Speak Out: The Beginning of the End for China

Posted by almighty on Fri, Jul 9, 2010, at 7:29 AM:

Workers are beginning to demand higher wages in China, and there has been a rise in strikes. If the concept of unions ever gains a foothold, China's economy will go in the toilet.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1648362.html

Replies (15)

  • As usual Ike the Spaniard gets it wrong. He does not understand modern American conservatism.

    -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jul 9, 2010, at 9:24 AM
  • The reason that modern American conservatives love China so much is that because instead of raising taxes to fund their bailouts, wars, and corporate welfare; they can simply sell our debt to China.

    Kick the can is super happy fun time until we run out of road, and the can has been reduced to a pulp.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Fri, Jul 9, 2010, at 9:43 AM
  • And you are running for Congress?

    -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jul 9, 2010, at 10:21 AM
  • No sir, you do not, Ike the Spaniard. If you did you would be a modern American conservative. You're not and know nothing.

    -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jul 9, 2010, at 4:16 PM
  • V'ger,

    I didn't make myself very clear.

    Can you define "modern American conservative", and provide some examples of individuals that fit your description? Not trying to set you up for an argument or a slam or anything - I know a couple of people that I admire greatly identify themselves as conservative.

    I got "Republican" and "conservative" confused again.

    Thanks.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Fri, Jul 9, 2010, at 4:45 PM
  • Dream on!

    -- Posted by vietnamvet on Fri, Jul 9, 2010, at 4:50 PM
  • Gosh, I hope not, almighty ... Our country seems to depend quite a bit on China.

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jul 9, 2010, at 5:15 PM
  • Paraphrasing you, Ike the Spaniard, prove I ever said any such thing "within sister sarah's nuggets of 'wisdom.'" Gads, you are dense.

    Van, the example I would give you is Ayn Rand and of course Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagen. May I add Ludwig von Mies to my list?

    I am not particularly enamored with Sarah Palin.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 12:01 AM
  • Come on now Voyager... who would you rather have with you in a foxhole, Sarah Palin or Ludwig von Mies?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 12:04 AM
  • In a foxhole? Why, You and Why Not among several. You pack "heat" with the correct attitude.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 12:11 AM
  • V'ger,

    Thanks for the reply. Have a good day.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 7:40 AM
  • almighty wrote:

    'If the concept of unions ever catches on in China..."

    Have you not read your history? From the Boxer Rebellion on, the 'concept of unions' has driven much of China's labour movement. Technically, it existed under to 'coolie' system, in which the 'coolie boss' frequently negotiated the rate, collected the due, and paid the coolie his wage. However, unions as unions 'caught on' in China during the 20s and 30s, about the time they 'caught on' here in the United States.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 1:31 AM
  • I can remember a time, not so long ago, when we complained that everything was 'made in Japan', and that cheap Japanese labour was ruining our country, etc., etc. Now, Japan's labour rate is high, the standard of living has risen, and the we don't sweat competition from the Japanese (even though they were still our greatest holder of our public debt up until about 2008, when China overtook them).

    China, too, will fade, and a new boogie man will take its place, probably India.

    The thing that the liberal mind cannot grasp is that a people cannot be lifted out of poverty without industry. Our protectionist unions and the do-gooders who complained about the 'exploitation' of labour in China simply cannot, or will not, understand that, before wages and living conditions can rise, there has to be wages and living conditions worthy of the name. As people become gainfully employed, they can improve their lot in life and, through commerce, improve the lot in life of their neighbors. It has been thus since man first began to trade.

    Methinks at times that the liberal mind, for all its talk of good intentions, really does not want to see the lot of others improved, because they think it is done so at our expense. The Chinese have not forced us to buy their goods, we trade willingly for that which they willingly sell. We acquire goods we desire and the Chinese acquire capital to improve their lives, their living conditions, and their working conditions.

    When I was a youth, we were always to told to eat our vegatables, because there were 'starving childern in China that would love to have them'. We don't hear that so much anymore, because there are fewer starving children there, even though there are many more children. As the standard of living raises, starvation decreases. The poor will always be among them but, as in America, the lot of the poor is improved through industry and commerce.

    That's why we conservatives love China: we see in its development the improvement of the world capital. There is not enough charity in the world to clothe, house, and nourish the one-billion-plus Chinese people. Only industry can do that.

    That, my friends, is true compassion.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 1:50 AM
  • And that, Hunter, aptly describes Capitalism which Liberals hate.

    Of course, there is state Capitalism and Individual Capitalism. Which do you choose?

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 7:16 AM
  • I choose individual capitalism, and a state system that promotes it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 1:42 AM

Respond to this thread