sorry. That's left-wing Jessie Smollett story telling.

But I have no problem hiring legal immigrants, or outsourcing to China or anywhere in general. It's up to you to not have a system the creates economic incentives to make stuff outside the US.

Only 15% of the products in the Trump store are made in the US


Only 15% of the products in the Trump store are made in the US
December 4, 2018
By Justin Rohrlich
Geopolitics reporter

Yes, I am aware of this, and I would do the same. You have to make products at a profit, or there is no point in making them. If you can not make something profitably in the US, then you make it elsewhere. That's how life works.

My point was the MAGA hat (which is exactly what the other poster said) is not made outside the US. The MAGA hats are made domestically.

Are you suggesting they are losing money on each one they sell?

Possibly the hat might be profitable. Looking around online, domestically produced hats, specifically these types of hats, are selling for $20. So I would wager they are likely making a profit from these.

However, having looked at pants and shirts made domestically, compared to imported pants and shirts, the price difference is very wide. An identical shirt in the US is $30 to $40 more base price, than one imported.

Well I'm not spending $40 more for a shirt, just because it is domestically made. Most people won't. That's why trying to sell such items is a money losing venture.

Then why did Trump win?

 

[Indeependent]

That isn't how it works. People don't make $0. People get welfare.

Which is actually worse. Because you are paying to not produce wealth for the country, while they consume wealth for the country.

Welfare is paying money, to destroy the wealth of the country.

This is why welfare doesn't exist in Nordic countries for example, and why most don't have a minimum wage. Because they understand that working for anything, and producing wealth for the country, is better than paying people to not work, and destroying the wealth of the country.

In Nordic countries the government negotiates the wages for most employees.

Is that what you are after?

Not true. Mythology. They do have trade unions, but they also have right to work. Unions can't prevent you from working for less than the Union negotiated wages.

Additionally, while I believe two nordic countries still have high participation in Unions, the fact is the rates of participation in unions has declined throughout all nordic countries.

Trade Union

Sweden down to 64% from 92%
Norway down to 49% from 57%
Netherlands down to 16% from 23%
Finland down to 60% from 78%
Denmark down to 66% from 76%

I think only Iceland has a 90% union participation still.

And the way that people get around that, is by claiming that the Union contracts cover non-union people. No evidence of that whatsoever. None. In fact, I have read articles claiming the exact opposite of that.

In fact, I saw a video years ago... and I wish I had downloaded it, and saved it.... from I believe Denmark, where a Union Leader was coming out against immigration... and he said very specifically why he was against immigration:

These immigrants are taking jobs for less money, and refusing to join the union and pay union dues.

Well according to the "everyone is covered by the Union contract" that should be impossible. Well apparently people who are not in the Union... are not in the Union, and not covered by Union contracts.

So, no what you are talking about is not true. The government is not negotiating wages for all people. Ridiculous Jessie Smollett fabrication going on from people who never lived in a nordic country.

Why not explain how difficult it is to qualify to become an immigrant in some of these nations?

Well depends on the nation. Some it is extremely hard. What does that have to do with anything though?

The only reason I pointed out the Union leader opposing immigration, was because I was making the point that non-union workers are not under government, or union contracts. They are free-market wages. Not even a minimum wage exists in most of these countries.

You’re asking why I responded to your post?
Really?
You’re way smarter than that.
You just didn’t want to post that those nations reject welfare cases.

 

[Andylusion]

MAGA hats are not made in China. There are some cheap knockoff from China, but none of the MAGA hats are actually from China. I assume you know this? Or are you ignorant?

Trump's clothing line was. Just the same as he hired illegals.

Until that all became a campaign platform.

Sure. If I was Trump, I would have done the same, except for illegals.

If you can't make something profitable in the US, then you have to make it outside the US, or not make it. That's how that works. No one is going to make a product in the US that causes them to lose money, just so they can say it was made in the US.

Nevertheless, the MAGA hats were never made in China. Sorry. That's left-wing Jessie Smollett story telling.

But I have no problem hiring legal immigrants, or outsourcing to China or anywhere in general. It's up to you to not have a system the creates economic incentives to make stuff outside the US.

Trump now says that is bad for America.

I'm a conservative. Trump might be the best of two bad options, but I don't really care what he thinks on the matter.

It was his hypocrital actions that cost taxpayers billions in bail out money.

Right, again, I'm not a big Trump supporter. Now I don't know specifically about the issue you are referring to... but... again... the other side is not offering me anything good.

So no matter what issues you with Trump.... the alternative right now is much worse. Every single person running against Trump at this point, is about 50 times worse than Trump in every single possible measure. There is not one, I could even consider voting for at this point. Not one.

So, when you give me the option of: "Terrible horrible bad option Trump" verses "Option that makes Trump look like a saint"... I'll take Trump.

You have to at least offer me something better than Trump. Trump sucks, is not a valid argument, when everything is else 'Someone who sucks more than Trump'.

 

[Denizen]

We are so vulnerable. Look, China won’t even deliver masks to the USA manufactured by American owned companies.

What a colossal geo political blunder by some many stupid swamp creatures.

If China makes all of our shit, doesn’t that make us beholden to them? We can just tell them to pound sand. He rely on them.

So fucked.

TPP? So fucking stupid.

Correction:

Manufacturing was moved to China because US is really really dumb.

 

[pknopp]

Trump's clothing line was. Just the same as he hired illegals.

Until that all became a campaign platform.

Sure. If I was Trump, I would have done the same, except for illegals.

If you can't make something profitable in the US, then you have to make it outside the US, or not make it. That's how that works. No one is going to make a product in the US that causes them to lose money, just so they can say it was made in the US.

Nevertheless, the MAGA hats were never made in China. Sorry. That's left-wing Jessie Smollett story telling.

But I have no problem hiring legal immigrants, or outsourcing to China or anywhere in general. It's up to you to not have a system the creates economic incentives to make stuff outside the US.

Only 15% of the products in the Trump store are made in the US


Only 15% of the products in the Trump store are made in the US
December 4, 2018
By Justin Rohrlich
Geopolitics reporter

Yes, I am aware of this, and I would do the same. You have to make products at a profit, or there is no point in making them. If you can not make something profitably in the US, then you make it elsewhere. That's how life works.

My point was the MAGA hat (which is exactly what the other poster said) is not made outside the US. The MAGA hats are made domestically.

Are you suggesting they are losing money on each one they sell?

Possibly the hat might be profitable. Looking around online, domestically produced hats, specifically these types of hats, are selling for $20. So I would wager they are likely making a profit from these.

However, having looked at pants and shirts made domestically, compared to imported pants and shirts, the price difference is very wide. An identical shirt in the US is $30 to $40 more base price, than one imported.

