pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 18 replies \ @CliffBadger 5 Nov \ parent \ on: Econ October Recap econ
So in the US case, the government interferes, and in China the government allows the market to build? Proving my point. The less government intervention the better.
In China the government literally owns many of the power generators building them and supplying the electricity at the lowest possible cost knowing that the free market of manufacturers and processors will utilise the electricity and produce wealth and competitively priced exports.
It is a case of the government enabling its industry to be the most competitive in the world.
Chinese manufacturers enjoy electricity supply at less than half the cost western manufacturers pay.
All due to proactive Chinese economic management and understanding of the crucial enabling role government can play in the wealth of nations.
Due to this government led strategically scaled power generation construction the cost of Chinas new nuclear power plants massively lower than in the crony capitalist USA.
Chinas mercantile mixed economy strategy has won the trade war - you just have not understood it yet.
reply
A person can only specialize in one industry. The expert at navigating communist bureaucracy does not understand nuclear power. You add no value to the process by adding the step of requiring the government's approval. It's not about whether they approve the project or not. The problem is that the experts on violence and theft own the electric grid instead of engineers.
reply
In China the government literally owns many of the power generators building them and supplying the electricity at the lowest possible cost knowing that the free market of manufacturers and processors will utilise the electricity and produce wealth and competitively priced exports.
It is a case of the government enabling its industry to be the most competitive in the world.
Chinese manufacturers enjoy electricity supply at less than half the cost western manufacturers pay.
All due to proactive Chinese economic management and understanding of the crucial enabling role government can play in the wealth of nations.
reply
If I raid your house at gunpoint and claim to own the kitchen, and I make you cook free dinner for me, the quality of the dinner is besides the point.
And when you say "enabling" all that means is allowing other people to work instead of harassing them with regulations and death camps. The government itself did nothing to manage the electrical grid. They don't know how. All the actual work is done in the private sector and the government's only tool is murderous threats.
reply
You do not understand how a mixed economy works.
Neither does America anymore, and that's why you are losing your wealth and hegemony.
reply
I understand perfectly what you mean by mixed economy. It means sometimes you beat up people for money, and sometimes you leave them alone so they can make money that you can hustle from them later. Every state is a mixed economy because if everyone was dead there would be nothing left to steal, so of course you have to mix in some peaceful capitalism with whatever statist scheme you want to play.
There's no such thing as collective ownership of wealth. Any given fraction of wealth can only be owned by one person at a time. If the government takes money from me, that makes them richer and it makes me poorer. Nothing they do or what I would have done with the money is relevant to the rights violation taking place at that moment.
America's decline proves my point anyway because it's entirely the fault of FDR and his party's economic interventionism. America got rich while it was being corrupted with socialism, coincidentally, because of geographic luck and historical timing. A mixed economy isn't what caused it to be rich. It caused it to be poorer than it otherwise would have been.
Gang violence doesn't make a country rich. One big gang monopolizing all the violence also does not make the country rich. The whole industry of involuntary theft is always a net negative unless you're in on the racket or too stupid to know it's a racket.
reply
It is true a mixed economy does not inevitably result in wealth for a nation (it has to be done with skill and integrity) but it is also true that a nation NEVER grew wealthy without the intricate involvement of the government working with and supporting business.
Without such good government business does not have the legal framework and security to invest and build wealth.
Look at history and this is evident.
reply
it is also true that a nation NEVER grew wealthy without the intricate involvement of the government working with and supporting business
Of course they did. The wealth is built first. Government meddling comes after. The "legal framework and security" is formed from a negotiation between external gangs. It doesn't exist as a benefit for the businesses doing the work. Bitcoin offers enough of a framework without statist harassment.
(it has to be done with skill and integrity)
This is ridiculous. The state's entire use case is to attack, rob, and kill the people who have skills other than violence. Succeeding in the extortion industry means you have the least integrity of anyone.
No in China the government has deliberately created a whole industry including trained engineers and technicians and supply chains of raw materials capable of building projects like nuclear, solar, hydro, wind and thermal power generation at drastically lower cost than the US government which only regulates industry and provides almost zero strategic guidance.
In areas like this neoliberal libertarian ideology has crippled western manufacturing competitiveness.
Remember the Hoover dam?
The wests global dominance was built upon mixed economy government and private enterprise synergies.
The wests decline is upon neoliberal libertarian extremist idiocy.
reply