This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

China Fires Back At US Senate Which May Have Just Started The Sino-US Currency Wars

Tyler Durden's picture


A few hours ago, the maniac simians at the Senate finally did it and fired the first round in the great US-China currency war, after they took aim at one of China's core economic policies, voting to move forward with a bill designed to press Beijing to let its currency rise in value in the hope of creating U.S. jobs. As Reuters reports, "Senators voted 79-19 to open a week of Senate debate on the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011, which would allow the U.S. government to slap countervailing duties on products from countries found to be subsidizing their exports by undervaluing their currencies. Monday's strong green light for debate on the bill bolsters prospects it will clear the Democrat-run Senate later this week, but prospects for action in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives are murky. If the bill did clear both chambers, it would present President Barack Obama with a tough decision on whether to sign the popular legislation into law and risk a trade war with Beijing, or veto it to pursue a more diplomatic approach." The response has been quick and severe: "China's foreign ministry said it "adamantly opposes" a bill pushed by the U.S. Senate that will allow the United States to impose duties on countries that undervalue their currencies." And just because China is now certain that the US will continue with its provocative posture, most recently demonstrated by the vocal response in the latest US-Taiwan military escalation, we would not be surprised at all to find China Daily report that China has accidentally sold a few billions in US government bonds... just because.

Reuters explains why this is one issue in which the Senate and Congress may actually agree:

Passage of the bill by the Democratic-controlled Senate would send it to the House, which is run by traditionally free-trade-friendly Republicans.


A China currency bill passed the House last year with 99 Republican votes, but lapsed because the Senate took no action. This year, the bill already has more than 200 House co-sponsors and this week supporters expect to reach 218, the number needed to pass it.


However, House Republican leaders have not shown a great appetite to pursue currency legislation, and it is unclear if the bill would ever face a vote in that chamber.


House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a key player in deciding whether the chamber will take up the bill, did not tip his hand on Monday, telling reporters he was watching the Senate debate and "curious, really, where the White House is on that."


Cantor, who voted against similar legislation a year ago, said he was "really interested to hear what impact that move will have and if there are any unintended consequences that may result."


Critics of the bill, including U.S. business groups, warn that the legislation, if enacted, would risk a trade war with China -- one of the fastest-growing markets for U.S. goods -- at a time when a sputtering global economy can least afford it.

The trade war may have already started:

The Emergency Committee for American Trade called the bill "a highly damaging unilateral approach that will undermine broader efforts to address China's currency undervaluation."


It also said the bill was unlikely to pass muster at the World Trade Organization and would open the door to Chinese retaliation "to the detriment of U.S. exports and jobs."

And if there is one thing China hates more than anything, it is being presented with no diplomatic choice, and appearing to bend to the will of D.C.

China rejects outside criticism of its yuan policies as interference in a sovereign decision and note that the currency has appreciated about 30 percent since 2005.


While similar bills have foundered in the past, jobs are such a hot topic heading into next year's U.S. elections that prospects may have shifted.


"On issue after issue, China is mercantilist, plain and simple," Democratic Senator Charles Schumer told the Senate.

Alas, when dysfunctional scapegoat politics enter into the equation, the worst possible outcome is guaranteed. Sure enough, China already responded:

In a statement posted on China's official government website ( on Tuesday, foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu warned the United States not to "politicise" currency issues.


He said the United States was using currency as an excuse to adopt protectionist trade measures that violated global trading rules.


"By using the excuse of a so-called 'currency imbalance', this will escalate the exchange rate issue, adopting a protectionist measure that gravely violates WTO rules and seriously upsets Sino-U.S. trade and economic relations," he said. "China expresses its adamant opposition to this."


Ma Zhaoxu repeated Beijing's position that it will continue to gradually reform its currency policy, "strengthening the flexibility of the renminbi exchange rate."


He urged U.S. legislators to "proceed from the broader picture of Sino-U.S. trade and economic cooperation" and "forsake protectionism".

However this ends, one thing is certain: it's all downhill from here, as both sides now push their luck to see just how far either one can go in the increasingly more tenuous Nash Equilibrium without the other one defecting, or being perceived as having done so.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 10/03/2011 - 21:58 | 1735533 Barb Dwire
Barb Dwire's picture

Wow. Incompetence at a new, unthinkable level. Bravo.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:15 | 1735600 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yeah, because free trade with cheap labor/no environmental law countries like China has worked out so well for the American middle-class.    If it's not broken, don't fix it, right?

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:21 | 1735621 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Yeah, because free trade with cheap labor

Japan and Germany have higher wages then the US yet they have trade surpluses with China. Germany also has no minimum wage laws.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:28 | 1735640 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Germany is UNABASHEDLY protectionist and mercantilist just like China and Japan. 

China's trade policy has been predatory and mercantilist.  They have pegged to the dollar and such a thing should be impermissible.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:37 | 1735869 Cynical Sidney
Cynical Sidney's picture

this currency war with china is about whose worthless fiat currency gets to have reserve status in the world.

ps chinese mining operations are running some crazy scams, they can't be the biggest gold producer in the world the figures don't make sense at all, people look into it!

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:19 | 1736097 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

China is the better fascist whore. 

Can we change the channel?  I am sick of this show.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:31 | 1736220 Mauibrad
Mauibrad's picture

Trade War, Bitchez!