Well I'm not spending $40 more for a shirt, just because it is domestically made. Most people won't. That's why trying to sell such items is a money losing venture.

Jazz

$15.

 

[pknopp]

Purdue Pharmacueticals.

Origins of an Epidemic: Purdue Pharma Knew Its Opioids Were Widely Abused

That is your example of unregulated capitalism?

Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act - Section 801-971

Roughly 100 pages of laws. Doesn't include FDA regulations either.
That's just Federal Laws too, and doesn't include State laws.

This is exactly my point. You are pointing to the pharma industry, which is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country, and then claiming this is an example of unregulated capitalism.

And this is typical of all socialist views. You screw up a system, and then when your endless government regulations and controls end up blowing up the system, like the sub-prime crash, you try and blame it on Capitalism.

Well that doesn't work. Not for people who think, at least. You can't have a thousand laws on drugs, and then when something happens you don't like, blame it on the lack of regulations.

Further, it is most likely because of regulations and government, that we have the opioid epidemic. There are clear signs that Medicaid directly supported the crisis.

https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-Tr...emic/dp/1620402505/&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Sam Quinones on Heroin, the Opioid Epidemic, and Dreamland - Econlib

The economist who wrote the book Dreamland, gave a podcast interview on this, on EconTalk. You can listen to it if you want.

Regardless, if you look at the evidence, Medicaid directly promoted the Opioid crisis.

By covering the cost of the drugs to poor people, who then turned around, and sold the drugs on the street, combined with Medicaid doctors who were willing to take cash payments from people they knew were selling the drugs illegally, Medicaid alone, created a vast market for prescription opioids.

And while you can claim, along with the fake news media outlets, that all the drug companies were doing thus and so..... the truth is, the drug companies had no real alternative.

You can sit here and say in retrospect that they should have prevented the sales of their pills.... but in an alternate reality, if the drug companies 20 years back had intentionally prevented sales of pills, and one single patient had been denied the drugs they wanted through Medicaid..... you people right here, right now, would be have a toddler level melt down about how the evil drug companies were refusing to supply needed medications to people.

And we know this, because you and those like you have already had such threads on this forum for other situations.

The drug companies, do not have company representatives at every doctors office in the country. They don't have evaluations for everyone single patient. Yes, they likely did know that their drugs were being sold, but without omniscience to know which patients were lying and selling, and which really needed it, there was nothing they could do. If they had attempted anything to stop drug sales, you people would have been all over them.

There were no regulations as to the amount of drugs they could push.

Sell some pot, go to prison. Sell opioids and maybe you'll get sued.

Our regulation system is broke. That isnt an argument for ending regulatory practices. It's an argument for fixing that.

Boeing put profits over safety. The FAA was willing to look the other way until they got embarrassed by the emails that got released.

Many heads should roll. People inside of Boeing should be in prison.

Again, you are talking about the most heavily regulated industries in the US.

Now you can make the argument "they just need to fix it"... but how many decades on decades on decades have we played the "we just need to fix it" game with regulations?

Housing regulations have been growing in size and scope since basically World War 2. Endless on endless on endless regulations, and we've had crash after crash, with the biggest just in the past 10 years. 70+ years of endless regulations, and here you are 70 years later after the US Federal Government directly involved itself in housing... and we've had a massive crash.

How many hundreds of more years do you need to magically "Get regulation right"? And why should we believe you?

How many times have you said "trust us" in regards to government intervention, only to have it turn out into another crap show, and blaming Capitalism for it?

Look at the Stimulus package Obama pushed for almost a trillion dollars, and what did we get for that $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit for years? With the Stimulus package, unemployment would stop at under 8%, and we'd recover fully in 2 years. Instead unemployment went almost to 11% and we had the slowest recovery from a recession in all of US history.

And where did that money? Just gone.

And then you look at government agencies like the FAA and complain.... but here's the problem.... it's always been that way. Always. ALWAYS.

Government agencies simply end up being a revolving door for the companies. Every single time, you end up with people in those agencies, that use the power government gives them, to enrich themselves.

Not a single government agency anywhere, has ever stopped anything. Ever.

Name one time. Name one. You can't. Enron, actually used their SEC reports they filed, to pacify investors that were raising red flags about their books. Investor were saying.... this kinda looks like you are hiding something. .. and Enron said we filed our reports with the SEC, and they said nothing.

And this happens all the time. Walmart when they first started selling roasted chicken, left it to government to do safety checks. After a year, they found that only 3 visits even checked by the FDA, and 2 were the same store. So Walmart ended up buying wireless thermometers to put in each chicken to verify cooking with computers.

Your attempts to use government fix all things in the world, has done just the opposite. We are less safe from government, not more.

All your regulations and endless agencies make us worse off, and your solution is more of the same poison, as if taking more toxic waste, will magically make us all better. There is no example of that happening. No country has regulated it's way into prosperity and safety. Never happened.

I have never said "trust me" and I never supported Obama.

I'm not interested in a country where the greed of companies like Boeing, Perdue and DuPont get to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Every single country on the face of the earth is run by profit. It's no different in Europe, and it wasn't in the Soviet Union.

The difference is, in a Capitalist system, when a company does something that causes deaths, the government extracts penalties on them.

In Venezuela, and any other country where companies are run by the government, they simply cover it up.

A perfect example of this, is China right now. One of the big problems with China and Corona, is that the government doesn't want to look bad, and since the health system is run by the government, they are more interested in fudging the numbers, and concealing information, than telling everyone what is really going on.

Say was true during the Soviet Union, where pollution was rampant, and the government just covered it up, because they didn't want to look bad, given they controlled the companies.

You say you don't want to live in such a world, and then promote every single policy that would create the very world you are against.

Double speak. You say that when a company does harm that there are repercussions. These are known as regulations.

 

[pknopp]

Trump's clothing line was. Just the same as he hired illegals.

Until that all became a campaign platform.

Sure. If I was Trump, I would have done the same, except for illegals.

If you can't make something profitable in the US, then you have to make it outside the US, or not make it. That's how that works. No one is going to make a product in the US that causes them to lose money, just so they can say it was made in the US.

Nevertheless, the MAGA hats were never made in China. Sorry. That's left-wing Jessie Smollett story telling.

But I have no problem hiring legal immigrants, or outsourcing to China or anywhere in general. It's up to you to not have a system the creates economic incentives to make stuff outside the US.

Trump now says that is bad for America.

I'm a conservative. Trump might be the best of two bad options, but I don't really care what he thinks on the matter.

It was his hypocrital actions that cost taxpayers billions in bail out money.

Right, again, I'm not a big Trump supporter. Now I don't know specifically about the issue you are referring to... but... again... the other side is not offering me anything good.

