China and US at it again

[xul]

A Republican in the White House won't matter....the USA already has considerable tactical and strategic assets deployed for the region. There are 28,000 U.S. troops in South Korea alone. U.S. Seventh Fleet is home ported in Japan. U.S. Marines are completing their fourth rotation to bases in Australia, along with tactical aircraft.

The USA has about 200 warships and 350,000 military personnel deployed to the Asia-Pacific region. If that is not enough, then Canada can come and save the day.

I think Americans should elect Canadian Liberal Party to create and collect some protection taxes from those American allies... before let them enjoy such level of welfare .

Edited November 5, 2015 by xul

[Rue]

Bush the Democrats if elected again will continue to downsize the navy.

Under Trudeau we will keep 3 rubber boats and some rubber ducks in our navy.

In regards to XUL, careful or we shall send Celine Dion to Peking. Be very careful.

[honeybee]

Evasion. This is not about solving issues. It is about expressing opinions. Something which Chinese are not free to do.

Newspapers are filled with columnists who hold very different opinions from each other that regularly attack the government. Andrew Coyne disagreed NP election endorsement and he ended resigning as the head of editorial board but the NP still wants him to publish his opinions as a columnist in the newspaper.

While it is true that they are many people that would like to suppress opinions that disagree with them the principal of free speech is protected by the constitution. Nothing close to this level of freedom exists in China.

What is interesting about this story is Jan Wong was not fired for it. Nor was she censored. All the politicians did is pass a non-binding motion calling for an apology. In the end she left the G&M with a large severance package because she objected to how her employers handled the outrage. She later went on to publish a book about here experience and is currently employed as journalist and a professor. In China someone like her would be rotting in a jail cell.

And the blame for this rests entirely with China. Prior to China's aggressive tactics the Japanese would have considered changing their constitution unthinkable. Now they feel they have no choice given the fact they live next to a aggressive expansionary power who is only looking for vassals to kowtow. The future of the world must be built by nations would work as partners with other nations. The 19th century power game that China and Russia are playing helps no one and risks much.

You can ignore any positive aspect in China compare to Canada and ignore any negative aspect in US or Canada compare to China although I have mentioned more than once in previous post.

Jan Wong lost job is for her political incorrectness, Liberal candidate Maria Manna who expressed skepticism about the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. has to resign. The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights”

With so many terrible things happened, how many people would like to risk to express themselves if they have some serious different opinions. That's why you can not hear those in mainstream media. Only some trivial "different opinions" "against" government left, compare the different opinion in China mainstream media, it almost can not be called different political opinions. That why I believe China has more freedom of speech than Canada.

You selectively ignore the facts the almost no mainstream media has any pro-communist articles. So you can not prove if anyone will be sent to jail for some strong political incorrectness in Canada. In US, Private Bradley Manning is in jail. And Snowden is still in Russia.

You can just continue addict in blaming Chine like sing in a Choir, you can addict in blaming before the Parliament Hill everyday waiting China do real develop works and waiting for Money flooding out of Canada and Canada’s basic balance fell from a surplus measuring 4.2% of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to a deficit of 7.9% of the GDP. ( http://fusion.net/story/226258/canada-losing-money-basic-balance/ )

Unfortunately, China is not your home, you can not define how to use a place in China and let them do according your suggestion.

I will never try to tell you the correct usage of any room in your house.

[honeybee]

Not when you have the largest population by a large margin (excluding India).

I think the Solow model of economic growth is a decent model at explaining this observation. If you want to learn more you can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan_model

But basically, the reason PR China is experiencing higher economic growth than Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Singapore is because they started catching up to western nations later, so there was a larger gap in economic differences and more technological spillovers that PR China could take advantage of. The high economic growth China is experiencing is not because of the wonderfulness of the Communist Party, but rather due to the terrible decisions that the Communist Party made under Mao which held China in poverty for decades more than it needed to be.

Japan experienced very large economic growth after WW2. South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore all experienced very high growth during the second half of the 20th century. The reason these rates of economic growth were slower than PR China is primarily because China started growing later.