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 06:55 | 1736336 Zeilschip
Zeilschip's picture

As long as Chinese firms are blocked from taking over American firms they're not going to let the peg go. Why would they.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:18 | 1736094 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

The US has welcomed the peg until now (circa 2009).  It is juvinille for the US to act like it has not been this way.  The US will get what it wants; China will depeg; and in a flash of light China wil become the new defacto fascist America, taking everything away from America at once- "Danzig with the Starz", everything.  Americans will learn what it means to do hard labor again.  Why?  Because America has no oil, and no industry.  America does have gold...until Paul audits it.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 02:48 | 1736187 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

I have already switched to the hard labor myself, and I am quite happy this way.  I've been doing small farming and cooking all our food from scratch.  It started with having to cook from scratch because my daughter had so many food allergies, but after only months of going off of the pre-made foods, my daughters allergies were all gone, and we all felt much better.  There was no going back.  The small farming came as I prepared for the possible collapse, and it is good to fight inflation anyway.

When I sat behind a steering wheel or a computer all day, and ate lots of ready to eat food, I felt a whole lot worse than I feel now that I am busy doing work that requires me to move all day. 

I really do want solar panels though.  I would hate to lose refrigeration and laundry machines if it really does eventually collapse.

People lived without automation longer than they lived with it.  We will find other ways if we need to.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 06:00 | 1736296 fiftybagger
fiftybagger's picture

Good for you!



Silver For The People

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 21:29 | 1739788 Nobody special
Nobody special's picture

Google clay pot refrigeration.  If you have $20 for two pots, a bit of sand and a towel, you have a refrigerator... and a damn good one at that!  One that works without electricity.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 18:47 | 1739382 BigJim
BigJim's picture

...Why?  Because America has no oil...

Though I agree with you generally, LH, you're wrong on this point.

If countries A, B, and C produce oil, but demand payment in a currency created 'at essentially no cost' by country D... who really owns that oil? Countries A,B and C, or country D? Particularly if the 'leaders' of countries A,B and C are widely-disliked despots and rely on country D's military to keep them in power?

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:49 | 1736258 rufusbird
rufusbird's picture

Saudi Arabia has pegged the value of the riyal at 3.75 to the dollar since January2003. Nobody is complaining.



Wed, 10/05/2011 - 15:52 | 1742520 TravsMom
TravsMom's picture

You have really grown up to be an amazing daughter!

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:30 | 1735644 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Germany is actually quite protectionist and has a completely different monetary policy than the U.S.  They don't reward bankers for lending money to people who can't pay it back so that bank CEOs can keep their Bentleys to the current model year, for example.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:41 | 1735683 Mister Neutron
Mister Neutron's picture

<==== This is good for gold?

<==== This is bad for gold?

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:08 | 1735769 Gadfly
Gadfly's picture

In 1940 the U.S. placed an embargo on Japan by prohibiting exports of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan.  In 1941 the U.S. froze Japanese assets.  In December 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  Our idiot politicians insist on making sure history repeats itself.  Real vision and leadership.  They're leading us right off the fucking cliff... again. 

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:26 | 1735830 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

That doesn't even make sense.  

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:30 | 1735844 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Clearly you are not a student of history.  If goods don't cross borders, troops will.

Not sure how applicable that is in a nuclear armed world, though.  God help us all if it is.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:33 | 1735856 White.Star.Line
White.Star.Line's picture

Edward Abbey said that nuclear arms made war no fun anymore.

He also believed that those that used firearms were just cowards truly afraid to fight. In the case of nukes, the ultimate cowards are the countries that own them.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:29 | 1736116 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

No one will use nukes.  It will render the dollar worthless overnight.  The dollar only has worth as long as the US military is capible of ruling the world.  Nukes mean everyone has the ability to fight.  As long as no one uses nukes, the US can man handle the rest, until oil supply becomes an issue, then the US is dead in the water.  The world is waiting for oil to only trickle into the US, because then they can depeg.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:01 | 1736188 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture


Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:52 | 1735917 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

No, I'm not a student but I did study history.   Are you seriously suggesting that if we try to impose any kind of trade barrier that fucking China is going to invade the US?  Is that what you're studying in school?  

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:00 | 1735931 Storch
Storch's picture

China can only peg their currency by buying huge amounts of treasuries w their excess dollars, so it is a mutually parasitic relationship.

Yuan appreciation would mean higher rates on our 15 tril nat debt. So we are bluffing.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:15 | 1735951 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Probably true, which is the sad part.  We have become subjugated to China, which is a Communist/authoritarian regime that has crushed our middle class by [temporarily] enriching some of the greedier members of our society.  Despite the long-term damage of this economic model, endless numbers of mindless Shills who have their one "free trade" gear, violently oppose changing the current paradigm.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:27 | 1735991 tickhound
tickhound's picture

Rand, regarding your "makes no sense" comment...

Its important to note,

 If a nation were to place an embargo on the United States prohibiting vital exports and/or freeze U.S. assets, we would consider it an act of war.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:35 | 1736015 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"if a natiion were to place an embargo ... prohibiting vital exports and/or freeze U.S. assets, we would consider it an act of war."

Yes, and if we were to kill Putin Russia would be pissed, and if we were to declare war on Mexico....  I don't think a trade embargo or freezing of assets are part of the Bill at issue in this story.  But nice straw man.  

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:11 | 1736076 tickhound
tickhound's picture

Modern warfare takes many forms.  Gadfly gives these initial salvos some historical perspective.  It doesn't have to happen that way, and it probably won't... But his brief description of events certainly "made sense"

And by straw man you suggest that I am misrepresentating your makes no sense position.  I simply reversed Gadfly's historical record, and re-tested your position.  Apparently it "made no sense" the first time, and became a straw man the second. 

If anything is straw man, its you representing my position with "if we were to kill Putin..."

Some people come into zh a bit too sensitive.  It'll wear off.

Wonder how real Rand feels 'bout all this?  I know he hates embargo...

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 19:27 | 1739498 Helix6
Helix6's picture

Re: "China can only peg their currency by buying huge amounts of treasuries w their excess dollars, so it is a mutually parasitic relationship."