So no matter what issues you with Trump.... the alternative right now is much worse. Every single person running against Trump at this point, is about 50 times worse than Trump in every single possible measure. There is not one, I could even consider voting for at this point. Not one.

So, when you give me the option of: "Terrible horrible bad option Trump" verses "Option that makes Trump look like a saint"... I'll take Trump.

You have to at least offer me something better than Trump. Trump sucks, is not a valid argument, when everything is else 'Someone who sucks more than Trump'.

You can argue that you support Trump but you can't argue that Trump supports what you argue.

 

[Andylusion]

No, it doesn't mean any of that. If China didn't make the stuff, someone else would. And in fact, many countries make "all our stuff". China is logically the largest trading partner, simply because they have 1.4 Billion people.

But we're not beholden to them. If they cut trade, we would trade with someone else.

Now the key to this discussion is that if China didn't exist, most manufacturing would still have moved outside the US.

First, you need to stop saying things like "the USA was dumb to move..." The USA didn't move anything. You make it sound like the country got together and said, let's move such and such.... that never happened.

Companies react to the economic incentives given to them. When you Unionize a plant, and drive up the cost of labor and production, and the company can't make a profit in the US anymore, then you move manufacturing out of the country.

You could ban imports from China, but that won't bring a single job back to the US. As long as it is not economically viable to manufacture something in the US, then it won't be manufactured here ever. You have to reduce the cost of manufacturing in the US, and more manufacturing jobs will be created here.

How do you do that? Get rid of the Unions. Reduce the regulations, and cut health care mandates.

That is how you bring manufacturing jobs back.

Corporations received tax breaks to cover moving costs.

Irrelevant. First off, a tax break isn't worth it. You may or may not be implying, that somehow the tax break is the cause of a company moving.

Wrong. Companies do not decide to move, or not to move, based on a tax break.

Tax breaks change your taxable income. If you spend a Million dollars, then you can deduct a Million dollars from your taxable income. Meaning you save taxes on a million dollars. For the company tax, that's $210,000.

You are spending $1,000,000, in order to save $210,000? No one does that. No one smart at least, spends a million to save $210 thousand.

The reason they move, is because it makes long term economic sense. They'll move, if that is what the economics say they need to do, whether they get a tax break or not.

Second, I don't know of any moving out of the country tax break. There are business expenses generally that I wager they can get a deduction for, but I highly doubt there is a moving the business out tax break.

What evidence do you have of this?

It is the business of business to make a profit.
It is the job of “our” representatives to maintain the US economy.’
“Our” representatives are handed legislations at BBQs and banquets to maximize profit at all costs.
It is a fact that the accursed Ronald Reagan encouraged globalism for the purpose of spreading Democracy and Capitalism to the rest of the globe; he was paid to lie.
Our trading partners did not incorporate one more ounce of humanity than they possessed prior to Reagan and the average American paid a heavy price.
The number of divorces and forecloses over the decades has been the reward of millions of Americans due to unfettered globalism.
The corps that left our shores should have been tariffed out of existence.
There is a tax break for moving a business that does not exclude off-shoring.
You may be too young to remember.

Again... I don't understand where the idea came from that trade meant anything about having more humanity.

Whether we trade with China, or don't trade with Venezuela, neither one is going to be more, or less humane. Trading doesn't do anything about the social systems involved.

Taking away trade, isn't going to help a single person anywhere.

The corps that left our shores should have been tariffed out of existence.

Are you smoking pot? Name one. Burger King?

The number of divorces and forecloses over the decades has been the reward of millions of Americans due to unfettered globalism.

Oh please stop it.... Really? Divorces is because of globalism? Are you full of it?

No, had nothing to do with meeting up with an ex-high-school-girl-friend on facebook, and screwing her over the weekend... nope nope... it was globalism.

Foreclosures had to do with government forcing banks to make bad loans. I can walk you through that again, if you like.

Nothing there has anything to do with globalism.

There is a tax break for moving a business that does not exclude off-shoring.
You may be too young to remember.

I don't believe you.

We’re you ever forced to work 110 hours a week for 50K when you had a Masters or a
PhD?
You skipped over the fact that “our” representatives sold their souls to Wall Street firms.
And no, I didn’t mean Burger King or McDonalds when I was referring to IBM, and hundred of other Fortune 5,000 companies laying off their workforce that spent years working for an advanced degree only to be led by one or more security guards to the exit because their job had been off-shores to India.
The real issue is that I am 60 and lived through all of this backstabbing.
Why do you think Trump won; he ran on this so why not send him a Tweet telling him he’s an idiot?

You skipped over the fact that “our” representatives sold their souls to Wall Street firms.

As has every government in human history. Demanding to give more power to government, through regulations and controls, will simply allow them to sell even more to Wall Street.

This is where you seem to make the mistake. Politician can't sell power they don't have. If you were to remove the ability to government to regulate Wall St, the result would be they wouldn't be able to sell influence to Wall Street.

Why do you think that every time they create a new government oversight agency, that lobbying increases in the industry they are overseeing?

If you yourself, had your career controlled by government, and you knew you could only get a raise in your wage, by meeting with a member of city counsel.... you would find a way to take that counsel person out to dinner.

Politicians know this. They know the only reason people lobby them, and donate to their campaign, is because they have power over their industry. This is why the politicians work hard to dupe the fools who support them, into supporting more government control over every aspect of the economy. It gives them money and power, to sell to the highest bidder.

I'm against this. You are for this. This is why I've said for ages, that the left-wing is far more in the pocket of the rich and wealthy elite than conservatives.

We’re you ever forced to work 110 hours a week for 50K when you had a Masters or a PhD?

I personally have not, but I know people who have. It's because of their own foolish choices. There are two ways you work for peanuts with a high level degree.

1. You get a degree in crap. I knew a pair of sisters. One had a Ph.D, and was working for $30,000 as an assistant. Why? Because a Ph.D in humanities is crap.

The other sister, dropped out of college, worked at a bank as a teller, worked her way up to management in the mortgage department, and now makes six figure income.

Don't get a degree in crap. Having a degree alone, doesn't mean jack. You need a degree in something productive, and then you have to work, and be productive.

2. You refuse to do what is required to make money.

Following the prior statement about being productive, it doesn't matter if you have a degree, if you are not willing to put in the hard work and effort.

A degree doesn't mean jack. if you are not willing to work for it, then you don't get the money.

I think think of dozens of examples. Had a Lady with a degree in engineering, get a job a NetJets, which is expensive high end private jet company. She quit after one year. Didn't like being required to work 50 hours a week. Wanted to spend time with her son.
Had another lady working at McDonald with a degree in architecture. Didn't want to have a set scheduled. That's what she said in her own words. Like the flexibility of McDonald's, and work closer to home.

