WHY is everything made in China

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
In the end the 5000 soldiers killed the 50, so the 5000 was obviously better then the 50. No I am not saying that one of the 5000 was better then one of the 50, I am saying 5000 was better then 50.

I guess that whole Alamo thing was overrated!

Think about it. If size made right, then Iraq had a much bigger army in the theater then we did. The coalition had 300,000 compared to his 500,000 to 1,000,000. His numbers sure showed us huh?

I own a business too, and that teaches me what about capitalism. That it is a brutal system (but that doesn't make it bad).

I thought you were a college student. Cutting your neighbor's grass isn't real business!

[1stdeadeye]

New sig?

Hey CB,
Save us all some time. Put this into your sig!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by beam



What planet are you from CB? In one sentence you say that you are the most morally bound person on this board, and in the next, you say that your business is all about depriving someone else's family of a meal. HUH? What about offering a great product or service? What about customer relationships? What about workplace environment and employee well being? Making an honest living?

You make running a business sound almost wicked, malicious, or diabolical! Depriving someone of feeding their family? Huh? Since when did that enter the standard business model? I can just see it now at the mid year forcasting meeting: "Ok folks, in our business strategy this year we are going to shift our focus. We want to starve the competition and their families. Forget about product, service, and sales. We want our competitor's innocent families to SUFFER! AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHH!"

No of course that is not the reason you go into business, but it is what you do when you are in a business. every dollar you make over what you absolutely need, is a dollar you are depriving someone else of that they need to survive. That is why capitalism at its basic root is one of the most brutal systems in the world.

Ah Shartly, youy typical response when you lost the argument and wish no to look like a fool and admit you are wrong.

Why don't you start by seeing what communism is, and what communism is not.

What is communism?

Now to the topic.

We agree that cheap labor is a factor, we agree that there are other factors too, so what is the problem here.

As I have said many times, I do not know everything, or even somethings, in fact I know hardly anything when compared to what there is to be known in the world.

What I know after 6 years or so of studying the Soviet system and its branches is that: 1. I still can't come up with a name of what it was, 2. It was not communist.

The same can be said about China.

How can a republic be a democracy?


But go on an ignore this post, for it doesn't match your preformed opinions.

I guess Aristophanes was correct.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy
In the end the 5000 soldiers killed the 50, so the 5000 was obviously better then the 50. No I am not saying that one of the 5000 was better then one of the 50, I am saying 5000 was better then 50.

I guess that whole Alamo thing was overrated!

Think about it. If size made right, then Iraq had a much bigger army in the theater then we did. The coalition had 300,000 compared to his 500,000 to 1,000,000. His numbers sure showed us huh?

I own a business too, and that teaches me what about capitalism. That it is a brutal system (but that doesn't make it bad).

I thought you were a college student. Cutting your neighbor's grass isn't real business!

No this thread is not hyjacked. It is still talking about the same topic in almost every post, or at least everyone I made that I can recall. We have a side discussion for when someone said China was communist and I said they are not. but we are still talking about why companies move busniess to China.

No, I think you are really confused. I didn't say might makes right. If the 50 soldiers killed all 5000, then the 50 was the better. Same way the other way around.

I am a college student. I own a painting and modeling business. (No not fashion modeling) Games workshop games and etc... I convert the models, paint and sell them.

[71 LS6]

No of course that is not the reason you go into business, but it is what you do when you are in a business. every dollar you make over what you absolutely need, is a dollar you are depriving someone else of that they need to survive. That is why capitalism at its basic root is one of the most brutal systems in the world.

However, if everyone followed this 'moral' example, no one would make any more money than they absolutely need. As a result, no one would have enough money for luxuries of any type, be it entertainment, furniture, computers, a college education, etc. So now, since none of these things are bought, nearly all businesses fail, laying off their workers and putting them all out on the street with no source of income. So, is competition more moralistic or is giving up all luxuries and enduring a long period of economic depression and chaos more moralistic? Think about it. If you take an extra job over what you need to feed, clothe and shelter your family, there is now one less job for your competitor to take. Or, you could decide not to take any extra jobs, and not buy those ohter things that you would have had you taken the job. Now the company that makes the god you were going to purchase has one less potential customer. Competition is much more beneficial to society and the economy than just taking what you need, because let's face it, people are greedy and want to make money.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 71 LS6


However, if everyone followed this 'moral' example, no one would make any more money than they absolutely need. As a result, no one would have enough money for luxuries of any type, be it entertainment, furniture, computers, a college education, etc. So now, since none of these things are bought, nearly all businesses fail, laying off their workers and putting them all out on the street with no source of income. So, is competition more moralistic or is giving up all luxuries and enduring a long period of economic depression and chaos more moralistic? Think about it. If you take an extra job over what you need to feed, clothe and shelter your family, there is now one less job for your competitor to take. Or, you could decide not to take any extra jobs, and not buy those ohter things that you would have had you taken the job. Now the company that makes the god you were going to purchase has one less potential customer. Competition is much more beneficial to society and the economy than just taking what you need, because let's face it, people are greedy and want to make money.