Of course the missing link in this argument is the question of how those dollars ended up in China's Central Bank.  After all, Chinese exporters want to convert those dollars to Yuan in order to conduct their businesses.  Gee, I wonder where all those Yuan to soak up all those "excess dollars" came from?

China can bleat all it wants about "illegal trade practices."  They should know.  They've been engaging in every last one of them for two decades now.  The US should have taken this step twenty years ago. 

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:06 | 1735950 Skid Marks
Skid Marks's picture

don't get worked up cause this will get worked out. It is as the China man said, political BS. One thing is for sure, anytime the word "Reform" appears in the title of legislation it means the American People are going to really get screwed.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 02:56 | 1736192 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

It is entirely possible that the great battles of the next war will be won without a single shot being fired.

Stuxnet bitchez!


Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:35 | 1736281 Element
Element's picture

A little something to cheer you all up.


You Will Survive Doomsday

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:02 | 1736194 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

I am not as worried about  nukes, as I am about compromised computers and the socially engineered users using them.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:31 | 1735851 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture




That doesn't even make sense.
This from someone blaming a dead chick for all the problems of the World? The Lobby? nope! no problem there! Corruption? nope! no problem there! it is that crazy dead bitch! it is all her fault! we need some German / Austrian math to fix the problem! becuase the only problem is those there damn mex-a-cans and niggers on welfare (although more white people are on welfare! stupid fuck!) How about you and your sister / wife go move to africa and enjoy the austerity and non-government intervention!
Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:50 | 1735908 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Wow.  I truly have no idea what you are talking about.  I suspect you don't either.   I don't blame a dead chick for all the problems in the world.   I just think people that follow her are fucking idiots.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:58 | 1736147 Hacksaw
Hacksaw's picture




Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:50 | 1735910 Cynical Sidney
Cynical Sidney's picture

the embargo was in response to japan's militaristic ventures eg. invasion of manchuria, assassination of china's de facto leader, vivisection of PoW's etc.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:14 | 1736208 Seer
Seer's picture

One has to wonder whether this is really the case: esp given that Japan had been mucking about since 1933.

I'd more or less come to the belief that this had been a plan to bring the US into WWII.  From

Now that you know that the Japanese attack was more or less provoked, there are a couple of things about World War II that might make more sense to you. For example, you may have read in Stephen Ambrose's wonderful biography of Ike, where General Marshall – the U.S. Army Chief of Staff in 1941 – called Eisenhower (who temporarily had been promoted to Colonel in March 1941 and to Brigadier General in September 1941) to the Pentagon immediately after the Japanese attack and charged him with war planning. Eisenhower, who had spent years as aide-de-camp to General MacArthur – the commanding general in the Philippines in the late 1930s and early 1940s – naturally assumed that he was to plan a counterattack in the Pacific against the Japanese, who had attacked us. No, no, said General Marshall. Put the Pacific war on the back burner, he said. Our first priority is to defeat Hitler.

You see, four days after the Japanese attack – which apparently came as a complete surprise to him – Hitler declared war on the United States! Absolutely incredible that Hitler would have done such a thing! Many historians believe that if Hitler had not done that, Roosevelt might never have persuaded Congress to declare war on Germany. After all, it was the Japanese who had attacked us. Hitler hadn't. On the other hand, the vile dictator Hitler had attacked the vile dictator Stalin. The Third Reich vs. the Soviet Union should have been – to us – like the Iran-Iraq war, where some unnamed high-level administration official opined that it was too bad that one side or the other would have to win the war.

Therefore, immediately after the Japanese attack on U.S. forces in the Philippines and at Pearl Harbor, in late December of 1941 and early January of 1942, Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt met in Washington, D.C., with their military chiefs in attendance. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed at that time to set up a U.S.-British combined chiefs of staff and recommitted themselves to the defeat of Germany as their first priority.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 06:37 | 1736284 Cynical Sidney
Cynical Sidney's picture

the japanese would argue rapid western colonial expansionism poisoned the waters of international trade; japan was just following the lead using a wickedly direct approach. japan simply wanted to keep growing their economy and their gdp in an tiny mountainous island, scarce of resources, located off the vast lands of eurasia overlooking china and russia.  I guess china's in a similar situation these days. treacherous trading wars, real or perceived, put them in a disadvantaged position.

My take is that there must have been some sort of pact between adolf and japan to divide up north america, however as they find their lines run thin against increasing resistance, at some point adolf realized that his advances had had used up all momentum as repeated pushes became stalled. he then chose to hasten the demise of his own people and the slavs. most slavs died nameless unlike jewish victims whose identities were compiled into records by their executioners. but for every 1 jewish victim there were 2 slavs who died. the mystery is why would the jewish WWI vet adolf want to eliminate his own race? my guess is when the weimar economy collapsed, jewish people as a group had had loads of exposure to financial crisis then, adolf was probably left high and dry by contemporaries of blankfein, rubin, fuld, conman bernie and chairman bernanke, therefore adolf set out to outdo his own people. I believe there are relevant documents and information sealed away by the government. we need to open the vaults and let the truth out.l

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 06:46 | 1736326 Snidley Whipsnae
Snidley Whipsnae's picture

CS... Take a closer look at the economic history of WW1 in order to understand why Hitler hated the Jews in particular.

Hitler, and many German WW1 vets and civilians, blamed the Jews for the movement toward socialism/communism in Germany during WW1. To the Nazis there was no line between Jews and communism.

As German civilians became increasingly hungry, they were bombarded with anti war propaganda at home and this news reaced the front lines, causing disunity among the soldiers.

I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm saying this is what the Nazis thought.

If you have the time you should read Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'... Shirer was in Berlin, as a correspondent, for much of WW2. He reported what he saw at consular gatherings, German newspapers, etc. A first hand, on the scene account of events... Doesn't get much better than that.