And then you have people that just flat out suck. We have a guy right now that I'm dealing with. He's got an engineering degree. The dude hasn't fixed one thing since he started working here. He's last to show up for work, and first to leave at 5 PM. And don't ask him to go fix something at one of our other locations, because he'll leave a 1 PM, and show up at 3 PM. Doesn't take two hours to drive 2 miles to the other location.

Not only is he the lowest paid engineer, that has never gotten a raise in his salary, he's likely to be fired, and good luck landing a job with us as a reference. Better not call me up, asking about him, because I'll tell them everything.

Having a degree in today's world, doesn't mean anything. Nothing. So yes, there are people who have masters degrees, who don't earn jack, and it's their own fault.

 

[Andylusion]

Sure. If I was Trump, I would have done the same, except for illegals.

If you can't make something profitable in the US, then you have to make it outside the US, or not make it. That's how that works. No one is going to make a product in the US that causes them to lose money, just so they can say it was made in the US.

Nevertheless, the MAGA hats were never made in China. Sorry. That's left-wing Jessie Smollett story telling.

But I have no problem hiring legal immigrants, or outsourcing to China or anywhere in general. It's up to you to not have a system the creates economic incentives to make stuff outside the US.

Trump now says that is bad for America.

I'm a conservative. Trump might be the best of two bad options, but I don't really care what he thinks on the matter.

It was his hypocrital actions that cost taxpayers billions in bail out money.

Right, again, I'm not a big Trump supporter. Now I don't know specifically about the issue you are referring to... but... again... the other side is not offering me anything good.

So no matter what issues you with Trump.... the alternative right now is much worse. Every single person running against Trump at this point, is about 50 times worse than Trump in every single possible measure. There is not one, I could even consider voting for at this point. Not one.

So, when you give me the option of: "Terrible horrible bad option Trump" verses "Option that makes Trump look like a saint"... I'll take Trump.

You have to at least offer me something better than Trump. Trump sucks, is not a valid argument, when everything is else 'Someone who sucks more than Trump'.

You can argue that you support Trump but you can't argue that Trump supports what you argue.

No I'm arguing that I'm against all the people who are worse. That's my argument.

However, even with Trump, there are many things Trump has done, that I support. Reduced regulation, cutting corporate taxes, Keystone pipe, repealed at least part of ObamaCare, withdrew from Paris Accords, shored up the military, stuck it to the UN, moved embassy to Jerusalem, confirmed tons of judges, supported Bret Kavanough, ended that terrible Iran deal, has worked towards security our border, and put more effort into dealing with illegal immigration, more vetting of asylum seekers.....

Honestly, Trump has done many many conservative things, that I support.

So while he hasn't balanced the budget.... and he certainly isn't a moral leader by any stretch, there are many reason to vote for Trump.

But the biggest reason to vote of Trump... look at the Democrats. Jessie Smollett, men in women's restrooms, the fabricated lies about Bret Kavanough, the made up Trump Russia connection, and again... just every single one of the people running against Trump... terrible people. Absolutely horrifically bad people.



There you go. If Trump had done nothing in his first term... this video alone is reason to vote for him, over anyone on the left.

 

[Andylusion]

Sure. If I was Trump, I would have done the same, except for illegals.

If you can't make something profitable in the US, then you have to make it outside the US, or not make it. That's how that works. No one is going to make a product in the US that causes them to lose money, just so they can say it was made in the US.

Nevertheless, the MAGA hats were never made in China. Sorry. That's left-wing Jessie Smollett story telling.

But I have no problem hiring legal immigrants, or outsourcing to China or anywhere in general. It's up to you to not have a system the creates economic incentives to make stuff outside the US.

Only 15% of the products in the Trump store are made in the US


Only 15% of the products in the Trump store are made in the US
December 4, 2018
By Justin Rohrlich
Geopolitics reporter

Yes, I am aware of this, and I would do the same. You have to make products at a profit, or there is no point in making them. If you can not make something profitably in the US, then you make it elsewhere. That's how life works.

My point was the MAGA hat (which is exactly what the other poster said) is not made outside the US. The MAGA hats are made domestically.

Are you suggesting they are losing money on each one they sell?

Possibly the hat might be profitable. Looking around online, domestically produced hats, specifically these types of hats, are selling for $20. So I would wager they are likely making a profit from these.

However, having looked at pants and shirts made domestically, compared to imported pants and shirts, the price difference is very wide. An identical shirt in the US is $30 to $40 more base price, than one imported.

Well I'm not spending $40 more for a shirt, just because it is domestically made. Most people won't. That's why trying to sell such items is a money losing venture.

Jazz

$15.

The discontinued item, that only came in one size?
I rest my case.

 

[Andylusion]

That is your example of unregulated capitalism?

Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act - Section 801-971

Roughly 100 pages of laws. Doesn't include FDA regulations either.
That's just Federal Laws too, and doesn't include State laws.

This is exactly my point. You are pointing to the pharma industry, which is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country, and then claiming this is an example of unregulated capitalism.

And this is typical of all socialist views. You screw up a system, and then when your endless government regulations and controls end up blowing up the system, like the sub-prime crash, you try and blame it on Capitalism.

Well that doesn't work. Not for people who think, at least. You can't have a thousand laws on drugs, and then when something happens you don't like, blame it on the lack of regulations.

Further, it is most likely because of regulations and government, that we have the opioid epidemic. There are clear signs that Medicaid directly supported the crisis.

https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-Tr...emic/dp/1620402505/&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Sam Quinones on Heroin, the Opioid Epidemic, and Dreamland - Econlib

The economist who wrote the book Dreamland, gave a podcast interview on this, on EconTalk. You can listen to it if you want.

Regardless, if you look at the evidence, Medicaid directly promoted the Opioid crisis.

By covering the cost of the drugs to poor people, who then turned around, and sold the drugs on the street, combined with Medicaid doctors who were willing to take cash payments from people they knew were selling the drugs illegally, Medicaid alone, created a vast market for prescription opioids.

And while you can claim, along with the fake news media outlets, that all the drug companies were doing thus and so..... the truth is, the drug companies had no real alternative.

You can sit here and say in retrospect that they should have prevented the sales of their pills.... but in an alternate reality, if the drug companies 20 years back had intentionally prevented sales of pills, and one single patient had been denied the drugs they wanted through Medicaid..... you people right here, right now, would be have a toddler level melt down about how the evil drug companies were refusing to supply needed medications to people.

And we know this, because you and those like you have already had such threads on this forum for other situations.

The drug companies, do not have company representatives at every doctors office in the country. They don't have evaluations for everyone single patient. Yes, they likely did know that their drugs were being sold, but without omniscience to know which patients were lying and selling, and which really needed it, there was nothing they could do. If they had attempted anything to stop drug sales, you people would have been all over them.

There were no regulations as to the amount of drugs they could push.