Here is what happens when a country stops doing stupid policies and changes to more sane economic policies (as China did after 1978), economic growth starts to accelerate, peak and then decrease slowly as the country catches up to other countries until that country's growth rate becomes the same as the rich countries. We've seen this occur with Japan, with South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, West Germany after WW2, East Germany and Poland after the end of the Cold War, etc. China's growth has peaked and is slowing down. It will continue to slow down for the next 2 decades after which China will hopefully become a developed country.

Here is a simple graph that demonstrates this effect. Japan used to be much poorer than the USA and after the Meiji restoration they started to catch up. After the end of WW2, their rate of economic growth started to accelerate even more due to adopting better economic polices. Eventually the standard of living in Japan reached comparable levels with the USA, and now Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc. all have comparable rates of real GDP per capita growth of 2% per year.

Because Taiwan, Korea and Japan has already developed. PR China is just catching up due to the fact that the communist kept them poor for decades and lagging behind Taiwan, Korea and Japan.

The North Korean government only exists because PR China backed them in the Korean War. The existence of the North Korean government is due to PR China.

After WWII, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore get full support from west world, At same time, China suffered sanction just like Iraq did before the Iraq war. And even worse after refuse Soviet Union's unfair request. That is not Mao's fault, actually, Mao use limited resource created a full function of all aspects of economy that can be stand independently without trade with other countries, that is one of the most important reason of China's later grow fast.

The other important reason is how that government selected, it is not same with the Canadian style, in China state leaders need to start at a very low level, he/she must have sound achievement in a small organization, big organization, district, town, city, province, fulfill all the necessary task, he has to pass each step to get the qualification of the next step. So all high level leaders have considerable experience, that's why they know how to develop economy, like JT, Obama, if in China maybe can only lead a small town. You can easily see, with such kind of leadership in US and Canada, why the economy goes so slow.

One thing that you are right, it is not communism make China grow fast, it is other reason, include the above 2.

I mentioned pro-communism is just to tell you that Canada's freedom speech is worse than China.

[-1=e^ipi]

You selectively ignore the facts the almost no mainstream media has any pro-communist articles.

There are no pro-flat-earth articles either. Communism is a bad economic system, that's why Russia abandoned it, and that's also why there are almost no pro-communist articles.

Mao use limited resource created a full function of all aspects of economy that can be stand independently without trade with other countries, that is one of the most important reason of China's later grow fast.

Yes, Mao implemented bad economic policies, which made China suffer economically, which causes China to grow faster today since China is catching up to other countries. Why do you think China's growth only picked up after 1978?

The other important reason is how that government selected, it is not same with the Canadian style, in China state leaders need to start at a very low level, he/she must have sound achievement in a small organization, big organization, district, town, city, province, fulfill all the necessary task, he has to pass each step to get the qualification of the next step.

That system is more vulnerable to corruption and cronyism.

You can easily see, with such kind of leadership in US and Canada, why the economy goes so slow.

That's because USA and Canada are relatively rich countries. China is poor on a per capita basis. China is catching up to rich countries, which is why it is growing faster. It isn't due to the communist party having good economic policy. Rather, it is due to the communist party having bad economic policy decades ago under Mao.

[TimG]

Jan Wong lost job is for her political incorrectness, Liberal candidate Maria Manna who expressed skepticism about the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. has to resign.

Read the details of Jan Wong's story and you will find her unwillingness to work with her bosses to managed the fallout created by an article that was expected to be provocative was a bigger factor although she wants to spin it as a "fired for political correctness". Even the politicians only asked for an apology they did not insist she be fired. 9/11 truthers can be objectively shown to be deluded loons and it should come as no surprise that a major party would not one running as candidate, however, she was free to run as an independent or set up a blog to sso that is hardly evidence of censorship.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has...

HRTs are an abomination for exactly the reasons you state but they are the exception as opposed to the rule.

if they have some serious different opinions. That's why you can not hear those in mainstream media.

But there are many other avenues for expression and people are free to use them.

You selectively ignore the facts the almost no mainstream media has any pro-communist articles.

So? If someone wants to know the communist perspective they can read the communist news outlets on the internet. Nothing tries to stop people from doing that. Yet in China if you want to access other opinions from the BBC or NYT you have to find away around government censors. Its differences like this that make your attempts to paint a false equivalence between China and Canada ridiculous.

[xul]

Bush the Democrats if elected again will continue to downsize the navy.

Under Trudeau we will keep 3 rubber boats and some rubber ducks in our navy.