BTW, The day that Germany invaded Russia there were still RR trains loaded with commodities heading into Germany from Russia... Stalin was truly shocked and went into seclusion for three days. Since this is a discussion of trade I thought I would throw in that little tid bit.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 08:18 | 1736409 Cynical Sidney
Cynical Sidney's picture

thank you for suggesting the book i read it sometime ago; and the bit about stalin is common knowledge. germans blame the jewish people for lots of things during ww1. concerning communism note that bolshevik movement in russia was created by remnants of german's defeated military's spy network, in perhaps the last act of the german empire, with the aim of destabilizing a powerful enemy next door. ruling germans in the old empire knew that communism is least efficient and produces nothing of worth.

ps. i know what the germans thought, i want to know what adolf thought, why a jew want to wipe out his own kind. speaking of which, i think communism may better suit jewish financial criminals who likes to game the system and exploit loopholes

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 02:53 | 1736189 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

When goods do not cross borders, troops do.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 02:54 | 1736191 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

That was us not selling them stuff and freezing their assets.  Nobody is proposing to do that to China.  We will gladly sell them stuff.  We are talking about not buying so much of their stuff this time.

I will be very surprised if this passes though.  It is probably just a show for the voters.  Charging tariffs on Chinese goods would take money from the pockets of many of the corporations that run the US.  The US government would just not be a very good puppet government if they did that.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:24 | 1736215 Seer
Seer's picture

Don't underestimate (or ignore history) how desperate US leaders have become.  The US empire is starting its collapse phase.  Domestic unrest represents a far greater danger to power than are external threats/unrest.  US leaders WILL pursue the hobgoblin approach (which it has been polishing via the "fighting terrorism" campaign).  Besides, it's all-so human nature to point to others for one's own failings.

The pegging/not-pegging issue is STUPID.  If the US's balance sheet was strong enough it would handle any challenge.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 11:57 | 1746009 TeresaE
TeresaE's picture

Dolly, it won't "take" a dime from the corporations.

Just like the child's lead law, and rubber tarriff, it will ENRICH the corporations.

The only people that "pay" in America, are us little guys.

This will increase costs on US, just as our paychecks are shrinking again - and leading up to the great big shrink that starts next year (Obamacare) - Congress will "help" us by making everything more expensive.

You have (partially) figured it out.  Our food is crap and making us sick.  Our medicines are crap and killing us.  A life of inactivity and bad food will reduce the increase in life expectancy that clean water brought us.

Doing this now guarantees that millions of our nations poorest citizens cannot afford things like aspirin, insulin and Mott's Apple Juice or ANY Walmart branded food.

There are THOUSANDS of products that are no longer made HERE.  Products we need and use everyday.

This bullshit "fairness" crap is being pushed to make sure more of us end up poor, while CONgress and their corporate buddies will have record income years next year, and blame their financial success on "China" retailiation.

Mark my words, IF this passes, it will start to become obvious how little we have left going for us.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:34 | 1735661 DaBernank
DaBernank's picture

China buys *quality* products from Germany & Japan. GM would have to build automobiles to compete with BMW and Mercedes in quality & style. Caterpillar sells units to China. I've thought for quite some time that this trade imbalance is about a paucity of quality manufacturing in the US than anything else.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:12 | 1735776 quintago
quintago's picture

This isn't a trade war, this is a game of "whose ship is going to sink first". China's soft landing just became a nose dive. The uncertainty alone will slow production and investment in China.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:49 | 1735905 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

The US does produce other top end quality stuff too. One of our hospital boards just purchased an MRI unit from the US for a couple of $mil. Haven't heard of China selling too many of them.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:04 | 1735944 Missiondweller
Missiondweller's picture

Is it made by GE? They're moving all their medical imaging manufacturing to China.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:38 | 1735673 Thomas
Thomas's picture

We gotta hit bottom, waking up under some bridge somewhere. Does it really matter how we get there?

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:55 | 1735722 Mad Marv
Mad Marv's picture

Right on.  Most people don't know what they believe, because they've lived their entire lives awash in apathy.  Start the pain and force people to deal with real shit.  I'm tired of being a fucking serf.  Let me make it, or not, on my own. 

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 02:44 | 1736184 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

people will all of sudden smarten up when they feel pain.

get rid of easy credit and lay them off, they will suddenly turn off the TV and find some work to feed themselves

get rid of government bailout of banksters, and they will stop 27 yo trader risking billions of bank capital

get rid of government subsidies and rich elites will have to invest into the country which they live.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:41 | 1736226 Seer
Seer's picture

And TPTB would continue to rule.  It's why I cannot buy into the small govt argument: "small govt" means rule by the oligarchy.  I'm with Zero Govt- NO GOVERNMENT; but, unfortunately, this fucks up the libertarian position of needing government to protect "property rights."

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:36 | 1735859 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Don't count on that bridge being near anywhere we'll wake up.

More like a steaming, warm sewer manhole cover. 

I hate when that happens.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:12 | 1736243 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

Ya shoulda moved to Laguna before the depression hit.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:02 | 1736062 knukles
knukles's picture

Nope, the only important thing is that it's happened.  That there is surrender, letting go.
But can we then even assume that they shall take a searching and fearless moral inventory, make ammends?  WIll they find the path of self realization and know enougn to do the next right principled thing?
Their motives are neither singular nor pure.
There will have been no crushing of the ego, no recogniton of a higher calling.
We face Messers Smoot and Hawley Incarnate, alive and well amonst the popilist flames of a political class focused exclusively upon saving their very same olde political souls from being turned from office's atractions of money, power. property and prestige.
They've yet to feel the need to go to any length to set things right.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:12 | 1736082 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I'm sorry, but the Smoot and Hawley reference is about as illuminating as those Keynesian idiots who say we are not printing enough.  It's not 1930.   