But that doesn't make capitalism a none brutal system. I said it was a good system, but it is a brutal system.

[71 LS6]

The situation which you mentioned, where you take the extra jobs, is capitalism. The situation in which you do not take the extra jobs is no longer capitalism, and this situation has much more brutal results. So, capitalism could be considered brutal, but it is no more brutal than any other system.

[71 LS6]

Do any of you all know what communism is. Who has read Marx, Engels, or if you want an easy to read version, Lenin (even though he is off, so I would stick to the first two). let me guess you all think that Cuba is communist, or better yet, the USSR was communist. Communism has NEVER existed and never will exist. Many are economies in a transformation stage as described in Marx and Engels wither away of the government idea. But NONE have ever gotten to Communism.

Once again, you are pointing out trivial details. Would you prefer for everyone to say that a country is 'On its way to someday achieving true communism,' or can we just use the term communist to represent that, because it is a lot shorter and most people understand what we mean by it.

I suppose you look at the political spectrum in this manner as well. When you say someone is liberal, do you mean that they are somewhere on the left side, thereby really meaning 'more liberal than conservative,' or do you take liberal to mean only the extreme tip of the left wing where none have ever been before? If you follow the standards that you apply to the use of the word communist for the use of other words, no one can be called liberal or conservative, they can only be called more of one than the other. Obviously, it's a pain to say 'more of one than the other' all the time, so we shorten things by generalizing and saying that they are that one thing.

If you do not understand the point I just made, here is another reason for you to stop being so anal about the use of the word 'communist'

According to Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language:

communist: n. 1. an advocate or supporter of communism 2. a member of a communist party

adj 1. of, characteristic of, or like communism or communists 2. advocating or supporting communism 3. of or having to do with a communist party

No where is communist defined as having achieved true communism. In fact, communist means exactly what we have been saying, 'wanting to get to communism.' You thought that communist meant only 'having achieved true communism.' We see here that communist really means something that is like communism or supports communism. So, before you tell people that they are ignorant for their usage of a word, you should yourself know the definition of that word In this case, the people here on the boards have been using the term correctly, and you have called them ignorant because their use of the word did not fit your misinterpretation of it. We know you hate Webster, so grab your preferred dictionary and let us know what it says.

You say that countries are not communist because communism was never reached. However, if you look at the definition of communist, you will see that having reached communism has nothing to do with it, so your entire basis for calling people ignorant has no support whatsoever. Do avoid calling people ignorant until you are absolutely sure that you are 100% correct and that they are not possibly in any way right.

SHartly, nice analogy with the whales there

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


No this thread is not hyjacked. It is still talking about the same topic in almost every post, or at least everyone I made that I can recall. We have a side discussion for when someone said China was communist and I said they are not. but we are still talking about why companies move busniess to China.

Side topics off main branch=Hijacked!

No, I think you are really confused. I didn't say might makes right. If the 50 soldiers killed all 5000, then the 50 was the better. Same way the other way around.

I guess you need some remedial comprehension classes too then. and other smilies denote jokes! I guess learning humor is not part of you curriculum.

I am a college student. I own a painting and modeling business. (No not fashion modeling) Games workshop games and etc... I convert the models, paint and sell them.

How did I know that you were a D&D geek? (No offense intended to any "Gamers", but it fits you). By your definition, I guess I own a business too. Since I have much deeper pockets then most of the guys I play with, I buy cases of balls at a time and resell them to my friends by the bag. I guess I should start marking up the bags and then I'll be an evil capitalist as well!

So your business is making models for gamers and reselling them! Watch out Bill Gates, here comes CB!

[Collegeboy]

China is not a communist nation. Some of the people in the government and the people of the country can be considered communist for they want to reach communism. But the country can not be communist for it hasn't reached and never will reach communism. The definition you gave works on the individual as I have pointed out, not on the whole country. Can you understand that. People can call a country whatever they want to, but that doesn't make it that. If you study what a communist country is, you will see it is next to impossible to reach. Many call them communist for what you have said, it is easy to say, but that doesn't make it right.

In your example of the business, things would not go as you have said. If everyone has just what they needed to live on, then everyone would have a job, there would be no luxuries, but that doesn't matter, for there would be no need for them. But that doesn't mean people would go without a job. Farmers would be paid just what they needed for their work, the rest would go to the government or the local group, for the good of the group, and stores would sell items given to it by the state, and keep just enough money to live, while not depriving anyone of anything. And everyone would be happy. (sound familiar)

You can have capitalism (which works but is brutal) or you can have communism (which will never be reached and is non brutal).

Nope not until recently have this thread been hijacked, and once again you place blame on me. Funny.

I don't play D and D. I don't like it. I buy models, convert if need be and sell them for double to triple what I paid for them. I make a good living do it too (good for a college student) about 500 a month (that is in addition to my VA benefits I get too).

[71 LS6]

China is not a communist nation. Some of the people in the government and the people of the country can be considered communist for they want to reach communism. But the country can not be communist for it hasn't reached and never will reach communism. The definition you gave works on the individual as I have pointed out, not on the whole country. Can you understand that. People can call a country whatever they want to, but that doesn't make it that. If you study what a communist country is, you will see it is next to impossible to reach. Many call them communist for what you have said, it is easy to say, but that doesn't make it right.

