There is a reason why we have a norm against presidential interference in criminal investigations,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former George W. Bush-era Homeland Security official and senior counsel from the Kenneth Starr investigation into President Bill Clinton. “President Trump is the living, breathing proof-case for that norm.”
In my view Stephens does not give enough weight to the fact that Trump, Jr., Kushner, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Flynn, Sessions and even Big Trump were all probably more green and foolish than evil and conniving. Nevertheless, he makes a good case why Mueller should be allowed to finish his job with minimal interference from The Trump Cult.
It would be nice to feel even a tiny measure of confidence that your President is innocent. However, he has spent his entire lifetime being dishonest and continually behaves like the boy caught standing on a chair reaching toward the cookie jar.
Here’s an interesting study about presidents opining on judicial matters. Though this isn’t about criminal matters, such presidential commentary on various cases is nothing new. Yet they all took the same oath.
If presidents should remain silent (and I think they should), it should apply across the board on all cases being litigated.
Trump is breaking the molds (sometimes even the good ones) so I don’t expect him to act like other presidents. The shift in direction (away from globalism) that we need would not have come by continuing to do the same things. Of course some of this is negative, and it’s hard to say how it will affect the behavior of future presidents. But we are ill served when presidents behave as expected in public, and in private collude with congress and world leaders to undermine our sovereignty and economic security.
Debra, It seems you would like the late Hugo Chavez as a role model for Trump:
1. Like any tin pot dictator, he used law enforcement agencies against his political enemies in ways Trump is frustrated he has been unable to do.
2. Chavez completely defeated “globalism” in Venezuela by the use of protectionism and socialism.
3. Policy #2 is helping Venezuela defeat the growing worldwide problem of obesity as a huge percentage of Venezuelans go to bed hungry each night.
Ricky—Nah,If we’re going to pattern ourselves after other Commie countries China is a better model. At least they know how to take care of their own national interests….Of course, that only really works if you can find another country (like the US) that is stupid enough to relocate all their manufacturing to your shores.
You have to make up your mind. China is completely “globalist”. They export heavily, but they also import very heavily (particularly raw materials) and they are investing heavily in other countries.
If you want to actually adopt Trump’s rhetoric, curb trade, curb foreign investment and try to turn back the clock to the American manufacturing base of 1950, Venezuela is your model.
You won’t be able to restore that manufacturing base, but you may be able to make Americans as skinny as they were in 1950.
Following up on 4:57, do any of the Trumpers here want the US President to be able to direct law enforcement to move against his enemies in the manner of Putin, the Castros and Mugabe?
Ricky, China is certainly NOT globalist in the way we are. They import very little other than raw materials. If a company wants to sell in China, they pretty much have to be located in China. And they have to share ownership and management of their company with the Chinese government. And no, that is not a model for the US. But it is working very well for China and that success has a path to the future now because they have their own World Bank.
All of this has nothing to do with Trump, and is merely the logical consequence of several decades of very foolish American trade policies.(among other things).
Not only is China globalist, they are about to become the economic leader of the world with ties to almost every country in the world. They are at a different stage of their economic development than we are.
It is very hard for a country to go backwards in its economic development. However, again protectionist Venezuela along with Mugabe’s Zimbabwe show it can be done.
He has to point it out and make public pleas for justice. The swamp dwellers ain’t gonna investigate themselves, or each other, as Hillary demonstrates. Regardless of her many crimes, she skates. It’s about time someone points out the lack of justice carried out in the swamp. He’s just saying what half the country is thinking. I understand you and your globalist masters like it the old way, but there’s a new sheriff in the swamp now.
China already has most of our manufacturing and with it, our technology. Add to that a very low trade deficit and a World Bank that virtually all developed nations have bought into and I think it is safe to say that China is indeed at a different stage of development than the US: they are increasing, and we are decreasing. And with that decreasing comes instability–both political and economic.
So I’m pretty sure we don’t need to worry about China eating our lunch, because they already have. But I don’t blame them at all. We gave it to them.
Debra, Economies develop as follows:
1. First people are hunter/gatherers.
2. Then they progress to agriculture.
3. Next comes industrial/manufacturing.
4. Finally, nations move to a service/information economy.
As nations move to each stage, per capital income and GDP increase.