Sell some pot, go to prison. Sell opioids and maybe you'll get sued.

Our regulation system is broke. That isnt an argument for ending regulatory practices. It's an argument for fixing that.

Boeing put profits over safety. The FAA was willing to look the other way until they got embarrassed by the emails that got released.

Many heads should roll. People inside of Boeing should be in prison.

Again, you are talking about the most heavily regulated industries in the US.

Now you can make the argument "they just need to fix it"... but how many decades on decades on decades have we played the "we just need to fix it" game with regulations?

Housing regulations have been growing in size and scope since basically World War 2. Endless on endless on endless regulations, and we've had crash after crash, with the biggest just in the past 10 years. 70+ years of endless regulations, and here you are 70 years later after the US Federal Government directly involved itself in housing... and we've had a massive crash.

How many hundreds of more years do you need to magically "Get regulation right"? And why should we believe you?

How many times have you said "trust us" in regards to government intervention, only to have it turn out into another crap show, and blaming Capitalism for it?

Look at the Stimulus package Obama pushed for almost a trillion dollars, and what did we get for that $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit for years? With the Stimulus package, unemployment would stop at under 8%, and we'd recover fully in 2 years. Instead unemployment went almost to 11% and we had the slowest recovery from a recession in all of US history.

And where did that money? Just gone.

And then you look at government agencies like the FAA and complain.... but here's the problem.... it's always been that way. Always. ALWAYS.

Government agencies simply end up being a revolving door for the companies. Every single time, you end up with people in those agencies, that use the power government gives them, to enrich themselves.

Not a single government agency anywhere, has ever stopped anything. Ever.

Name one time. Name one. You can't. Enron, actually used their SEC reports they filed, to pacify investors that were raising red flags about their books. Investor were saying.... this kinda looks like you are hiding something. .. and Enron said we filed our reports with the SEC, and they said nothing.

And this happens all the time. Walmart when they first started selling roasted chicken, left it to government to do safety checks. After a year, they found that only 3 visits even checked by the FDA, and 2 were the same store. So Walmart ended up buying wireless thermometers to put in each chicken to verify cooking with computers.

Your attempts to use government fix all things in the world, has done just the opposite. We are less safe from government, not more.

All your regulations and endless agencies make us worse off, and your solution is more of the same poison, as if taking more toxic waste, will magically make us all better. There is no example of that happening. No country has regulated it's way into prosperity and safety. Never happened.

I have never said "trust me" and I never supported Obama.

I'm not interested in a country where the greed of companies like Boeing, Perdue and DuPont get to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Every single country on the face of the earth is run by profit. It's no different in Europe, and it wasn't in the Soviet Union.

The difference is, in a Capitalist system, when a company does something that causes deaths, the government extracts penalties on them.

In Venezuela, and any other country where companies are run by the government, they simply cover it up.

A perfect example of this, is China right now. One of the big problems with China and Corona, is that the government doesn't want to look bad, and since the health system is run by the government, they are more interested in fudging the numbers, and concealing information, than telling everyone what is really going on.

Say was true during the Soviet Union, where pollution was rampant, and the government just covered it up, because they didn't want to look bad, given they controlled the companies.

You say you don't want to live in such a world, and then promote every single policy that would create the very world you are against.

Double speak. You say that when a company does harm that there are repercussions. These are known as regulations.

That is your example of unregulated capitalism?

Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act - Section 801-971

Roughly 100 pages of laws. Doesn't include FDA regulations either.
That's just Federal Laws too, and doesn't include State laws.

This is exactly my point. You are pointing to the pharma industry, which is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country, and then claiming this is an example of unregulated capitalism.

And this is typical of all socialist views. You screw up a system, and then when your endless government regulations and controls end up blowing up the system, like the sub-prime crash, you try and blame it on Capitalism.

Well that doesn't work. Not for people who think, at least. You can't have a thousand laws on drugs, and then when something happens you don't like, blame it on the lack of regulations.

Further, it is most likely because of regulations and government, that we have the opioid epidemic. There are clear signs that Medicaid directly supported the crisis.

https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-Tr...emic/dp/1620402505/&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

Sam Quinones on Heroin, the Opioid Epidemic, and Dreamland - Econlib

The economist who wrote the book Dreamland, gave a podcast interview on this, on EconTalk. You can listen to it if you want.

Regardless, if you look at the evidence, Medicaid directly promoted the Opioid crisis.

By covering the cost of the drugs to poor people, who then turned around, and sold the drugs on the street, combined with Medicaid doctors who were willing to take cash payments from people they knew were selling the drugs illegally, Medicaid alone, created a vast market for prescription opioids.

And while you can claim, along with the fake news media outlets, that all the drug companies were doing thus and so..... the truth is, the drug companies had no real alternative.

You can sit here and say in retrospect that they should have prevented the sales of their pills.... but in an alternate reality, if the drug companies 20 years back had intentionally prevented sales of pills, and one single patient had been denied the drugs they wanted through Medicaid..... you people right here, right now, would be have a toddler level melt down about how the evil drug companies were refusing to supply needed medications to people.

And we know this, because you and those like you have already had such threads on this forum for other situations.

The drug companies, do not have company representatives at every doctors office in the country. They don't have evaluations for everyone single patient. Yes, they likely did know that their drugs were being sold, but without omniscience to know which patients were lying and selling, and which really needed it, there was nothing they could do. If they had attempted anything to stop drug sales, you people would have been all over them.

There were no regulations as to the amount of drugs they could push.

Sell some pot, go to prison. Sell opioids and maybe you'll get sued.

Our regulation system is broke. That isnt an argument for ending regulatory practices. It's an argument for fixing that.

Boeing put profits over safety. The FAA was willing to look the other way until they got embarrassed by the emails that got released.

Many heads should roll. People inside of Boeing should be in prison.

Again, you are talking about the most heavily regulated industries in the US.

Now you can make the argument "they just need to fix it"... but how many decades on decades on decades have we played the "we just need to fix it" game with regulations?

Housing regulations have been growing in size and scope since basically World War 2. Endless on endless on endless regulations, and we've had crash after crash, with the biggest just in the past 10 years. 70+ years of endless regulations, and here you are 70 years later after the US Federal Government directly involved itself in housing... and we've had a massive crash.

How many hundreds of more years do you need to magically "Get regulation right"? And why should we believe you?

How many times have you said "trust us" in regards to government intervention, only to have it turn out into another crap show, and blaming Capitalism for it?

Look at the Stimulus package Obama pushed for almost a trillion dollars, and what did we get for that $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit for years? With the Stimulus package, unemployment would stop at under 8%, and we'd recover fully in 2 years. Instead unemployment went almost to 11% and we had the slowest recovery from a recession in all of US history.

And where did that money? Just gone.