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:15 | 1736092 myne
Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:19 | 1736096 Incubus
Incubus's picture


coincidentally, I'm a troll, and we know where trolls live.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:27 | 1736114 Uncle Keith
Uncle Keith's picture

Yes, and a very long history of Trade Unions... And, CEO's who make ten times what line employees make... And, Corporate Board members who sit on one Corporate Board... And, Progressive Taxation... And, a strong Social Welfare Safety Net... And, a military geared towards National Defense - NOT creating wars and making enemies...


You know, full disclosure. Take it all in.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:31 | 1735629 strannick
strannick's picture

Clinton gives China favored nation trading status, Obama takes it back, now China will probably threaten to sell Treasuries. China was all keen on Euro-bonds til Europe said no free trade with China. Seems no one's keen on cheapy China cheap anymore.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:32 | 1735653 King_of_simpletons
King_of_simpletons's picture

china = nothing.

They think they are some shit but they are not. As long as we believe they amount to something they will continue to intimidate us.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:56 | 1735723 Tunga
Tunga's picture

Taiwan exports Bicycle tires and microchips. There is no "one or the other". 


You walking now fat man.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:51 | 1735912 TeresaE
TeresaE's picture

China = 100% of our lightbulbs (Congressional law closed all the American plants)

China = 70% of our medicines

China = 50+% of our processed foods.

Plus thousands and thousands of things that NO ONE makes in America anymore.

China has also fostered friendships and spent trillions (of our consumer dollars) on our enemies.

Clueless is no way to go through life.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 02:47 | 1736186 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

America does make lots of one thing......clueless idiots.


too bad you can't strip the citizenship of fat dumbasses and export them to China.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:17 | 1736210 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

China makes some pretty crappy stuff.  I've bought 3 pencil sharpeners in the last year.  They just keep breaking.  I bought a grain mill and a tortilla press that both broke on the first use.  The light bulbs seem to burn out impossibly fast these days.  I have taken to shopping in thrift stores not just to save money, but to buy things that will last.  I'm horrified if China makes the meds.  I don't trust them not to poison us to save a dime. 

I don't care about the processed foods because I have already given processed foods up, but I sure did feel better giving them up.  I had no clue they made our processed foods.  My health took a real turn for the worse in 1995.  I wonder if that was when China started making more processed foods.

Can you give a source for where you got the info about China making our processed foods?  I am really interested in that.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:09 | 1746060 TeresaE
TeresaE's picture

Dolly, there is no such place for information.

I made dozens and dozens of phone calls to find out the truth.

Almost ALL processed food - including canned "American" foods like apple sauce and peaches - that state on the label, "Distributed by....XYZ American Company" are MADE in China.

If it is made in the USA, amazingly it says - usually in bold print - MADE IN USA.

If it doesn't say that, it isn't made here, almost never.

Go through your cupboards and make some calls.  Ask your pharmicist where the pills are made (he has the information, we are not "entitled" to it).

The medical industry is as offshored and evil as Monsanto and Walmart.  Bank on that.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 08:00 | 1736458 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

That's a really good point. If China wanted to, they could make us live in darkness. Just like that! Give me a friggin' break. You telling me if it came to it we couldn't reopen and restaff those lightbulb plants that have been mothballed? In about 2 seconds? And they'd make better lightbulbs than the ones we are importing? Good golly, China makes our lightbulbs! Oh noes! We have to bow down to them! They can't even make a jet engine. Their first carrier is a refurbished Russian carrier. China has a lot of people, that is it. Even that isn't so great since their effective population is reduced by horrible demographics. China still needs to have a political and cultural revolution if it wants to avoid complete collapse under an oppressive central planner government.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:10 | 1736079 The4thStooge
The4thStooge's picture

never go full retard

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 06:53 | 1736332 Snidley Whipsnae
Snidley Whipsnae's picture

King of Simpletons...

You have no doubt chosen the correct screen name.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:29 | 1736118 Uncle Keith
Uncle Keith's picture

Wrong! Most Favored Trading NAtion Status was granted by George H.W. Bush.

Christ, you haters can't even get your facts straight.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:58 | 1736266 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

same difference - 2 wings of the same bird.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 19:39 | 1739532 Helix6
Helix6's picture

Re: "now China will probably threaten to sell Treasuries."

Let them!  Then they'll find out what a real import duty looks like.  I suggest they use the proceeds to convert to a consumer economy or we're gonna see one hell of a face-plant.

Oh, and by the way, better start cleaning up some of those factories in Michigan, Connecticut, and North Carolina.  We're going to be needing them again.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:12 | 1746083 TeresaE
TeresaE's picture

Too bad that anyone with a buck (left) and a brain wouldn't even try to open a plant here.

Between the EPA, OSHA, NLRB and tax agencies at EVERY level, PLUS the coming reporting requirements, plus higher property, equipment and inventory taxes, plus $2000 a month in mandatory health insurance, plus, plus, plus.

Minus the brains, talent and work ethic of the former experts in manufacturing

Does NOT equal plants opening here.

I sure as hell wouldn't bet my money on American industrial properties just yet.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:31 | 1735649 PrintButtonMoney
PrintButtonMoney's picture

How is it free trade anyway?  Do you know what free trade means?  It means no goverment intervention.  I'm pretty sure there's been government intervention on both sides in spades.  There's a huge difference between de-regulation and no regulation.

This new level of Government intervention is unconscionable.  How in gods name (little 'g') can we justify telling others how to run their economies/labor markets/currencies when we so tragically manage our own. 