Just as you want the US to go back to manufacturing, Jefferson and his later agrarian admirers wanted to resist industrialization and/or go back to being a nation of gentlemen farmers. However, I understand I will never make a living as a plantation owner and your people aren’t going to make $100,000 a year building Cadillacs.
However, if Trump follows the path of Chavez, future generations of Trumpers may become hunter/gatherers again.
Selling internationally doesn’t make one a globalist. It’s the multi-lateral treaties that contain their own mini-governments, as well as the multi-national corporations that participate and influence multiple governments to their own benefit. These institutions undermine national governments and domestic businesses.
I think if we were able to get multi-national corporations in the US under control, we could safely reduce the size of government. But until they are reduced in size and impact, multinationals are a threat to normal or even larger domestic businesses and communities. And unfortunately government is the only force large enough to combat that. At least at this point.
Debra, Look at the top 20 per capital GDPs in the world. If you exclude the oil rich counties, the list is dominated by those which have moved beyond manufacturing.
And, Ricky, the people I know don’t expect to make $100,000 building Cadillacs. They’d be thrilled to make half that building almost anything—as long as it’s sustainable and they’re not being worked into premature decrepitude. Scrap that. Most of them would cheerfully work themselves into premature decrepitude for half that. Some already do for substantially less.
Debra, The first sentence of your your second paragraph @ 12:49 is interesting.
Go look how at how we spend our federal dollars.
Are you going to reduce:
1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Interest on the national debt
4. Food Stamps
5. Defense.
Specifically, when you “get the corporations under control”, what federal spending are you going to cut and by how much?
Debra, I know a bunch of 30 year olds in North Texas making over $50,000 a year. They worked hard in school. They are working hard now. They are part of the small group who are actually helping to fund the federal government.
Ricky, that list is only GDP; it doesn’t specify where their earnings come from. I would be very surprised to learn that any nation of our substantial size could realistically go from a production economy to a service economy without sustaining serious political and economic upheaval and damage. And even if it could, it would be very foolish to do so in my opinion. I think a nation that cannot provide itself with the necessities of life will eventually be a servant to one that can.
Debra @12:49 Here is the main way that “globalism” helps me, you and everyone who works or owns a business:
Before the explosion of free trade, Americans spent a much higher percentage of their income on items like food, clothing, TVs and similar items. The increase in the purchasing power brought about by free trade gives consumers the available cash to buy the goods and services we are producing. This is the primary reason that a sharp increase in protectionism is going to result in a sharp contraction in the economy. See Venezuela.
Debra @1:20 When did the “serious economic upheaval and damage” occur in Switzerland and Luxembourg as they moved to an information/service economy? How about Singapore or Finland? Did I miss a revolution or two?
I understand that economics is complex and somewhat counter-intuitive.
What is much more disturbing is how Trump and Trumpers are willing to depart from a very basic principle of our nation and modern Western Civilization (the rule of law) to allow a leader (“a sheriff”) to use governmental law enforcement agencies to move against his “enemies”. The rule of law (as opposed to the rule of a despot) is the exact thing that makes Canada a better place to live than Russia. It is the reason that people prefer to live in New Zealand or Ireland rather than Zimbabwe.
Ricky, we could cut the size of government in many ways, I’m sure, but I’m not willing to discuss reductions in government programs that benefit individuals until ‘too big to fail/ too big to jail’ multinationals and functional monopolies are under the control of just domestic laws, and their hidden subsidies are fully exposed to see if they are necessary or are in any way justified as helpful or needful to the country’s well-being.
Many of these companies represent direct international influence in our country. And some deliberately undercut the ability of Americans to build our own domestic businesses. For example, Amazon has operated in direct contradiction to free-market principles of competition. It has made a profit in only a handful of the 80+ quarters of its existence. During that time it has deliberately sought and succeeded in putting many domestic companies out of business by undercutting prices at a sustained loss. This is not free enterprise. It’s purely predatory.