In regards to XUL, careful or we shall send Celine Dion to Peking. Be very careful.

Maybe Celine Dion is better

The hollywood film makers invested in Jurassic World $150 million, and they grossed $228 million from Chiina, The worldwide total is 1.6 billion.

In 2015, US military spending is $598 billion, but how many $ the US could get back from such huge investment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_World

It became the highest-grossing film in the Jurassic Park film series in 25 countries.^[167] IMAX tickets sales has grossed a total of $42.1 million as of June 21, 2015.^[196] In total earnings, its largest markets outside of the U.S. are China with $228 million followed by the UK, Ireland and Malta ($97.8 million), Japan ($69.2 million), South Korea ($41.79 million), Mexico ($41.73 million) and Germany ($41.6 million).^{[245][246][247][248][249][250]}

China has declared that it may use the artificial islands mostly for civil purpose. I guess it is not merely dodgy diplomatic words. You will see a lot of fishing boats harbouring these islands instead of many warships and war planes(though minimal military present will be there) . China will get some of its investment back, along with propagandistic gain. Anyway, if you know the aeroplanes can fly there within 2 hours from mainland of China when they are needed, why will your deploy them right now like the US and make you a warmonger like the US?

Edited November 6, 2015 by xul

[Rue]

XUL you are absolutely right about China's air ability making naval presence not as crucial but correct me if i am wrong the Chinese navy has a very strong culture and as a matter of pride when it comes to island disputes they like to engage in the display of the flag on the seas as there is a lot of symbolism involved. i say that because i have a friend in the Chinese navy who is a Captain. Lol i know they compete with their Air Force just like the US Navy and Air Force do out of pride.

i am of the impression fishing waters and oil is what this is about. Pride too of course, but practical issues like food and oil trump all other issues.

Right now the US under Obama has issues to stand down all across the Pacific. They are a paper tiger. so unlike bush I have zero confidence inthe US doing anything as long as Obama remains in office and the power vacuum he has caused whether it be in the ME, East Europe or the pacific remains.

The US to get its military presence in the Pacific had to sign agreements with South Korea and Japan that allow those nations to dump cars in the US but not the other way around.

i say if these nations want a US presence the trade policies should be changed. There is that 40 nation pacific trade deal on the table. we shall see if that makes a more level playing field. that trade pact may be a far better way to contain or buffer china expansion than planes and boats.

[xul]

If any American knew Obama's scheme, he or she might not blame him too much for reacting too late and too weak .

First, since US can not stop China, the better way is to stop China when China is going to stop----anyway, as any engineering project in the world, China can not build these things forever.

Secondly, the US needs something real for fearmongering among the neighbours of China so the US can rally them to join Obama's Return to the Asia Rebalance plot.

Though, it seems like Obama is the smarter one but......there is a plot hole that he didn't foresee:

Obama(pointing the Chinese artificial islands): give me some $$$, I'll protect you from these thing...

Filipino, Vietnamese...: give me some $$$, I will let you protect me....

[honeybee]

There are no pro-flat-earth articles either. Communism is a bad economic system, that's why Russia abandoned it, and that's also why there are almost no pro-communist articles.

Flat earth and communism are different. Flat earth has already been proved to be wrong because people have already gone to outer space and seen the earth as a planet. Communism is a system model like capitalism. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Capitalism keep meet seriously problems these years. There are many people support communism, there are many people protest capitalism even in an environment mass media have been controlled by capitalism, and communism has been strongly biased. The difference is somewhat similar with math and philosophy, math class all over the world said 1+1=2, however, in philosophy class, it has to include different ideas and does not give final conclusion for many questions. The fact that there is almost no pro-communism article and especially no pro-China article in Canada's main stream media shows Canada's freedom of speech is far worse than China.

Yes, Mao implemented bad economic policies, which made China suffer economically, which causes China to grow faster today since China is catching up to other countries. Why do you think China's growth only picked up after 1978?

Mao has already done very well compare with the economy before 1949 and compare with Zimbabwe which is currently under US sanction similarly. And Mao has created the infrastructure and educated people, based on which China’s economy developed fast later. Before 1949, China cannot make even a nail, in Mao’s time china created a full functional industry system that can make from cars, ships, medicines, to satellites.

