You're finished here. Before I throw you on the Maurice Winn Memorial Heap, I'll slap you around a little more.
Right, putting words in other's mouths is your specialty.
You have enough problem putting words in your own mouth. It's fairly difficult to extract the meaning.
[that I am part of the great liberal conspiracy. I am not.]
I don't believe you.
I believe that the free market is the most efficient process and I believe that when we stray from it, that we are dooming ourselves in the long run.
I don't believe you.
I stated it clearly when I said that I am opposed to the government trying to stimulate the economy through infrastructure buildout.
You didn't say that.
If you work on YOUR reading comprehension skills, you will see in the paragraph where you quoted me that I say " I disagree with this as I consider it to be a socialistic policy (and as an extension, will be done less efficiently and will have long term negative effects).". And it *IS* socialistic if the infrasture is funded, owned and operated by the government.
And I pointed out that you don't know the difference. Specifically, this is false and proves you don't know what you're talking about And it *IS* socialistic if the infrasture is funded, owned and operated by the government. just as I already showed and just as you failed to understand. I'll say it again, you don't know what socialism is and how it's differentiated from government's necessary involvement in economy and/or society. Did you hear me? NECESSARY INVOLVEMENT.
And *that* is the case in China.
And as I already stated, DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SOCIALIST STATE AND A STATE.
In addition, a telecom buildout is certainly something that can be done by entities other than the government.
The PRC isn't building out anything. The US government isn't building out anything.
Telecom is nothing like roads and sewers.
Telecom is nothing like a road? How many times do I have to point out to you your unbelievable narrow mindedness? This is why I said that no matter how many times you claim to be pro free market capitalism, you can't be believed. And by the way, telcom is very much like a sewer.
There is absolutely no reason that the government should be funding, owning and operating the telecom network in a truly capitalistic society.
In a truly capitalist society you'd be out on the street.
Here's a quaint word for you to learn "context".
Won't help you escape.
Try it some time. I am not arguing against doing business in China because the real addressable market today is smaller than most perceive. I was simply stating that to accept business today at a loss or breakeven because of this vast untapped market, is absurd. And yes, businesses are doing that. In order to get their foot in the door of the 1.25billion consumer market, they give their product away at a loss. By the time those 750million agrarian chinese have any interest in my product (or most western manufactured products), I will be dead. Therefore, they do not count in my equation.
Autos and washing machines don't count in your equation either, but I have to remember that you are bound by "context".
It doesn't mean that the other 500million or so aren't a perfectly legitimate market to address, but I am certainly not going to consider the other 750million when I am negotiating.
How can you negotiate when you're so limited and narrow minded? You've got no scope.
No, you are incorrect. I do not believe in gods and slobs.
What a hypocrite. It is for this reason, the reason that you can't see what you are, that you can't be believed when you say you're this or that. You've already said that you will be whatever you need to be to get the contract and the money.
I thought it was laughable the first time you brought it up and I find it amusing that you consider yourself a "god".
I also said that the gods don't talk to the slobs, but I'm talking to you.
"Your success comes from that protectionism. You can't compete in the real world." Just because you make shit up to fit your view of the world, doesn't make it true.
How do you know you could make it? You could only know that if you were running your own show. Otherwise, you're the one who is running.
The simple fact is that the Chinese government is at best operating to benefit a small subset of the population.
You don't know what you're talking about. This claim of your's is so ridiculously false that only my Chinese neighbor would agree with it, and she believes that only US marines know all about Vietnam too. If you knew what was going on in China, you'd see that the PRC has done a remarkable job of getting out of the way of the people. That's why I know about and invest in China. That's where I'm making money. I'm not making squat in the US. And YOU are negotiating? What a fraud.
Those "capitalists" that you so admire are mostly part of the legacy government. It is cronyism at best, but it ain't capitalism.
Legacy government?
It certainly seems to make you happy. I am against the socialism that has entered and continues to enter in the U.S. I believe that it makes us weaker as a country and as a society.
Yawn. Every 'crat is a true believer in capitalism.
As has been pointed out on this thread, without property rights their system has an achilles heal.
The US has property rights. So what? If you don't have property rights, you don't have a society. You don't have a rule of law. China has property rights.
But even more importantly, there is not protection for intellectual property.
The PRC is aggressively promoting intellectual property rights. You should know that, but your prejudices and yesterday's info are misleading you.
This will be severely limiting for China going forward as well.
Then why are you there negotiating with them?
China isn't going to bury the U.S. They are however, very likely to make the playing field more level so that the U.S. has to become more competitive.
Unbelievable. China is eating your lunch and you're saying they're "likely to make the playing field more level"? First, the field is always level. You'd know that if you understood free market capitalism, but in fact, you don't understand it and this proves it. You sound like every 'crat I've heard over the last 30 years who claims to be a free market capitalist and then states, "but the field is not level". Second, it is oxymoron to say, "more level", in both the literal and abstract meanings, and exposes a typical myth that is running loose in the left wing academic world. Third, it's just stupid to then conclude that a "more level" field forces the US to be more competitive when exactly the opposite is true. And don't give me some damnable bs cop out context excuse that I'm not understanding what you mean. I understand more than you see, for you can't see the implied socialism in your comments. It's worse than that. It's just like 'crat surrenderism. It well represents what GM has done over the last 30 years and still, to this very day, denies their emperor's new clothes. Fourth, the reaction of the US to what you implied in all your myths about competitiveness, is contrary to what you believe and what a rational man would expect. The US is sticking its head deeper in the ostrich hole below the level field. God you Gringos are stupid. Without President Bush Al Qaida would have conquered you in six weeks.
I am convinced that if someone came on the thread and said "the sky is blue" you would come back and make the argument that the sky is really every color but blue
No, I wouldn't make that argument. Neither would I accept any false argument as anyone who comes here knows. They know they can't bs, be stupid, be prejudiced or be one dimensional, and survive here. You have to be smart, educated, clever, and learned, to post here.
and that they are idiot crats for even trying to assert that the sky is blue when it is clear that the absorption of all other colors is the real determination of the color of the sky.
If you want to belabor the point, the sky isn't blue. The sky has no color. What you see as blue is refracted white light from Rayleigh Scattering.
And then you would ban them for being pretentious and having the nerve to challenge *the* only expert on the subject.
You're saying there's no gods, only slobs, yet you don't believe that claim. There has to be gods, else why are you paid more money than others? Oh. There are gods, there are gods...
I let anyone on here for a while until they prove that they're clunks. That's something one can't be here, a clunk, and man, you're sure sounding clunky.
And then you would ban them for being pretentious and having the nerve to challenge *the* only expert on the subject.
I take on everyone in the world in the things I know. You don't hear biophysics, swimming, or real estate, discussed here. You don't have to come here to show what a clunk you are. Why do you do that? In the past I've stated I don't really want anyone posting here. You post at my sufferance. You think you're so contextually adept, so read my thread header. |