Venezuela actually tried to form a free trade bloc in the Americas. It included Peru, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba. It was formed as a response to the US dominated FTAA A US backed coup in Honduras scared off othrr members. And the serious possibility that Brazil declined over time due to domestic politics and possible US interference.
All the nations Ricky cites have a strong manufacturing base. Luxembourg, steel. Switzerland, clocks and food, Finland, telephone and hitech. Singapore is an entrepot. Some manufacturing but mostly import export. And like other entrepots, it can export its social problems to the “mainland”.
The most stable economy in Europe, Germany, is built on high quality manufacturing.
Debra, Here is the federal budget. Assume that every multi-national corporation has now been converted to a socialist collective administered by Bernie Sanders. Please explain how you will reduce the size of the federal government.
@1:25 No Ricky, you have not missed a revolution or two—just a word or two. I said a country of our ” substantial size”. The countries you mentioned are so comparatively small I could practically fit them in my purse alongside the kitchen sink.
I guess that would work for a neo-Confederate if the country falls into enough small pieces. But I think, if I participate in the chaos at all, I’m going to identify more as a unionist… :–)
The decreased cost of consumer goods is the only saving grace. Its allowed the working class whose wages have stagnated for the last 35 years to maintain the lifestyle of their parents. Ironically consumer goods are only cheap because their parents lost their jobs. And more importantly Chinese currency manipulation favors the American consumer and the Chinese manufacture. Without an artificial low Chinese yuan dollar stores would be ten dollar stores.
Debra @ 2:00 Why is the size of a nation relevant? As we have seen over the past few minutes, all Western countries have moved to economies dominated by information/services. I don’t remember revolutions associated with those changes. In fact, I would guess that most people were shocked by the numbers I have been posting.
Debra, You taught me something about Amazon. However, I am not willing to concede that we are not dealing with a free market. Here is an article which is pretty consistent with what you described.
So Ford’s share of the auto market went from 9% to 48% in only six years (1908-1914) as he lowered the price (and his profit margin) on the Model T. He ran a bunch of folks out of business, but it was free enterprise, and I would argue the beginning of Debra’s much beloved middle class manufacturing laborer.
HRW @ 2:02 Friedman deals with this extensively in Free to Choose. His rule: If another country wants to subsidize your consumers by selling to them below cost, by all means let them do it.
Services have been redefined to include govt, tech and banking. This allows the service sector to look good and financially important. But take away the above abd we have a low paying instable sector that can’t be the basis for any mature economy.
235. True but this means low priced consumer goods are the result not of free market capitalism/globalization but the deliberate distortion of a currency by a govt entity. Dont credit globalization credit the Chinese govt.
An interesting question is why China does this? Perhaps they know free market is ideological hogwash and govts are in charge
Here are a bunch of average salaries in Switzerland. Some manufacturing jobs pay more than others. Some service jobs pay more than others. However, in Switzerland and other developed countries, the highest paying jobs are service jobs.
HRW, Only about 20% of our imports come from China. Then come Canada, Mexico, Japan and Germany. You guys aren’t selling to us below cost or manipulating your currency, are you?
HRW @3:39 Good question. If you look at India as examined by Milton Friedman and other countries that have taken steps to protect or subsidize certain domestic industries, it is generally done for domestic policy purposes.
I would suggest that the Chinese see the promotion (and subsidization) of a domestic steel industry much as Debra would. They are pleased to spend money to promote a stable job market for their workers in the manufacturing sector and to prevent “serious upheaval”. I think they trust the free market even less than she does.
As noted earlier, Trump is behaving like a guilty child, but he doesn’t even understand basic concepts like the Rule of Law or the actual powers and duties of the president. It is possible he fired Comey to try to conceal crimes, but it is also possible he fired Comey because Comey didn’t immediately follow orders as quickly and completely as the White House staffer who delivers his two scoops of ice cream.
China and east Asia never bought what Friedman et al were selling. Instead they built tariff walls to protect domestic industry creating huge conglomerates which could withstand foreign competition when tariffs were lowered. South Korea and Samsung are the textbook case.
Meanwhile Africa listened to the “experts” and created an export based economy and lost the ability to feed itself. Essentially they farmed plantation crops eg coffee and neglected basic foodstuffs since tge experts told them their profits would allow to buy food. This worked as well as Ireland in the 19th century.