And then you look at government agencies like the FAA and complain.... but here's the problem.... it's always been that way. Always. ALWAYS.

Government agencies simply end up being a revolving door for the companies. Every single time, you end up with people in those agencies, that use the power government gives them, to enrich themselves.

Not a single government agency anywhere, has ever stopped anything. Ever.

Name one time. Name one. You can't. Enron, actually used their SEC reports they filed, to pacify investors that were raising red flags about their books. Investor were saying.... this kinda looks like you are hiding something. .. and Enron said we filed our reports with the SEC, and they said nothing.

And this happens all the time. Walmart when they first started selling roasted chicken, left it to government to do safety checks. After a year, they found that only 3 visits even checked by the FDA, and 2 were the same store. So Walmart ended up buying wireless thermometers to put in each chicken to verify cooking with computers.

Your attempts to use government fix all things in the world, has done just the opposite. We are less safe from government, not more.

All your regulations and endless agencies make us worse off, and your solution is more of the same poison, as if taking more toxic waste, will magically make us all better. There is no example of that happening. No country has regulated it's way into prosperity and safety. Never happened.

I have never said "trust me" and I never supported Obama.

I'm not interested in a country where the greed of companies like Boeing, Perdue and DuPont get to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Every single country on the face of the earth is run by profit. It's no different in Europe, and it wasn't in the Soviet Union.

The difference is, in a Capitalist system, when a company does something that causes deaths, the government extracts penalties on them.

In Venezuela, and any other country where companies are run by the government, they simply cover it up.

A perfect example of this, is China right now. One of the big problems with China and Corona, is that the government doesn't want to look bad, and since the health system is run by the government, they are more interested in fudging the numbers, and concealing information, than telling everyone what is really going on.

Say was true during the Soviet Union, where pollution was rampant, and the government just covered it up, because they didn't want to look bad, given they controlled the companies.

You say you don't want to live in such a world, and then promote every single policy that would create the very world you are against.

Double speak. You say that when a company does harm that there are repercussions. These are known as regulations.

No. You are confusing justice, with regulations. Regulations are controls on doing legal actions, that you don't want people to do.

Justice is punishment for engaging in illegal activities.

Injustice is when I knowingly send you into toxic waste that will kill. I'm committing murder, which is illegal and morally wrong.

Regulation is taking something that is not illegal, and not morally wrong, and saying you can't do that.

You agree to mow my law for $20. I pay the $20, and you mow the lawn. There is nothing wrong about voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.

Then the government comes along and says, you must pay him $50 for mowing the lawn. It's a control on legal choices.

You don't need to have a single regulation anywhere, to find out if Boeing knowingly pushed flawed designs, and knew people could die because of those flawed designs. You don't need a single regulation anywhere, to charge someone with negligent homicide.

If you hop in your car, and throw it in reverse, while looking at the radio... the police do not need to first have regulations on using reverse while looking at the radio, to charge you with negligent homicide for backing over someone and killing them.

Regulations are not the same as enforcing justice. Not at all.

 

[Andylusion]

Which is actually worse. Because you are paying to not produce wealth for the country, while they consume wealth for the country.

Welfare is paying money, to destroy the wealth of the country.

This is why welfare doesn't exist in Nordic countries for example, and why most don't have a minimum wage. Because they understand that working for anything, and producing wealth for the country, is better than paying people to not work, and destroying the wealth of the country.

In Nordic countries the government negotiates the wages for most employees.

Is that what you are after?

Not true. Mythology. They do have trade unions, but they also have right to work. Unions can't prevent you from working for less than the Union negotiated wages.

Additionally, while I believe two nordic countries still have high participation in Unions, the fact is the rates of participation in unions has declined throughout all nordic countries.

Trade Union

Sweden down to 64% from 92%
Norway down to 49% from 57%
Netherlands down to 16% from 23%
Finland down to 60% from 78%
Denmark down to 66% from 76%

I think only Iceland has a 90% union participation still.

And the way that people get around that, is by claiming that the Union contracts cover non-union people. No evidence of that whatsoever. None. In fact, I have read articles claiming the exact opposite of that.

In fact, I saw a video years ago... and I wish I had downloaded it, and saved it.... from I believe Denmark, where a Union Leader was coming out against immigration... and he said very specifically why he was against immigration:

These immigrants are taking jobs for less money, and refusing to join the union and pay union dues.

Well according to the "everyone is covered by the Union contract" that should be impossible. Well apparently people who are not in the Union... are not in the Union, and not covered by Union contracts.

So, no what you are talking about is not true. The government is not negotiating wages for all people. Ridiculous Jessie Smollett fabrication going on from people who never lived in a nordic country.

Why not explain how difficult it is to qualify to become an immigrant in some of these nations?

Well depends on the nation. Some it is extremely hard. What does that have to do with anything though?

The only reason I pointed out the Union leader opposing immigration, was because I was making the point that non-union workers are not under government, or union contracts. They are free-market wages. Not even a minimum wage exists in most of these countries.

You’re asking why I responded to your post?
Really?
You’re way smarter than that.
You just didn’t want to post that those nations reject welfare cases.

The context of the post, was a claim that Nordic countries negotiate wages for workers. I correctly pointed out that they don't. Suddenly you started asking about immigration, and now something to do with welfare cases.

Naturally this left me confused as to the relation between what you said, and the context of the conversation, which still appears to have no relation.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Sharp just announced its gonna make masks in japan at a monitor plant
Spike in demand ...main supplier nation on shaky ground ? Not to mention a communist dictatorship

The world needs to spread out production ...competition is also good ...nation states well being and national security can depend on it

That's how to run a business react almost instantly ...got thE room in one place ? set up the machines ,figure out your production groove ,and get those machines and workers humming at full capacity

They were on top of the tariffs to .....that how ya roll...never stop ...like the military vets were taught stop and yer dead ...applies in business to


Japan electronics maker Sharp to make masks at display plant

TOKYO -- Electronics maker Sharp Corp. said Monday it will start making surgical masks, which are in high demand because of the virus outbreak, using a plant in central Japan that usually makes displays.

Sharp, owned by Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., also known as FoxConn, of Taiwan, said mask production at its Mie Prefecture plant will start by the end of this month, at 150,000 masks a day, rising to 500,000 a day.