In Mao’s time most children can go to school include girls. That is a big difference compare with time before 1949.

That system is more vulnerable to corruption and cronyism.

Every country has corruption problems include Canada, and in US, politicians can accept large sum of money “legally”, and can launch an Iraq war to increase oil price that can make president family business oil industry earn more money. What Canada have vast waste problem, such as dig subway tunnels and fill back after another election, create a nuclear power plant, then move it after change a politician, use tax dollar forever every time a new politician elected to study why subway is better or LRT is better...

That's because USA and Canada are relatively rich countries. China is poor on a per capita basis. China is catching up to rich countries, which is why it is growing faster. It isn't due to the communist party having good economic policy. Rather, it is due to the communist party having bad economic policy decades ago under Mao.

Other than bias on Mao and other false understanding or interpretation that I have pointed out before, you have made a conclusion too hasty . Maybe you have to make a different explanation after 10 years.

Edited November 10, 2015 by honeybee

[honeybee]

Read the details of Jan Wong's story and you will find her unwillingness to work with her bosses to managed the fallout created by an article that was expected to be provocative was a bigger factor although she wants to spin it as a "fired for political correctness". Even the politicians only asked for an apology they did not insist she be fired. 9/11 truthers can be objectively shown to be deluded loons and it should come as no surprise that a major party would not one running as candidate, however, she was free to run as an independent or set up a blog to sso that is hardly evidence of censorship.

The request of apology is against freedom of speech because it is ask a person to renounce his faith. And the fact is even if she apologized, she still have no chance to keep her work to put her voice heard-able in mainstream media. An example is the case of Liberal candidate Maria Manna, which you choose to ignore, she still has to resign after apologized against her faith.

HRTs are an abomination for exactly the reasons you state but they are the exception as opposed to the rule.

The way HRT used that rule is against freedom speech and human right, because the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering to the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible.

But there are many other avenues for expression and people are free to use them.

So? If someone wants to know the communist perspective they can read the communist news outlets on the internet. Nothing tries to stop people from doing that. Yet in China if you want to access other opinions from the BBC or NYT you have to find away around government censors. Its differences like this that make your attempts to paint a false equivalence between China and Canada ridiculous.

When mainstream media has been blocked, most people will not be able to think alternative way, that is called brain wash. That is why I called it less freedom of speech than China.

Edited November 10, 2015 by honeybee

[-1=e^ipi]

Flat earth has already been proved to be wrong because people have already gone to outer space and seen the earth as a planet. Communism is a system model like capitalism.

Communism can be proven wrong just by pointing out that people value their leisure time, so if you reduce the financial incentive to work to zero, people will have little incentive to work.

no pro-China article in Canada's main stream media shows Canada's freedom of speech is far worse than China.

I don't understand how that logically follows.

Mao has already done very well compare with the economy before 1949

Just because you have growth and progress over time doesn't mean the economic system you have isn't terrible. Technological progress exists, so China under Mao, North Korea and Venezuela under Chavez could experience economic growth simply by adopting new technologies. Economic growth occurs in spite of terrible governments, not because of terrible governments.

[honeybee]

Communism can be proven wrong just by pointing out that people value their leisure time, so if you reduce the financial incentive to work to zero, people will have little incentive to work.

I wonder if you know what communism is after so many decades of brain wash.

I don't understand how that logically follows.

According to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

2 years ago, the Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded: "There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime."

But this makes mainstream media, which are controlled by several US big families, angry, they said “Justin Trudeau's 'foolish' China remarks spark anger”, so Trudeau has to revise his comment, according to CBC:

If you have to explain, said the fallen Liberal leader, you've already lost.

The weekend after his Toronto "Ladies" night, Ignatieff's successor had some explaining to do.

"The point I made," Justin Trudeau insisted — illustrating that he'd better explain it again, and fast — "was that, despite all of our freedoms ... we are up against countries that play by different rules that we would never accept."

Ah. Too bad he didn't put it that way while Sun TV's camera was rolling, watching for any slip-up to wave before the nation's horrified eyes. Of course, what Trudeau actually said was catnip to Sun News, and to the Conservative Party, and to the NDP.

What Trudeau actually said was that he had "a level of admiration ... for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say 'we need to go greenest, fastest — we need to invest in solar.' I mean, there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted, and I find that quite interesting."