China specifically manipulates currency and uses tariffs not only to protect manufacturing but maintain employment as a form of law and order.
Wandering Views 
In banana republics and tinpot dictatorships the leaders often instigate criminal investigations against their enemies.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/trump-justice-department-independence-244531
LikeLike
From the article:
There is a reason why we have a norm against presidential interference in criminal investigations,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former George W. Bush-era Homeland Security official and senior counsel from the Kenneth Starr investigation into President Bill Clinton. “President Trump is the living, breathing proof-case for that norm.”
LikeLike
Bret Stephens takes on the Trump apologists:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/opinion/robert-mueller-trump-dossier.html
In my view Stephens does not give enough weight to the fact that Trump, Jr., Kushner, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Flynn, Sessions and even Big Trump were all probably more green and foolish than evil and conniving. Nevertheless, he makes a good case why Mueller should be allowed to finish his job with minimal interference from The Trump Cult.
It would be nice to feel even a tiny measure of confidence that your President is innocent. However, he has spent his entire lifetime being dishonest and continually behaves like the boy caught standing on a chair reaching toward the cookie jar.
LikeLike
We can all thank Donna Brazille (of all people) for driving a stake through the heart of any Hillary comeback hopes.
https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2017/11/02/did-hillarys-rigging-at-the-dnc-push-biden-out-of-the-race/amp/
There is a story that Hillary treated Brazille horribly (compared her to a buffalo) after the terrible Matt Lauer interview during the campaign.
Trump may be a terribly behaved child, but Hillary is every bit as much a sociopath, if not more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s an interesting study about presidents opining on judicial matters. Though this isn’t about criminal matters, such presidential commentary on various cases is nothing new. Yet they all took the same oath.
If presidents should remain silent (and I think they should), it should apply across the board on all cases being litigated.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/president-obama-and-arguments-about-pending-supreme-court-cases
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump is breaking the molds (sometimes even the good ones) so I don’t expect him to act like other presidents. The shift in direction (away from globalism) that we need would not have come by continuing to do the same things. Of course some of this is negative, and it’s hard to say how it will affect the behavior of future presidents. But we are ill served when presidents behave as expected in public, and in private collude with congress and world leaders to undermine our sovereignty and economic security.
LikeLike
Debra, It seems you would like the late Hugo Chavez as a role model for Trump:
1. Like any tin pot dictator, he used law enforcement agencies against his political enemies in ways Trump is frustrated he has been unable to do.
2. Chavez completely defeated “globalism” in Venezuela by the use of protectionism and socialism.
3. Policy #2 is helping Venezuela defeat the growing worldwide problem of obesity as a huge percentage of Venezuelans go to bed hungry each night.
LikeLike
Others see the potential for Trump to repeat “the Chavez miracle”.
LikeLike
Ricky—Nah,If we’re going to pattern ourselves after other Commie countries China is a better model. At least they know how to take care of their own national interests….Of course, that only really works if you can find another country (like the US) that is stupid enough to relocate all their manufacturing to your shores.
LikeLike
You have to make up your mind. China is completely “globalist”. They export heavily, but they also import very heavily (particularly raw materials) and they are investing heavily in other countries.
If you want to actually adopt Trump’s rhetoric, curb trade, curb foreign investment and try to turn back the clock to the American manufacturing base of 1950, Venezuela is your model.
You won’t be able to restore that manufacturing base, but you may be able to make Americans as skinny as they were in 1950.
LikeLike
Following up on 4:57, do any of the Trumpers here want the US President to be able to direct law enforcement to move against his enemies in the manner of Putin, the Castros and Mugabe?
LikeLike
Ricky, China is certainly NOT globalist in the way we are. They import very little other than raw materials. If a company wants to sell in China, they pretty much have to be located in China. And they have to share ownership and management of their company with the Chinese government. And no, that is not a model for the US. But it is working very well for China and that success has a path to the future now because they have their own World Bank.
All of this has nothing to do with Trump, and is merely the logical consequence of several decades of very foolish American trade policies.(among other things).
