#137

Coupla things champ. First, an O-5 in in the Air Force is a Lt Col. Not an LTC. That's Army. Second, Germany is not "socialist" anymore than the US is socialist. It hasn't been since it was National Socialist, but that ended about 80 years ago. In fact, the US would be more socialist IMO. Third, I have no clue how to use TRICARE. I pay for it, but it's not even worth the time trying to figure out when compared to my Cigna Global plan. Fourth, the commissary is great if you're in the mood for Skittles, Oreos, over-priced meat, or old produce. Otherwise, most of go to Globus. The cops won't shoot you, but they will beat the ---- out of you if you mouth off. And there might not be an army of left-wing pro-bono lawyers there to defend you when they do. Avoid Christmas markets. The Muslims love to target those.

"What has happened to the middle class as the rich got richer from offshoring their jobs?"

It grew. Exponentially.

It's why there are now more middle-class people on earth than not.

"The rich would be NOTHING without labor to create and distribute their products."

The labor can always be found to work in the factories. It's economics. After WWII, the cost of labor was extremely high because everything was being manufactured in the US. As the global economy rebuilt, competition was introduced, and the world was no longer dependent on high-cost US labor.

What China did was allow global consumers to get the same products, but at lower cost.

Thanks, China!

"Yeah, we are already like #25 in health care."

Unless you're in Europe subject to the US healthcare system...then it's like #225.

Maybe #125.

My co-worker spent 30 minutes on the phone today trying to schedule an appointment. He's military, so he has to use the US system. I can use private healthcare. Normally they offer something sooner than I can accept.

But, what can you say. His is the free government healthcare.

"According to the World Happiness Report, the happiest people in the world live in socialist countries with universal health care, gun control, regulated businesses, and environmental protections."

Can you summarize for me?

Like, people are happiest in Venezuela, Vietnam, and North Korea? Maybe Cuba?

"Northern European social democracies point and laugh in your general direction."

How so?

"That same expectation holds true in Capitalism."

How so?

Is it not expected they would be paid a wage or salary?

"What other sense exists?"

I consume oxygen, but it does not have any impact on the markets. I don't pay for it. It has no impact on the economy.

#5

Not sure about the specifics here, but BLM land is free to cross. A lot of ranchers will put up fences, but they can't be locked. I mean, technically they can, but you can cut the lock. You are expected to close gates if you open them though, as many times ranchers will own the grazing rights on BLM lands. They don't want the cattle getting out, and they do spend a lot on cattle guards and fences.

"There would be no need to produce anything if there is nobody to consume anything."

Consumption in the market sense, yes. Which is why socialism has always proven to be such an abysmal failure. The expectation was that workers go to work, produce stuff, but in many cases not value from the benefit of the goods they produced.

Socialism's greatest fault is that it is based on subjugating that which others have already created, while eliminating the rewards associated with creating something new. You will never be any better off than you are the moment socialism is introduced. From there it would be all downhill.

"No economic system exists without consumers. There'd be no need for production otherwise. You're again choosing to miss the point."

Sweet, sweet Snoofy.

Under communism, as envisioned by Marx, there would be no markets. No economic system. Happy workers would work in earnest to produce, knowing that collectively all workers could provide everything that was required by society. To each according to need, to each according to ability. But any exchange of currency would have been unnecessary in a communist society, since everything was to have been available in such abundance as there would have been no difference in value between goods.

You do start to sound like a staunch Capitalist once in a while though.

"Might as well nuke China then, and destroy their factories. That would get the American people what they said want, right?"

If you want to create high paying manufacturing jobs in the US, then yes. You nuke Japan again, and add in Europe and China for good measure. Once the US is the only industrialized production economy left on earth, manufacturers will be able to charge whatever they want, meaning that labor can charge whatever they want. The cost is simply passed on to the consumers, which have no other choice but to pay or go without.

"They haven't been doing that for fifty years, so I'm not sure why you assert they will suddenly change their ways."

They won't.

I'm just not clear on why you would be suggesting they would. And if they're not, it becomes clear that progressive economic policies espoused by those who resemble Bernie Sanders would be no more successful than those promoted by Donald Trump.