 

[Supposn]

Andylusion, Refer to, Import certificates - Wikipedia. My response posted 4 hours ago concurs with your statement. Refer to, Import certificates - Wikipedia. Respectfully, Supposn

Regulations never improve anything. Import certificates is just another way to give more power to the government, which they will sell that power to the highest bidders. …

Excerpted from Import certificates - Wikipedia :

Buffett's plan proposes creating a market for transferable import certificates, (ICs) that would represent the right to import a certain dollar amount of goods into the United States. These transferable ICs would be issued to US exporters in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the goods they export and they could only be utilized once. They could be sold or traded to importers, who must purchase them in order to legally import goods into the USA. The price of ICs are set by (free-market) forces, and are therefore dependent on the balance between entrepreneurs' willingness to pay the ICs market price for importing goods into the USA and the global volume of goods exported from the USA, (i.e. supply and demand).
////////////////
Andylusion, there’s more to Wikipedia’s article, but you can’t understand what you haven’t read. Judging from your post, I’m supposing that you have not read the article or did not understand what you read. Much of what you’ve posted was not applicable to the concepts of Import Certificates. It would do what tariffs could not ever have done.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Andylusion]

Andylusion, Refer to, Import certificates - Wikipedia. My response posted 4 hours ago concurs with your statement. Refer to, Import certificates - Wikipedia. Respectfully, Supposn

Regulations never improve anything. Import certificates is just another way to give more power to the government, which they will sell that power to the highest bidders. …

Excerpted from Import certificates - Wikipedia :

Buffett's plan proposes creating a market for transferable import certificates, (ICs) that would represent the right to import a certain dollar amount of goods into the United States. These transferable ICs would be issued to US exporters in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the goods they export and they could only be utilized once. They could be sold or traded to importers, who must purchase them in order to legally import goods into the USA. The price of ICs are set by (free-market) forces, and are therefore dependent on the balance between entrepreneurs' willingness to pay the ICs market price for importing goods into the USA and the global volume of goods exported from the USA, (i.e. supply and demand).
////////////////
Andylusion, there’s more to Wikipedia’s article, but you can’t understand what you haven’t read. Judging from your post, I’m supposing that you have not read the article or did not understand what you read. Much of what you’ve posted was not applicable to the concepts of Import Certificates. It would do what tariffs could not ever have done.
Respectfully, Supposn

Right the issue here, is with all government run anything.

You are looking at the stated claims, as if that is how it would work if implemented.

Do you understand the concept of unintended consequences?

You can say "This is how should work".. but once government has control, all that goes out the window. Instead it's going to be companies lobbying government, paying big donations to Democrats, in exchange for exemptions in the law.

The result will be the rich will get richer, and the poor, who can't afford to lobby government, will get poorer.

There are endless examples of this. Net Neutrality laws, were supposed to stop the evil Comcast, and instead Comcast is larger than ever, while the smaller companies sold out. Customers have fewer choices, and end up worse off.

Just like regulations on agriculture was supposed to stop the evil Monsanto corporation, and instead Monsanto is larger than ever, and competition from smaller companies was pushed out.

Stop looking at every lying bastard that claims "this will fix that", and start looking at how these regulations and controls actually do to the market.

Yes, I can read what the wiki article says just like the next guy. The difference is, I'm going to use my mind, to consider what the longer term implication are, not just what they claim they will be. Because the two are not always the same.

 

[Supposn]

[Andylusion, you don’t know what the “unintentional consequences would be, but your objection to the proposal is you don’t know what?
Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation’s annual production and they’re particularly net detrimental to their jobs and payrolls. That we do know.

Your contention is that if we don’t try to do better, things won’t worsen? You contend that if we due to government regulations, we better enabled Comcast and Monsanto? We should not have attempted to reign in the “military-industrial complex”? You believe that government is always the problem and is never at least part of solutions? Commercial corporations are generally superior to government agencies? My experience dealing and/or functioning within schools, corporations, hospitals, and the military is that that none in aggregate are more or less likely to screw-up, and individuals are often harmed.

If you find specific faults with the Import Certificates proposal as described within the Wikipedia article, I’m prepared to discuss them. I cannot respond to the sky may fall or other unknown or unintentional consequences. You advocate a policy to never attempt improvement because change is always of some risk? Yesterday was good enough, “don’t rock the boat”?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[pknopp]

Only 15% of the products in the Trump store are made in the US


Only 15% of the products in the Trump store are made in the US
December 4, 2018
By Justin Rohrlich
Geopolitics reporter

Yes, I am aware of this, and I would do the same. You have to make products at a profit, or there is no point in making them. If you can not make something profitably in the US, then you make it elsewhere. That's how life works.

My point was the MAGA hat (which is exactly what the other poster said) is not made outside the US. The MAGA hats are made domestically.

Are you suggesting they are losing money on each one they sell?

Possibly the hat might be profitable. Looking around online, domestically produced hats, specifically these types of hats, are selling for $20. So I would wager they are likely making a profit from these.

However, having looked at pants and shirts made domestically, compared to imported pants and shirts, the price difference is very wide. An identical shirt in the US is $30 to $40 more base price, than one imported.

Well I'm not spending $40 more for a shirt, just because it is domestically made. Most people won't. That's why trying to sell such items is a money losing venture.

Jazz

$15.

The discontinued item, that only came in one size?
I rest my case.

First one I came across. A ton of cheap US made clothes.

USA Made - blankstyle.com

 

[pknopp]

There were no regulations as to the amount of drugs they could push.

Sell some pot, go to prison. Sell opioids and maybe you'll get sued.

Our regulation system is broke. That isnt an argument for ending regulatory practices. It's an argument for fixing that.

Boeing put profits over safety. The FAA was willing to look the other way until they got embarrassed by the emails that got released.

Many heads should roll. People inside of Boeing should be in prison.

Again, you are talking about the most heavily regulated industries in the US.

Now you can make the argument "they just need to fix it"... but how many decades on decades on decades have we played the "we just need to fix it" game with regulations?

Housing regulations have been growing in size and scope since basically World War 2. Endless on endless on endless regulations, and we've had crash after crash, with the biggest just in the past 10 years. 70+ years of endless regulations, and here you are 70 years later after the US Federal Government directly involved itself in housing... and we've had a massive crash.

How many hundreds of more years do you need to magically "Get regulation right"? And why should we believe you?

How many times have you said "trust us" in regards to government intervention, only to have it turn out into another crap show, and blaming Capitalism for it?

Look at the Stimulus package Obama pushed for almost a trillion dollars, and what did we get for that $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit for years? With the Stimulus package, unemployment would stop at under 8%, and we'd recover fully in 2 years. Instead unemployment went almost to 11% and we had the slowest recovery from a recession in all of US history.

And where did that money? Just gone.

And then you look at government agencies like the FAA and complain.... but here's the problem.... it's always been that way. Always. ALWAYS.

Government agencies simply end up being a revolving door for the companies. Every single time, you end up with people in those agencies, that use the power government gives them, to enrich themselves.

Not a single government agency anywhere, has ever stopped anything. Ever.

Name one time. Name one. You can't. Enron, actually used their SEC reports they filed, to pacify investors that were raising red flags about their books. Investor were saying.... this kinda looks like you are hiding something. .. and Enron said we filed our reports with the SEC, and they said nothing.