LikeLike
Not only is China globalist, they are about to become the economic leader of the world with ties to almost every country in the world. They are at a different stage of their economic development than we are.
It is very hard for a country to go backwards in its economic development. However, again protectionist Venezuela along with Mugabe’s Zimbabwe show it can be done.
LikeLike
Ricky,
He has to point it out and make public pleas for justice. The swamp dwellers ain’t gonna investigate themselves, or each other, as Hillary demonstrates. Regardless of her many crimes, she skates. It’s about time someone points out the lack of justice carried out in the swamp. He’s just saying what half the country is thinking. I understand you and your globalist masters like it the old way, but there’s a new sheriff in the swamp now.
LikeLike
Trumpkin, How is any “globalist” my master?
LikeLike
China already has most of our manufacturing and with it, our technology. Add to that a very low trade deficit and a World Bank that virtually all developed nations have bought into and I think it is safe to say that China is indeed at a different stage of development than the US: they are increasing, and we are decreasing. And with that decreasing comes instability–both political and economic.
So I’m pretty sure we don’t need to worry about China eating our lunch, because they already have. But I don’t blame them at all. We gave it to them.
LikeLike
I do zero international work. The same is true for almost all my friends. What we have is lots of dependents: Democrats and Trumpkins.
LikeLike
Debra, Economies develop as follows:
1. First people are hunter/gatherers.
2. Then they progress to agriculture.
3. Next comes industrial/manufacturing.
4. Finally, nations move to a service/information economy.
As nations move to each stage, per capital income and GDP increase.
Just as you want the US to go back to manufacturing, Jefferson and his later agrarian admirers wanted to resist industrialization and/or go back to being a nation of gentlemen farmers. However, I understand I will never make a living as a plantation owner and your people aren’t going to make $100,000 a year building Cadillacs.
However, if Trump follows the path of Chavez, future generations of Trumpers may become hunter/gatherers again.
LikeLike
Selling internationally doesn’t make one a globalist. It’s the multi-lateral treaties that contain their own mini-governments, as well as the multi-national corporations that participate and influence multiple governments to their own benefit. These institutions undermine national governments and domestic businesses.
I think if we were able to get multi-national corporations in the US under control, we could safely reduce the size of government. But until they are reduced in size and impact, multinationals are a threat to normal or even larger domestic businesses and communities. And unfortunately government is the only force large enough to combat that. At least at this point.
LikeLike
Ricky, I’m curious, where is #4 currently working in the world?
LikeLike
Debra, Look at the top 20 per capital GDPs in the world. If you exclude the oil rich counties, the list is dominated by those which have moved beyond manufacturing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
LikeLike
And, Ricky, the people I know don’t expect to make $100,000 building Cadillacs. They’d be thrilled to make half that building almost anything—as long as it’s sustainable and they’re not being worked into premature decrepitude. Scrap that. Most of them would cheerfully work themselves into premature decrepitude for half that. Some already do for substantially less.
LikeLike
Debra, The first sentence of your your second paragraph @ 12:49 is interesting.
Go look how at how we spend our federal dollars.
Are you going to reduce:
1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Interest on the national debt
4. Food Stamps
5. Defense.
Specifically, when you “get the corporations under control”, what federal spending are you going to cut and by how much?
LikeLike
Debra, I know a bunch of 30 year olds in North Texas making over $50,000 a year. They worked hard in school. They are working hard now. They are part of the small group who are actually helping to fund the federal government.
LikeLike
Ricky, that list is only GDP; it doesn’t specify where their earnings come from. I would be very surprised to learn that any nation of our substantial size could realistically go from a production economy to a service economy without sustaining serious political and economic upheaval and damage. And even if it could, it would be very foolish to do so in my opinion. I think a nation that cannot provide itself with the necessities of life will eventually be a servant to one that can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, has anyone heard anything about Antifa today? I thought this was the day they were going to overthrow the Trump government. :–)
LikeLike
Debra @12:49 Here is the main way that “globalism” helps me, you and everyone who works or owns a business:
Before the explosion of free trade, Americans spent a much higher percentage of their income on items like food, clothing, TVs and similar items. The increase in the purchasing power brought about by free trade gives consumers the available cash to buy the goods and services we are producing. This is the primary reason that a sharp increase in protectionism is going to result in a sharp contraction in the economy. See Venezuela.