As I stated, the fact that China has not reached true communism is irrelevant as it is not even part of what the word communist means. Why would that definition work on individuals but not on an entire country? I don't see where it said 'an individual who.' Perhaps you would prefer to use your own dictionary to show us the definition of communist when used to describe a country. You are defending your position based on your definition of a word, with no proof that your definition of it is even correct. In order to compare something to a standard or definition, that standard or definition must first be proven true, otherwise there can be no judgement or comparison.

In your example of the business, things would not go as you have said. If everyone has just what they needed to live on, then everyone would have a job, there would be no luxuries, but that doesn't matter, for there would be no need for them. But that doesn't mean people would go without a job. Farmers would be paid just what they needed for their work, the rest would go to the government or the local group, for the good of the group, and stores would sell items given to it by the state, and keep just enough money to live, while not depriving anyone of anything. And everyone would be happy. (sound familiar)

This is true, if you ignore the long hard road to get to the situation described above. Since we are already practicing capitalism, it would be extremely brutal to suddenly give up all luxuries. Sure the farmers would have jobs, but what about the automotive industry, the entertainment industry, electronics, decorating, and painting? All of the people from these industries would be unemployed. Remember the Great Depression? Things would follow that cycle, only much worse. Communism may not be brutal, but the road to it is as you have said, impossibly brutal. Don't compare a system that works and is currently active to a system that you yourself say could never exist based on human nature. This is like saying capitalism sucks because we could have a noble, fair, and gracious dictator who would look after us all and make sure there was no trouble. We know this wont happen, so why compare capitalism to it? For that matter, why compare capitalism to communism, which is equally unlikely?


In response to the real topic of this thread, things are made in China for many reasons, which include but are not limited to: cheaper labor, fewer (nonexistent) economic restrictions, no unions, no benefits for employees, and no labor restrictions. This is what CB and everyone else have been saying, but each said it in a different manner, or left parts out, or refused to accept parts. As a result, a lengthy and unnecessary arguement followed, where one said 'look, here's a tree' and the other said 'but its not the only one in the forest,' and one side considered the other as wrong, unable to see that both were right and they were simply saying different things. Granted that the arguments were not quite that simple, but you can see my point.

[Collegeboy]

A country can not be communist if it has not reached communism. Read your definition again, you will see that it is explicitly talking about a person who is a communist. There is a huge difference from a person being a communist, and a country being communist.

As to the comparing, I was not really comparing them. It was sort of a set up. And you took it. China, USSR, N. Korea, Vietnam (though really nationalist not even on the path to communism), and Cuba, are on or was on the road to communism. They never reached that which I described. So can not be considered a communist nation.

[beam]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
In your example of the business, things would not go as you have said. If everyone has just what they needed to live on, then everyone would have a job, there would be no luxuries, but that doesn't matter, for there would be no need for them. But that doesn't mean people would go without a job. Farmers would be paid just what they needed for their work, the rest would go to the government or the local group, for the good of the group, and stores would sell items given to it by the state, and keep just enough money to live, while not depriving anyone of anything. And everyone would be happy. (sound familiar)

You can have capitalism (which works but is brutal) or you can have communism (which will never be reached and is non brutal).

It is insane how you can say that only having just enough will make people happy. People want to be significant. They want to excel. Some for selfish reasons, others for good reasons. If everyone has just enough, where does charitable giving come in? Never. The state would be the ultimate giver, hence taking that priveledge away from the individual. Now, I have received much in my life, and it is never as good as GIVING. Under communism, I would have very little to give, and rarely get to enjoy that act.

Communism tries to put everyone on the same plane, but everyone is not equal. Those who would naturally excel, become boxed into a system...a brutal system. Never to be free to achieve their full potential. And that acheivement, under a morally based capitalistic system, can be very fulfilling.

In reality, communism is brutal.
Morally based capitalism gives humans the best opportunity to acheive their full potential and share the fruits of that acheivement to help others.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by beam


It is insane how you can say that only having just enough will make people happy. People want to be significant. They want to excel. Some for selfish reasons, others for good reasons. If everyone has just enough, where does charitable giving come in? Never. The state would be the ultimate giver, hence taking that priveledge away from the individual. Now, I have received much in my life, and it is never as good as GIVING. Under communism, I would have very little to give, and rarely get to enjoy that act.

Communism tries to put everyone on the same plane, but everyone is not equal. Those who would naturally excel, become boxed into a system...a brutal system. Never to be free to achieve their full potential. And that acheivement, under a morally based capitalistic system, can be very fulfilling.

In reality, communism is brutal.
Morally based capitalism gives humans the best opportunity to acheive their full potential and share the fruits of that acheivement to help others.

You just said what I have been saying, communism can not exist. There is no in reality to communism, for IF communism could exist, it would be none brutal, it would be the perfect system. But since it has never and never will exist, there is no reality to it.

And morally based capitalism is an oxymoron right.

[beam]

No, what I said was that if communism existed the way you say it should, it would be one of the most brutal systems.