Even considering this is an effort by our legislators to 'create U.S. Jobs' (as if they even have the power to do that), It should still look pretty bad to the American people.  Even the hill billies who continue to scream "THEM BASTERDS STOLED OUR JOBS'

Why do legislators continue to talk about making laws and acts and temporary influzes of money/aid to create jobs?  What part of Economics in one Lesson did they miss.  They can't create jobs, they can only steal jobs from somewhere else, at a loss.

I can't believe we vote for these douchebags.

*end rant*

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:40 | 1735679 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

How in god's name can you think it would be better to have Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein running the world, as opposed to elected government, however imperfect?   Yes, government is corrupt and awful.  Jamie and Lloyd are worse. 

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:21 | 1735809 Scisco
Scisco's picture

I wonder if they would still be employed if it were not for the Fed intervening on their behalf.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:27 | 1735832 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The Fed is a fucking private entity.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:30 | 1735847 PrintButtonMoney
PrintButtonMoney's picture

I guess it all dependson how you define 'private'

And of course I wouldn't rather have those two douchebags run things.  Anarcho-capitalism is the way to go, really.

As long as the Federal Reserve calls the shots in D.C. I consider them a Government entity, regardless of whether or not you call the banks 'private'

Remember, Government for the banks, by the banks.


Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:55 | 1735923 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Oh look, the Fed corrupted government.  Let's do away with government.  That will fix things.   And getting rid of the police will eliminate the mob.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:08 | 1735957 Scisco
Scisco's picture

The point is power corrupts. Any entity with the power to issue money by fiat will abuse that power.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:08 | 1735958 Mr. Magniloquent
Mr. Magniloquent's picture

Your insight lacks depth. The Federal Reserve is a quasi-private entity created to provide government with money and the banks the power of the government. They have formed a hellish and unholy symbyosis that is the crony Facism that afflicts the people of not only the USA, but the world. At its dark heart, only the cohersive power of the government sustains any of its actions. The malfieasance of the banks are only possible because they are useful to the machinations of The State. To eliminate government power (see: Evil) is to eliminate corporate power (evil) for they are the ultimate source and enablers.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:14 | 1735969 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Anyone who believes that private entities like those who control the Fed would somehow be less powerful if the "people" stopped having a goverment that had even a modicum of accountability, are swimming in the baby pool.  Hey, look at that cool Unicorn!

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:48 | 1736039 Ms. Erable
Ms. Erable's picture

Hey, look at that cool Unicorn!

...says the troll that is mesmerized by the unicorn's skittle-shit.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:54 | 1736052 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

A response that truly illuminates your intellect and understanding, in that it says nothing.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:02 | 1736269 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture


Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:15 | 1736093 The4thStooge
The4thStooge's picture

get rid of the police? absofuckinglutely. no police = 99% gun ownership = no more crime. all cruelty arises from weakness

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:24 | 1736107 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yep.  In Saudi Arabia they fucking stone you to death if you steal.  Or maybe they cut your hand off, or blind you, or pour acid on your face.  I can't recall because it's fucking crazy might makes right shit.  In Somalia, the guys with the bigger guns just shoot you dead.  No law, no problem.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:28 | 1736275 criticaster
criticaster's picture

OMG Stooge.

You been reading 'Nietzsche for dummies'?

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 17:58 | 1739216 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Excerpt from "A Fish Called Wanda"

Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!
Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:24 | 1736273 criticaster
criticaster's picture

He's right man.

Why are you douches so happy to be governed by the whims of corporations?


Tue, 10/04/2011 - 08:07 | 1736480 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Without the Federal income tax, the Fed would have no power. FRNs would be completely worthless because no one in the United States would use them. To argue that the Fed's power is completely seperate and independent from that of the government is so stupid that only an evil manipulator would make that argument. I'm calling shenanigans.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:52 | 1736233 Seer
Seer's picture

With ZERO competition, and with FULL backing of the US govt.

All those douche bags wouldn't have ANY power if not for their being wired into the controls of govt (just look at the revolving doors!).

I will ALWAYS argue against subsidies, as "subsidy" only means "not sustainable."  For one to take the other side one would have to be in FAVOR of being unsustainable, which is, in essence, really quite suicidal.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:33 | 1735849 r00t61
r00t61's picture

Demon and Blankcheck only get away with their corruption because the government legalizes it.  The government legitimizes their acts via crony legislation.  The government creates and enacts legal tender laws, preventing anything besides FRNs to be used as money.  The government creates and enacts the Federal Reserve, which forces a sovereign country to have to pay money to primary dealers to issue its own currency, and sell bonds.  The government creates and runs the SEC, which purports to regulate the financial markets, when in reality it simply allows the casino to run unchecked. Need I go on?

I don't blame Demon and Blankcheck for doing what they do.  Yeah, it's bad behavior, but it's enabled and approved of by the government.  Without government holding a legal monopoly on violence and lawmaking, Demon and Blankcheck can certainly still try to get away with their shenanigans, but the law of might makes right will probably take over in rapid fasion. I don't advocate violence as a problem-solving method from a moral standpoint, but it's undeniable that it can be effective.  Demon and Blankcheck and their ilk would think twice about all the psychopathic things that they do for their greed if they knew that at any moment, an angry gun-toting watchdog group could coming knocking on their door, demanding some justice.  As it is, right now they get to live in cosseted splendor, because the government protects them and keeps them safe, while letting them rack up the numbers in their accounts.

Demon and Blankcheck don't try to disguise the fact that they're greedy, sociopathic, and devoid of empathy.  They're upfront about it - just read some of their remarks over the years.  Government, on the other hand, IS worse - it lies to the people, trying to convince them that it's acting in their best interest, when in reality it's actively engaged in selling them out.  Operation Northwoods, anyone?

All governments exist to collect taxes.  All else is justification for the gullible.