LikeLike
Debra @1:20 When did the “serious economic upheaval and damage” occur in Switzerland and Luxembourg as they moved to an information/service economy? How about Singapore or Finland? Did I miss a revolution or two?
LikeLike
I understand that economics is complex and somewhat counter-intuitive.
What is much more disturbing is how Trump and Trumpers are willing to depart from a very basic principle of our nation and modern Western Civilization (the rule of law) to allow a leader (“a sheriff”) to use governmental law enforcement agencies to move against his “enemies”. The rule of law (as opposed to the rule of a despot) is the exact thing that makes Canada a better place to live than Russia. It is the reason that people prefer to live in New Zealand or Ireland rather than Zimbabwe.
LikeLike
Ricky, we could cut the size of government in many ways, I’m sure, but I’m not willing to discuss reductions in government programs that benefit individuals until ‘too big to fail/ too big to jail’ multinationals and functional monopolies are under the control of just domestic laws, and their hidden subsidies are fully exposed to see if they are necessary or are in any way justified as helpful or needful to the country’s well-being.
Many of these companies represent direct international influence in our country. And some deliberately undercut the ability of Americans to build our own domestic businesses. For example, Amazon has operated in direct contradiction to free-market principles of competition. It has made a profit in only a handful of the 80+ quarters of its existence. During that time it has deliberately sought and succeeded in putting many domestic companies out of business by undercutting prices at a sustained loss. This is not free enterprise. It’s purely predatory.
LikeLike
Protectionism wasn’t the problem in Venezuela. It was “Dutch disease”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
Look under “examples”
Venezuela actually tried to form a free trade bloc in the Americas. It included Peru, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba. It was formed as a response to the US dominated FTAA A US backed coup in Honduras scared off othrr members. And the serious possibility that Brazil declined over time due to domestic politics and possible US interference.
LikeLike
All the nations Ricky cites have a strong manufacturing base. Luxembourg, steel. Switzerland, clocks and food, Finland, telephone and hitech. Singapore is an entrepot. Some manufacturing but mostly import export. And like other entrepots, it can export its social problems to the “mainland”.
The most stable economy in Europe, Germany, is built on high quality manufacturing.
LikeLike
Debra, Here is the federal budget. Assume that every multi-national corporation has now been converted to a socialist collective administered by Bernie Sanders. Please explain how you will reduce the size of the federal government.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie
LikeLike
@1:25 No Ricky, you have not missed a revolution or two—just a word or two. I said a country of our ” substantial size”. The countries you mentioned are so comparatively small I could practically fit them in my purse alongside the kitchen sink.
I guess that would work for a neo-Confederate if the country falls into enough small pieces. But I think, if I participate in the chaos at all, I’m going to identify more as a unionist… :–)
LikeLike
Services make up 69% of the German economy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany
LikeLiked by 1 person
Services make up 80% of the economy of Luxembourg.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Luxembourg
LikeLiked by 1 person
The decreased cost of consumer goods is the only saving grace. Its allowed the working class whose wages have stagnated for the last 35 years to maintain the lifestyle of their parents. Ironically consumer goods are only cheap because their parents lost their jobs. And more importantly Chinese currency manipulation favors the American consumer and the Chinese manufacture. Without an artificial low Chinese yuan dollar stores would be ten dollar stores.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky@1:58, see @1:48 :–)
LikeLike
Services make up 71% of the economy of Switzerland.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Luxembourg
LikeLiked by 1 person
Services make up 81% of the Finnish economy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Finland
FYI: The figure for the US is 79%.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra @ 2:00 Why is the size of a nation relevant? As we have seen over the past few minutes, all Western countries have moved to economies dominated by information/services. I don’t remember revolutions associated with those changes. In fact, I would guess that most people were shocked by the numbers I have been posting.
LikeLike
Debra, You taught me something about Amazon. However, I am not willing to concede that we are not dealing with a free market. Here is an article which is pretty consistent with what you described.
https://www.recode.net/2017/5/15/15610786/amazon-jeff-bezos-public-company-profit-revenue-explained-five-charts
Now I am off to search for an article on Henry Ford’s early business model.