"Capitalism doesn't exist for the benefit of consumers."

Capitalism doesn't exist without consumers. At least not in the market sense.

You're thinking of socialism or communism with that line of reasoning.

Systems where there are no consumers. There are just citizens whose needs are provided for by the government based on what the government determines they need.

Ask East Germany.

East Germany actually had a rather well-developed manufacturing base, intended to supply a variety of consumer goods to European markets. Just not to East Germany. The DDR determined what the people needed, and provided those needs largely based on the hard currency they were able to bring in selling electronics and clothing to West Germany.

#101

The all this discussion is just purely academic. And USans will happily pay more for the goods and services they consume because the goods and services they consumer are produced by US workers.

Again, that's what Trump is betting on. And the basis for his decisions is not unwarranted. For at least a decade USans have been told that it is best for manufacturing to come back to the US. And many support that. A 2024 Cato survey found that 80% of respondents thought that US would be better if USans were working in factory jobs. And now they have a president who is doing his best to make that happen.

Oh, and since we're talking about Venezuela, how did Bolivarian Socialism work out for that country?

"If the economic benefits of outsourcing had been shared with the people who'd lost their jobs, america would have avoided this downfall. But reaganomics was in full effect and the rich took all the gains."

That's because the rich are the ones who knowledge and investment benefitted consumers. It's why there are now more middle-class people on earth than not.

But you're another one who should be happy with Trump. Unless Trump pulls one out of his ass, which I don't think he will, there will be far less wealth in the US. And the venture capitalists and entrepreneurs will quickly figure out that they can make more money in some other place. It's nothing new really. The only big difference is that typically these sorts of negative transformations occur under a progressive banner. This situation is unique in that it is occurring under a so-called "conservative."

Like I've said before. Trump is the US's Hugo Chavez.

"When you suggest that "Markets" determine value, what does that mean?"

Markets?

Revert back to your macroeconomics classes.

"You get to have a job."

If your job is contingent upon the government rigging the markets to make sure you have a job, you should probably be looking for another line of work.

"Does one of them cost me my job?"

Do I as a consumer give a ----?

"So you're saying it would create wealth if essentially all Americans lost their jobs, replaced by -------- working for pennies on the dollar."

The comparative advantage of the US is in knowledge and services. Which is exactly why the US should kinda be happy it was able to outsource manufacturing. It's not an economic component that provides value when compares to knowledge.

Your question is hard to answer. If the US were to lose its comparative advantage, then the workers in the US would just become the new -------- working for pennies on the dollar-implementing the decisions and ideas created in some other country.

I'm sure China would be more than happy to switch places. Developing the technology that fuels the global economy. Leaving it to lower skilled workers in other countries to produce the stuff en masse. They're just not there yet. Not sure why people in the US get gushy over the concept of a process that provides limited value to the economy or anything else. The relationship between the US and China at the end of 2024 suited me just fine. As for Chinese cars-why would I care if a Chinese company was trying to sell me a car? It's just another option I have available as part of my decision calculus if I want to buy a new car.

"Our estimates of reductions in after-tax income may understate other harms consumers will experience, including loss of choice and higher prices for substitute goods."

This is the biggie.

A cell phone imported from China that cost $400 will now cost $980.

But, it'll all be a'ight, because soon cell phones will be manufactured in the US by hard working, well-paid 'muricans.

It'll be beautiful. Just be cool.

"Which restrictions are those? The ones where Chinese illegal immigrants can't legally work in the United States for a quarter an hour?"

Yes.

The ones where markets do not determine value, but rather they are set by a ministry within the government.

Which do you think has more appeal to consumers? Lower or higher costs?

How does it benefit me to be forced to pay more than market value for something?

Again, I think you might need to re-evaluate your evaluation of Trump. You and ScottS seem to share some key beliefs.

I'm still just curious why you dislike him so much. You seem to be buying what he is selling.

"Tariffs are absolutely not at the expense of consumers, when the tariffs protect a nation's economic livelihood."

I kinda thought you might be a Trumper.