How we should treat China

China is not an amoral society.
In comparing the USA and China it is a matter of degrees.
The Chinese government has many faults, but then again so does every government including the USA.

 

Your argument is not for capitalism. Mine is. Capitalism is trading freely between people assuming those people have that freedom.
Your argument is trading for products that are made under duress.
Do you think Chinese people freely get to negotiate their salaries? Furthermore; the profits of those products do not flow freely. They are used to support communism and all the oppression that entails.
Capitalism is an effect of Freedom.
When the north bought cotton from the south they supported slavery as much as the guys holding the whips- but cotton was cheap.
I guess you think phones are cheap.

 

Then again Chinese people have access to health care that does not depend on insurance.
Capitalism is not great for millions of Americans without health insurance, especially insurance with so many get out clauses.

 

The chinese communist party is amoral, very amoral.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.
I don't detect much more morality in American government and systems than in the Chinese government.
Which party was in power when America used the nuclear weapons in 1945?

 

Funny. I don't see any of your extropian ideas in the definition.

cap·i·tal·ism
/ˈkapədlˌizəm/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
   "an era of free-market capitalism"

What you are proposing is more like socialism.



so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   
   Similar:
   leftism
   
   Fabianism
   syndicalism
   
   consumer socialism
   utopian socialism
   
   welfarism
   
   communism
   
   Bolshevism
   
   radicalism
   
   militancy
   
   progressivism
   
   social democracy
   
   laborism
   Marxism
   
   Leninism
   
   Marxism–Leninism
   
   neo-Marxism
   Trotskyism
   
   Maoism
   
   
   Opposite:
   conservatism
   
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     
     Similar:
     leftism
     
     Fabianism
     syndicalism
     
     consumer socialism
     utopian socialism
     
     welfarism
     
     communism
     
     Bolshevism
     
     radicalism
     
     militancy
     
     progressivism
     
     social democracy
     
     laborism
     Marxism
     
     Leninism
     
     Marxism–Leninism
     
     neo-Marxism
     Trotskyism
     
     Maoism
     
     
     Opposite:
     conservatism
     
     
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

 

Dictionary definitions are often biased and irrelevant.
Try looking up the word 'gay' from a 1960's dictionary compared to a 2020 dictionary.
The above 'definition' of socialism is not accurate nor the whole story.

 

So now the dictionary's are biased?
You can't make this stuff up.

 

No, but...

Things change.

Socialism once meant the state owns the big stuff. Now it means you have robust social programs. Some try to take advantage of that potential ambiguity.

Usage determines meaning, dictionaries are always working to keep their dictionaries current.

Frankly, the traditional political nomenclature is obsolete. No nation was ever genuinely Communist. No nation in the last few hundred years was truly a Democracy. Socialism has largely contradictory meanings.

 

So what do we call it now when we want the government to control the means of production.

 

[/Quote]

So what do we call it now when we want the government to control the means of production.

[Quote\]


All modern economies are mixed.

 

You have made up the notion that I said a dictionary is biased, you have proved to yourself you can make stuff up.
Well done.
I said definitions.

 

Okay. Your turn.
So what do we call it now when we want the government to control the means of production.
Oh, and keep in mind, just because you aren't paranoid doesn't mean everyone (even the dictionaries) aren't out to get you.

 

So the U.S. government hunts down muslims and restricts their faith. It puts spies in the universities of other countries to steal. It kills or imprisons people who disgree with it. etc. etc. etc. If I could find any truth in any of that I would agree with you. Since I can't you are completely wrong. Sorry.

 

You call it government control. Then you consider why and how.
An individual productive worker also controls their personal means of production.
Unless they are slaves I suppose...something George Washington would have known something about.

 

Guantanomo bay?
Apology accepted.

 

You must be referring to the military prison there. The prisoners there are prisoners of war, not prisoners of the U.S. justice system. These people haven't even been in the U.S. When the war is over they will be released. No apology. Sorry.

 

People that point to definitions often have trouble relating their point into a the right context. So you can’t understand my point as it relates to the discussion?
Man up and make a decent argument. Copy and pasting is weak.

 

Read back. I accept your apology to me three (ish) posts ago.

 

It's simple. You want to force US companies to manufacture in the US. That's socialism.

 

You can judge a tree by several measures:
-- the fruit it bears;
-- the shade it provides;
-- the erosion it prevents;
-- the soil moisture it holds;
-- the beneficial insects it attracts
-- the animals it shelters;
-- its inherent beauty and inspirational strength.

So ... what was the question? Oh yeah, no our policies have been very productive -- for the Chinese. Our policies have come mainly from Clinton democrats, who have encouraged the Chinese to rob us blind. Their wealth is largely stolen from the US. Now that we know without doubt that they are capable of great harm to the entire world from their own wrecklessness -- not to mention hostility which is a potential to be fully planned for, it's time to put the breaks on in a big way, if only because Bill Clinton thinks with his pee-pee.

If it were my call, I would force the Chinese people to get rid of this chi-com leadeership, a gang of criminals who are enriching themselves off the world's intellect and inventiveness, or be nuked with their criminal leadership.

I certainly agree with whatever President Trump wants to do.

 

So take a pay cut and I bet you to can learn how to stuff hair into the head of a Barbie doll.

 

Would you 'force the Chinese people' by dropping a nuclear bomb on a couple of cities?

 

What is this post supposed to mean, if anything?

 

A response to this:

An individual productive worker also controls their personal means of production.

So take a pay cut and I bet you to can learn how to stuff hair into the head of a Barbie doll.