Poor Trudeau, how sad he was that he has no freedom and no right to hold his opinion without interference when he was talking about “all of our freedoms”.

And you will have no freedom of speech if you think about "different rules". what an exact same reason compare this with Islamic extremists.

And because of the "different rule", you have to deny all the achievements made by China, deny any bright side in China, even by telling lies.

That is the true situation of freedom of speech in Canada.

The Logic is clear:

In China, people have the right to hold the opinions such as "US, Canada is better than China" and express on mainstream media without interference.

In Canada, people have not the right to hold the opinion such as "China is better than Canada and US" without interference if he choose to express on mainstream media.

Just because you have growth and progress over time doesn't mean the economic system you have isn't terrible. Technological progress exists, so China under Mao, North Korea and Venezuela under Chavez could experience economic growth simply by adopting new technologies. Economic growth occurs in spite of terrible governments, not because of terrible governments.

See above, JT has a different opinion with you on why China's economy grows faster.

Edited November 11, 2015 by honeybee

[xul]

XUL you are absolutely right about China's air ability making naval presence not as crucial but correct me if i am wrong the Chinese navy has a very strong culture and as a matter of pride when it comes to island disputes they like to engage in the display of the flag on the seas as there is a lot of symbolism involved. i say that because i have a friend in the Chinese navy who is a Captain. Lol i know they compete with their Air Force just like the US Navy and Air Force do out of pride.

When it is of a territorial sovereignty dispute, you can hardly see no factors of national pride involved. I think the pride is partially because human being (and most animals or even insects in earth?)values its historical rights. "How can a man die better, than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers and temples of his gods?" And most of those dispute territories, each party usually has its own evidence to support its claims. This is why most of such kind of disputes can not be settled by peaceful resorts like a court.

I think most Israelis don't accept the UN defined border because they believe Israel has historical rights on what Israel claims, and so do Palestinian. This is why neither UN nor US (or Canada....) can settle the dispute too.

i am of the impression fishing waters and oil is what this is about. Pride too of course, but practical issues like food and oil trump all other issues.

I think this is the strategy of China. Most people just think the artificial islands is a projection of military power, not realize that they are also the projection of economical power, which other parties don't have. In short, China can use these islands to make $$$ and get its investment back, meanwhile other parties spend millions of $ to fortify the islands which they occupied in the past but gain nothing, so eventually they will realize that these islands are their burden not gain and have to make their bargain reasonable.

i say if these nations want a US presence the trade policies should be changed. There is that 40 nation pacific trade deal on the table. we shall see if that makes a more level playing field. that trade pact may be a far better way to contain or buffer china expansion than planes and boats.

In the Cold War, both the Soviet and the US used to splash $$$ to buy allies and friends. The result we all know--the Soviet collapsed and the US is deeply in debt. But what the US did in the past has formed some kind of precedent. Now every country in the world thinks it should be paid for being the ally of US, not to contribute to the US. But the economy of the US can no longer support such level of spends. This is the real problem of any US strategy against China.

Edited November 17, 2015 by xul

[hitops]

According to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

The irony is that every communist society viciously suppressed that right.

Communism can be proven wrong just by pointing out that people value their leisure time, so if you reduce the financial incentive to work to zero, people will have little incentive to work.

Communism doesn't need a theory to prove it wrong (although any thoughtful consideration of it makes it obvious it would fail), we simply need to look at every example of it in history, to observe that it is worse than almost every other alternative.

Edited November 16, 2015 by hitops

[honeybee]

The irony is that every communist society viciously suppressed that right.

Communism doesn't need a theory to prove it wrong (although any thoughtful consideration of it makes it obvious it would fail), we simply need to look at every example of it in history, to observe that it is worse than almost every other alternative.

Communism is just one of the approaches try to solve the problems created by capitalism. If there were no bloody capitalism, there would be no communism at all. History is full of examples on how bloody Capitalism is.

[hitops]

Communism is just one of the approaches try to solve the problems created by capitalism. If there were no bloody capitalism, there would be no communism at all. History is full of examples on how bloody Capitalism is.

It is indeed one of the approaches, and one of the worst to be sure. Capitalism is the best of the available options.