And this happens all the time. Walmart when they first started selling roasted chicken, left it to government to do safety checks. After a year, they found that only 3 visits even checked by the FDA, and 2 were the same store. So Walmart ended up buying wireless thermometers to put in each chicken to verify cooking with computers.

Your attempts to use government fix all things in the world, has done just the opposite. We are less safe from government, not more.

All your regulations and endless agencies make us worse off, and your solution is more of the same poison, as if taking more toxic waste, will magically make us all better. There is no example of that happening. No country has regulated it's way into prosperity and safety. Never happened.

I have never said "trust me" and I never supported Obama.

I'm not interested in a country where the greed of companies like Boeing, Perdue and DuPont get to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Every single country on the face of the earth is run by profit. It's no different in Europe, and it wasn't in the Soviet Union.

The difference is, in a Capitalist system, when a company does something that causes deaths, the government extracts penalties on them.

In Venezuela, and any other country where companies are run by the government, they simply cover it up.

A perfect example of this, is China right now. One of the big problems with China and Corona, is that the government doesn't want to look bad, and since the health system is run by the government, they are more interested in fudging the numbers, and concealing information, than telling everyone what is really going on.

Say was true during the Soviet Union, where pollution was rampant, and the government just covered it up, because they didn't want to look bad, given they controlled the companies.

You say you don't want to live in such a world, and then promote every single policy that would create the very world you are against.

Double speak. You say that when a company does harm that there are repercussions. These are known as regulations.

There were no regulations as to the amount of drugs they could push.

Sell some pot, go to prison. Sell opioids and maybe you'll get sued.

Our regulation system is broke. That isnt an argument for ending regulatory practices. It's an argument for fixing that.

Boeing put profits over safety. The FAA was willing to look the other way until they got embarrassed by the emails that got released.

Many heads should roll. People inside of Boeing should be in prison.

Again, you are talking about the most heavily regulated industries in the US.

Now you can make the argument "they just need to fix it"... but how many decades on decades on decades have we played the "we just need to fix it" game with regulations?

Housing regulations have been growing in size and scope since basically World War 2. Endless on endless on endless regulations, and we've had crash after crash, with the biggest just in the past 10 years. 70+ years of endless regulations, and here you are 70 years later after the US Federal Government directly involved itself in housing... and we've had a massive crash.

How many hundreds of more years do you need to magically "Get regulation right"? And why should we believe you?

How many times have you said "trust us" in regards to government intervention, only to have it turn out into another crap show, and blaming Capitalism for it?

Look at the Stimulus package Obama pushed for almost a trillion dollars, and what did we get for that $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit for years? With the Stimulus package, unemployment would stop at under 8%, and we'd recover fully in 2 years. Instead unemployment went almost to 11% and we had the slowest recovery from a recession in all of US history.

And where did that money? Just gone.

And then you look at government agencies like the FAA and complain.... but here's the problem.... it's always been that way. Always. ALWAYS.

Government agencies simply end up being a revolving door for the companies. Every single time, you end up with people in those agencies, that use the power government gives them, to enrich themselves.

Not a single government agency anywhere, has ever stopped anything. Ever.

Name one time. Name one. You can't. Enron, actually used their SEC reports they filed, to pacify investors that were raising red flags about their books. Investor were saying.... this kinda looks like you are hiding something. .. and Enron said we filed our reports with the SEC, and they said nothing.

And this happens all the time. Walmart when they first started selling roasted chicken, left it to government to do safety checks. After a year, they found that only 3 visits even checked by the FDA, and 2 were the same store. So Walmart ended up buying wireless thermometers to put in each chicken to verify cooking with computers.

Your attempts to use government fix all things in the world, has done just the opposite. We are less safe from government, not more.

All your regulations and endless agencies make us worse off, and your solution is more of the same poison, as if taking more toxic waste, will magically make us all better. There is no example of that happening. No country has regulated it's way into prosperity and safety. Never happened.

I have never said "trust me" and I never supported Obama.

I'm not interested in a country where the greed of companies like Boeing, Perdue and DuPont get to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Every single country on the face of the earth is run by profit. It's no different in Europe, and it wasn't in the Soviet Union.

The difference is, in a Capitalist system, when a company does something that causes deaths, the government extracts penalties on them.

In Venezuela, and any other country where companies are run by the government, they simply cover it up.

A perfect example of this, is China right now. One of the big problems with China and Corona, is that the government doesn't want to look bad, and since the health system is run by the government, they are more interested in fudging the numbers, and concealing information, than telling everyone what is really going on.

Say was true during the Soviet Union, where pollution was rampant, and the government just covered it up, because they didn't want to look bad, given they controlled the companies.

You say you don't want to live in such a world, and then promote every single policy that would create the very world you are against.

Double speak. You say that when a company does harm that there are repercussions. These are known as regulations.

No. You are confusing justice, with regulations. Regulations are controls on doing legal actions, that you don't want people to do.

Justice is punishment for engaging in illegal activities.

Injustice is when I knowingly send you into toxic waste that will kill. I'm committing murder, which is illegal and morally wrong.

Regulation is taking something that is not illegal, and not morally wrong, and saying you can't do that.

You agree to mow my law for $20. I pay the $20, and you mow the lawn. There is nothing wrong about voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.

Then the government comes along and says, you must pay him $50 for mowing the lawn. It's a control on legal choices.

You don't need to have a single regulation anywhere, to find out if Boeing knowingly pushed flawed designs, and knew people could die because of those flawed designs. You don't need a single regulation anywhere, to charge someone with negligent homicide.

If you hop in your car, and throw it in reverse, while looking at the radio... the police do not need to first have regulations on using reverse while looking at the radio, to charge you with negligent homicide for backing over someone and killing them.

Regulations are not the same as enforcing justice. Not at all.

There was nothing illegal about DuPont polluting the waters. They simply decided to not tell anyone about it.

It soon will be illegal.

 

[Dr Grump]

We are so vulnerable. Look, China won’t even deliver masks to the USA manufactured by American owned companies.

What a colossal geo political blunder by some many stupid swamp creatures.

If China makes all of our shit, doesn’t that make us beholden to them? We can just tell them to pound sand. He rely on them.

So fucked.

TPP? So fucking stupid.

Are you going for 'dumb post of the day?"

 

[Dr Grump]

Our pols has no problem selling us out to big biz . 50 years ago China was a backwards country . But USA corporate greed turned them into a powerhouse .

And Dems want to keep it that way, that’s why they oppose tariffs against them.

Oh the irony. You did see the part in the post you answered about USA corporate greed, right? Guess who the guys who own those companies vote for? I doubt it was Obama. And I doubt it will be Slow Joe or Bernie-ator...