And please, no silly arguments about how without government, we wouldn't have the Internet or the space shuttle or whatever.  All I need to do is count up the number of people that governments have slaughtered over the history of civilization to demonstrate how that logic makes you the worst kind of utilitarian.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:35 | 1735865 PrintButtonMoney
PrintButtonMoney's picture

this is EXACTLY the point i was trying to make, but much more eloquent.  Thankyou. 

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:49 | 1736040 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yeah, the warlords in Somalia only exist because of the highly evolved federal government in that country.  I mean..  Hold on...  There would be no mob without the police, right?... Wait.  

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:22 | 1736105 AustriAnnie
AustriAnnie's picture

"With the withdrawal of U.N. forces the immediate prospect for installing a new government diminished—and with it so did the fighting. Somalia’s entire experience with formal government has been one of plunder and resource extraction by the ruling elite. As long as there was a prospect for a new government, each clan had a strong incentive to fight to make sure it was on the receiving, rather than giving, end of the plundering. Once there was no longer the immediate prospect for a new central government the clans began to settle back into their traditional customary and mostly peaceful relationships with one another."


Tue, 10/04/2011 - 08:11 | 1736490 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

You guys love talking about Somalia.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:31 | 1736278 criticaster
criticaster's picture

Its a dumb argument.

So when the government makes laws then it overegulates.

But when the governement permits things it is legalizing bad behavior? Give me a break.


Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:35 | 1735863 Ms. Erable
Ms. Erable's picture

False choice - there is no meaningful 'elected' government when the banks grease the politicians, who in turn grease the banks. Try this one on for size: NOBODY NEEDS TO "RUN THE WORLD". How the fuck you think (you'll need to google that one, I'm sure) we were screwed into the current mess in the first place?

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:56 | 1736056 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So the answer is to let those who do the greasing run the place?  How does that even sort of make sense?

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:24 | 1736106 AustriAnnie
AustriAnnie's picture

The ones who do the greasing only do it because they have force (gov't support) on their side.

A free market and corporatism are not the same thing.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:27 | 1736112 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Show me one example where your model worked.  Ever.  Anywhere.    Even if you could -- which you cannot --  I'll show you a hundred examples where it devolved into gangs and warlords.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:59 | 1736236 Seer
Seer's picture

You ASSUME that TPTB would STILL be in power.  You keep insisting that this would be the case, yet there's plenty to suggest that this wouldn't be so.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 06:51 | 1736330 Ms. Erable
Ms. Erable's picture

You're so stuck on the ultimate correctness of your own binary 'solutions' that you can't even fathom there are other alternatives to either bankers or government "running the world", and you've proven yourself to be incapable of understanding even the simplest of responses to your inane drivel. Just another brainwashed dipshit spouting worthless propaganda and propping up straw men; no substance and no style.

You get a 2 out of 10 on the Trollometer; we've seen much better.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:54 | 1736234 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

You are right that nobody needs to run the world.  Instead we all need to run the world.  When the few rule the many, they are vulnerable to bribery and threat.  It is much harder to bribe or threaten the many.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:26 | 1735820 Gadfly
Gadfly's picture

To all you "Free Market" zombies and ditto heads -- economics is a game, just like basketball and football, albeit infinitely more complex.  Anyone who thinks you can have a game, any game, involving human beings, without strong rules and referees to enforce those rules needs to go back to the playground and remember what happens when you don't have both -- the game quickly devolves into chaos, a melee, or ends very quickly when someone cheats or doesn't want to play by the rules. 

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:34 | 1735858 PrintButtonMoney
PrintButtonMoney's picture

The difference here is that Basketball necessarily has designed rules.  Economics has intrinsic rules that always apply.  The market has no need for referees because the market, in a truly FREE market, discourages 'cheating' through competition.  Unless consumers continue to do business with businesses that screw them(in which case they're getting what they deserve) it's not profitable for businesses to act unethically.  The only time it's profitable for business to act unethically is when the Government protects their ability to do so.

Given that we've NEVER EVER had an example of a truly free market system (no, not even the Rockefeler days) there's absolutely no evidence that a purely free market system won't work.

There is abundant historical and current evidence that regulation in the market continues to completely screw everything up.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:39 | 1736131 Uncle Keith
Uncle Keith's picture

Wealth Consolidation inevitably leads to collusion. 

Once you've rigged the game, why not? Right?

We have Predatory Marketting Laws for a reason. Ditto for Anti-Dumping Statutes. Failure to enforse these statutes has lead abetted us - as a nation - down the road of Significant Decline in Our Standard of Living; Trade Imbalances; Erosion of Our National Security; Increase in joblessness.


Think: "Utilitarianism"

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:00 | 1736195 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The market has no need for referees because the market, in a truly FREE market, discourages 'cheating' through competition. Unless consumers continue to do business with businesses that screw them(in which case they're getting what they deserve) it's not profitable for businesses to act unethically. The only time it's profitable for business to act unethically is when the Government protects their ability to do so.

Woooooo. Here's you've got your no bottom field.

US propaganda is getting cheaper by the day as weird as it can sound.

Preventing cheating through competition? But competition is all about cheating.

Competition is a quantifying process and as such, requires a measure tool, a rule.

Anyone who manages to distort the tool, in other words, cheat on the rule, has given oneself a competitive edge.

And as usual, in the US citizens explanation, the root of the failure is always exterior. Here, if this foundamentally inherently flawed assumption is not checked in reality, it is because of some external agents who wont do the job.

The system is not destined to work the way it was designed to work, it is only the customers who do not use the way it should be used.

Does not ring a bell? Oh yes, it does. It is the same explanation US citizens serve when their US citizenism is exposed: the trouble is not US citizenism, the trouble is human nature!

The externalization of causes is something very strong in the US citizen eternal nature.

Their things always fail not because of their inherent flaws but for external causes.