No amount of bloodiness in capitalism can hold a candle to the mass murder and impoverishment of communism. The greatest mass killers in history, by a large margin, are Stalin and Mao.

[honeybee]

It is indeed one of the approaches, and one of the worst to be sure. Capitalism is the best of the available options.

No amount of bloodiness in capitalism can hold a candle to the mass murder and impoverishment of communism. The greatest mass killers in history, by a large margin, are Stalin and Mao.

In a capitalism country, workers have to work to make living, they produce values, and get salary, salary is less than what they created, so, capitalist takes the rest part of the value workers created.

In a socialism country, workers created values, and get salary, which is less than what they created, the rest part taken by the state, the state will give that to where it need, like give to poor people, and much other welfare.

In a communism country, workers create values, they don’t need salary, take whatever they need, because material is too abundant, because science and technology is too advances, and it is too far away and may not be realized in our life time according to a China middle school text book.

And China never said it is a communism country, it said it is a socialism country. Actually, now China, Canada and US are all mixed economy country, there are too many similarities. China has a much bigger market economy than Canada, it also has planning economy. In US, more and more state actions on economy, the state give Wall Street fat cats lots of money in name of save the banks by taking tax dollars from poor workers. Isn’t that socialism/communism elements? The difference is only the money was not give to poor people.

Actually now in Canada, too many people take the value that created by a worker. A worker need to pay mortgage to buy a house, a big part is taken as mortgage interest, in the tax dollars he gives, 9% of it will be pay to bankers as interest that government borrow from private banks instead of bank of Canada. In this way, the value created by Canadians flowing continuously to the bankers, that’s why Canada’s economy becomes worse and worse, because it is bleeding for so many years and never stop since the government decide to borrow money from private bank instead of bank of Canada. Again in this socialism/communism model, that part of money take from workers are not giving to poor people that need it.

As for the bloodness, what you said about Mao is mostly lies. And in the 100 years before Mao controlled China since British capitalism invade China start from Opium Wars, 10s of millions people died by capitalism, just like 100 million aboriginal people dead by Europe capitalist invade, and like what Europe invaded Africa, Australia and other places. In the 21 century, most people lived under capitalism, and most people died in wars are in the wars started by US or its followers.

Edited November 19, 2015 by honeybee

[TimG]

In a capitalism country, workers have to work to make living, they produce values, and get salary, salary is less than what they created, so, capitalist takes the rest part of the value workers created.

Says who? In a free market salaries pay the value that people add and taxes are used to ensure that a basic level of social services are maintained.

In a communism country, workers create values, they don’t need salary, take whatever they need, because material is too abundant, because science and technology is too advances, and it is too far away and may not be realized in our life time according to a China middle school text book.

Under communism the value produced by a worker is taken to feed a corrupt party bureaucracy and only a small fraction of it makes it back to the people. Furthermore, the fact that no one has any incentive to work harder or better means that workers and enterprises are much less efficient and produce much less wealth. This is why communism always fails whenever it is attempted.

[honeybee]

Says who? In a free market salaries pay the value that people add and taxes are used to ensure that a basic level of social services are maintained.

In a free market, salaries does not pay the value that people add, it pay the price of the worker in labor market, when there are more people waiting for a job that require a particular skill set, the price goes down, when less people have that skill available at job market, the price goes higher, the labor can create much more value than its price, that extra part is taken by the employer.

Using tax for basic social services are a concept of socialism, it is not a concept capitalism.

Under communism the value produced by a worker is taken to feed a corrupt party bureaucracy and only a small fraction of it makes it back to the people. Furthermore, the fact that no one has any incentive to work harder or better means that workers and enterprises are much less efficient and produce much less wealth. This is why communism always fails whenever it is attempted.

According to middle school text book in China, there is no communism country in the world, communism is only a belief that some people have. So, no one has even seen what communism looks like, how can you know communism will be corrupt.

If you are talking about China instead of communism, then Canada is much more bureaucracy than China. In Canada, a birth certificate takes a year to be received after a child’s birth, I never heard of anything like this will likely to happen in China. If you stay in China for a long time, you will be able to easily found China is much more efficient than Canada when you try to do something. In Canada, too many times when I go to an office, no one will solve problem for you, they ask you to go somewhere and call some machine answer telephone.