LikeLike
So Ford’s share of the auto market went from 9% to 48% in only six years (1908-1914) as he lowered the price (and his profit margin) on the Model T. He ran a bunch of folks out of business, but it was free enterprise, and I would argue the beginning of Debra’s much beloved middle class manufacturing laborer.
https://www.econedlink.org/lessons/EconEdLink-print-lesson.php?lid=692&type=student
LikeLike
HRW @ 2:02 Friedman deals with this extensively in Free to Choose. His rule: If another country wants to subsidize your consumers by selling to them below cost, by all means let them do it.
LikeLike
Services have been redefined to include govt, tech and banking. This allows the service sector to look good and financially important. But take away the above abd we have a low paying instable sector that can’t be the basis for any mature economy.
LikeLike
235. True but this means low priced consumer goods are the result not of free market capitalism/globalization but the deliberate distortion of a currency by a govt entity. Dont credit globalization credit the Chinese govt.
An interesting question is why China does this? Perhaps they know free market is ideological hogwash and govts are in charge
LikeLike
It appears FOX has completely lost it –http://reverepress.com/news/fox-news-says-antifa-plans-overthrow-trump-today-turns-fell-left-wing-prank/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here are a bunch of average salaries in Switzerland. Some manufacturing jobs pay more than others. Some service jobs pay more than others. However, in Switzerland and other developed countries, the highest paying jobs are service jobs.
https://www.lohncomputer.ch/en/wages/
LikeLike
HRW, Only about 20% of our imports come from China. Then come Canada, Mexico, Japan and Germany. You guys aren’t selling to us below cost or manipulating your currency, are you?
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html
LikeLike
HRW @3:39 Good question. If you look at India as examined by Milton Friedman and other countries that have taken steps to protect or subsidize certain domestic industries, it is generally done for domestic policy purposes.
I would suggest that the Chinese see the promotion (and subsidization) of a domestic steel industry much as Debra would. They are pleased to spend money to promote a stable job market for their workers in the manufacturing sector and to prevent “serious upheaval”. I think they trust the free market even less than she does.
LikeLike
This Tweet from John Podhoretz reminded me of something HRW told us several months ago:
The Left is behaving as irrationally as are the Trumpkins.
As noted earlier, Trump is behaving like a guilty child, but he doesn’t even understand basic concepts like the Rule of Law or the actual powers and duties of the president. It is possible he fired Comey to try to conceal crimes, but it is also possible he fired Comey because Comey didn’t immediately follow orders as quickly and completely as the White House staffer who delivers his two scoops of ice cream.
LikeLike
China and east Asia never bought what Friedman et al were selling. Instead they built tariff walls to protect domestic industry creating huge conglomerates which could withstand foreign competition when tariffs were lowered. South Korea and Samsung are the textbook case.
Meanwhile Africa listened to the “experts” and created an export based economy and lost the ability to feed itself. Essentially they farmed plantation crops eg coffee and neglected basic foodstuffs since tge experts told them their profits would allow to buy food. This worked as well as Ireland in the 19th century.
China specifically manipulates currency and uses tariffs not only to protect manufacturing but maintain employment as a form of law and order.
LikeLike
Not sure what i said but it looks the swamp is being drained. Apparently Flynn has a perp walk scheduled.
The Canadian dollar is a petrol currency. We couldn’t manipulate it if we wanted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Singapore and Friedman seemed to like one another. That is why Singapore is the most economically successful place in Asia.
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/29/395811510/how-singapore-became-one-of-the-richest-places-on-earth
Chile listened to Friedman, and it is much freer, richer and more stable than any other country in South America.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Hillary and her kin are figuring ways to exploit this shooting.
More gun control?,
LikeLike
. Its not like Trump doesn’t make knee jerk tweets after a mass killing demanding policy changes…….
LikeLiked by 1 person
More of the swamp
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/paradise-papers-leak-reveals-business-ties-between-russia-firm-us-commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross/article36839172/?click=sf_globefb
LikeLiked by 1 person