alt.politics.economics

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
news:47c351f8$0$7018$4c368faf@...
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I'm sure you've gathered, the objective of many here is not to
>>>>>>>>> discredit Friedman, but demonize him. Without manufacturing proof
>>>>>>>>> that his policies were failures, there's no way to reach their
>>>>>>>>> objective of a socialistic state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If by "demonizing" him you mean exposing his snake oil for all to
>>>>>>>> see, that is correct. The market didn't get smarter just because
>>>>>>>> Milton
>>>>>>>> Friedman finally learned to tie his shoelaces. His policies are
>>>>>>>> successful in making the rich richer and everyone else poorer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't find the dadgum article, but when you look at spending,
>>>>>>> *it* is much less widely spread than income. Makes sense - the
>>>>>>> marginal value of spending another dollar rolls off quickly
>>>>>>> at some threshold.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah. Here it is:
>>>>>>> /2008/02/10/opinion/?ei=5090&en=9ef4be7de32e4b53&ex=1360299600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems to make sense, given demographics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the country's negative or near-negative savings rate it makes
>>>>>> "sense." We pass child labor, work-week length, and occupational
>>>>>> safety
>>>>>> legislation here and then get "good" prices by exploiting foreigners
>>>>>> without such protections.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We "exploited" Japan after WWII, and it's an economic
>>>>> powerhouse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Japan built it's own corporations, with protectionist measures and
>>>> restrictions on foreign ownership.
>>>
>>> But isn't the present and recent China policy simply
>>> a variation on the Japan policy? I have had dinner discussions
>>> with engineers who are from China, and they claim that
>>> trade is the only possible solution to improving the quality
>>> of life for people in China. The stakes there are very high.
>>
>> Engineers? Why not talk with street sweepers? There's a potentially
>> huge market within China, if they would only pay the farmers better.
>>
>
> I don't have access to street sweepers.
>
>>> *These guys* will suffer the slings and arrows of emigrating
>>> to the US because they see that as better for their children.
>>
>> Yeah, selfishness uber alles. And they'll take the money China spent on
>> their education with them. No repayment. That's gratitude for you.
>>
>
> Oh boy. Well, I suppose they could chain them up or something.
>
>>> And the way I see it, both Britain and America grew out of the
>>> need for child labor in the same manner. This is what I mean by
>>> "dishumility" - we have the luxury of not needing child labor,
>>> then the additional luxury of being incensed by it.
>>
>> China doesn't need child labor, it is just cheaper.
>>
>
> China appears to believe it needs child labor. America needed child
> labor.
>
Actually, China has made laws banning child labor.