And Canada has corruption too, and what is more, 9% of tax dollars of each year will go directly to private banks as interest legally, that is much worse than corruption. This just have no difference with robbery. And this makes companies suffered from too high cost, so they cannot compete with their foreign counterpart, this is the fundamental reason that lots of Canadian companies, such as Zellers, Nortel and many others, cannot survive in Canada unless they cheating like Loblaw by keep changing best-before-date on food labels again and again.

[TimG]

In a free market, salaries does not pay the value that people add, it pay the price of the worker in labor market.

You are ignoring the importance of 'capital'. Companies cannot exist without capital and the owners who take a risk investing their money have a right to expect a return on their investment. Therefore any difference between the value of goods sold and the wages paid to the worker is NOT value added by the worker but value added by the company and rightfully belongs to the owners who took the risk and created the company.

[honeybee]

You are ignoring the importance of 'capital'. Companies cannot exist without capital and the owners who take a risk investing their money have a right to expect a return on their investment. Therefore any difference between the value of goods sold and the wages paid to the worker is NOT value added by the worker but value added by the company and rightfully belongs to the owners who took the risk and created the company.

You are ignoring the importance of worker. when 2 different worker sell coffee, one sell much more coffee than the other, but they both receive same salary (such as minimum legal wages), so the value employer take from the 2 workers are different. part of the value added IS taken by the capitalist.

And in the most cases, 'capital' is only a tool, tool itself does not create value, only when worker use it, it create value.

The problem is caused by the people who work, who create value does not own the tool that necessary for creating value. that makes exploitation possible.

You may say capitalist can invest in a stock market and gain money, but that is just like gambling (except the small part of the values that workers in a company added to a stock), gambling itself does not create values, it just re-distribute values.

Edited November 20, 2015 by honeybee

[TimG]

You are ignoring the importance of worker. when 2 different worker sell coffee, one sell much more coffee than the other, but they both receive same salary (such as minimum legal wages), so the value employer take from the 2 workers are different.

Your scenario ignores the reason why one is more productive. If the one worker is so much better then that worker will have more value to employers and the that worker's wage will rise to match the value. If the one worker is more productive because the company provides better equipment or is better at marketing then that is value added by the company.

And in the most cases, 'capital' is only a tool, tool itself does not create value, only when worker use it, it create value.

A worker is no less a tool and can be replaced by machines in some cases. You cannot create such an artificial distinction. Any company needs capital and owners willing to risk it to build a company. If a company loses money then the owners lose their capital. Employees still get pay checks as long as they do work. For that reason, the value added by a company belongs to the owners. There is no other way that makes sense. Edited November 20, 2015 by TimG

[honeybee]

Your scenario ignores the reason why one is more productive. If the one worker is so much better then that worker will have more value to employers and the that worker's wage will rise to match the value. If the one worker is more productive because the company provides better equipment or is better at marketing then that is value added by the company.

Most people's wage are unlikely to increased when he/she do better, lots of people works hard just for avoid be laid off, because too many people want that job. So company need not to pay the full extra value the employee added.

A worker is no less a tool and can be replaced by machines in some cases. You cannot create such an artificial distinction. Any company needs capital and owners willing to risk it to build a company. If a company loses money then the owners lose their capital. Employees still get pay checks as long as they do work. For that reason, the value added by a company belongs to the owners. There is no other way that makes sense.

But machine need to be operated or maintained by people, the value is created by those people, if the owner operate the machine, then the owner is self-employed worker. The owner should only take the tool rental price if the owner is not involved in the working process.

Edited November 20, 2015 by honeybee

[TimG]

Most people's wage are unlikely to increased when he/she do better, lots of people works hard just for avoid be laid off, because too many people want that job. So company need not to pay the full extra value the employee added.

Keeping a job that others can easily do is a reward. If an employee so easily replaced then they are really nothing more than a tool purchased with the capital of the company. They have no more claim on the profits than robots assembling cars.

But machine need to be operated or maintained by people, the value is created by those people, if the owner operate the machine, then the owner is self-employed worker. The owner should only take the tool rental price if the owner is not involved in the working process.

You still don't understand the question of risk. Companies do not always make money and often fail. The owners are the one's that lose their savings when that happens. Because the owners take the risk they deserve the rewards. Why is that so hard to understand?