The list is so long you could spend an entire life to go through it.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:12 | 1736244 Seer
Seer's picture

Since you're totally engaged in this debate, and apparently know all the key points and assertions, would you be so kind as to point out where the word "prevention" ("Preventing cheating through competition? But competition is all about cheating.") was used by those whom you are arguing with.

"Prevention" has the same sense of finality as does "solution," and I happen to KNOW that there are NO "solutions" (as long as time continues NOTHING is permanent).

The ONLY survivable models are those presented in nature.  Anyone proposing any model (often cloaked under the verbiage of "solution") must, in my opinion, find similarities in nature.  NOTE: I recommend that people read Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin, as it has some pretty interesting observations about how nature works vis a vis  "competition vs. cooperation."

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:39 | 1736282 criticaster
criticaster's picture

That is such crap.

Markets dont exist without laws. Why? Becauase in the 'competitiion' that ensues, the guy with the biggest gun and the most sociopathic tendancies will previal. Then you no longer have a market. You have survival.

The statement: 'Economics has intrinsic rules that always apply.' is just breathtakingly stupid. Economics is not physics. Economics exists because of humans. And even a cursory glance at 2000 years of history should reveal that humans are not absolute.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:31 | 1736124 AustriAnnie
AustriAnnie's picture

"or ends very quickly when someone cheats or doesn't want to play by the rules."

Except what happens when the rules were in themselves created to cheat the public?  The man who makes the rules has the largest chance to cheat.  

Free market means individual association.  Most support lawmaking that is not authorized by the Constitution to be made at the state level.  Government which is within gunshot of its own constituents has less chance to cheat.  The rule of law is central to free market systems.  That all men should be equal before the law is essential (i.e. all play by the same rules, meaning gov't does not have authority to tip the scale in anyone's favor, because it can't because gov't would be powerless to do so).  The banks would not exist without support of gov't. They would have failed long ago.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:07 | 1736241 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

There are times that people lived without law like in the pioneer times.  I read an old book in my library about the settler times in the county that I live in.  When the settlers had no law, they handled it themselves.  If someone stole, they actually talked bad about that person right to the persons face and to everyone else, and that person was not invited to any social events.  For worse crimes, it would escalate of course.  All in all they lived pretty peacefully.  However that was a small period of time in a place without many people.

In tightly packed cities it seems we would need rules because there is too much anonymity.  There are too many new customers to rip off, 

Besides the deck is stacked at this point.  I've bought 3 different pencil sharpeners from 3 different companies within this last year, and they all broke.  Do I have to endlessly search for a good manufacturer?  I don't think it is the government that has done this injustice to me.  It is the free market that supplied me with this crap.  The free market is crap now.  The stuff for sale is crap.  We need back to local goods from small companies.  Then their reputation would mean something, and maybe the free market would work then.

Free market is not the be all end all.  We need to end the too big.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:28 | 1736250 Seer
Seer's picture

"We need to end the too big."

My broken record spiel: BIG=FAIL!

Laws need not be written in order to be laws.  There are universal truths, which, in effect, are held/observed as laws.

Laws tend to, however, be accompanied by prescribed punishment, which, I believe, is probably the stickier part (more central part) of the debate.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:52 | 1736260 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

Exactly.  The problem to combat is the "too big."  Too big buys governments, and I am sick and tired of having a puppet government.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:45 | 1736288 criticaster
criticaster's picture

This is the smart war of looking at it. The problem is not government or no government. its not a problem of how free markets are. Its a problem of scale. There are too many people. Too big governments. Too big corporations and probably even markets that are too big.

The trade off is that if the scale is reduced, then in all likelihood so will be technology and 'living standards' (whatever that means).

Thoreau and Rousseau Bitchez!

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 22:33 | 1735659 tmosley
tmosley's picture

That has little to do with it.  Remove the red tape encumbering manufacturing, and it will return to American soil in a heartbeat.  We still have a major capital advantage--for now.  It is rapidly disappearing thanks to the idiotic regulations chaining productive companies.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:05 | 1735753 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yes, like no child labor rules, and environmental laws.  Shill.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:24 | 1735821 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

No, keep those two. Eliminate the other million.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:28 | 1735837 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Those two more than any others make China able to crush us, other Shill.  Safe workplace rules also play a big role.  And things like weekends.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:54 | 1735918 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

I wonder if the ratio between lawyers and restaurants in the Shandong phone book is anything like that of, say, Detroit?

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:01 | 1735926 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

It's funny that those who claim to believe in the Rule of Law hate lawyers.  It's because they don't actually undestand what they think they support.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:30 | 1736115 Incubus
Incubus's picture

laws are for ill-trained & sub-intelligent masses of failing societies. 

A properly educated and socialized society wouldn't rest so much on the pain of law as opposed to adhering to a moral relativism of what is proper:  treat others as you'd want to be treated youself. 


Common.fucking.sense.  I am a nihilist and I still exist by that relative moral fucking operative.  It doesn't have to mean anything--it just yields the best goddamn results most of the time.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 18:13 | 1739252 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Kropotkin would be proud. :)

But with all the ill trained, subintelligent or (sometimes even worse) clever sociopaths being deliberately churned out these days it is implicit in your statement that we still need laws for awhile yet.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:29 | 1735839 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

No, way to put your assumed words in other people's mouths. This country would be a better place without all the bullshit liscencing, taxing labor, etc.

Get off your high horse dipshit. Regulation isn't about protecting consumers, it's about protecting corporations from liability. 

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:55 | 1735924 TeresaE
TeresaE's picture

You are part way there.


Regulation is about gifting America's small and mid-sized businesses to their TBTF competion, who then offshores the work.

Regulations are CRUSHING small business.

Without small business America will NEVER be economically stable again.

This "shot" from Washington will only serve to remove more of the middle class's money and send it to the big guys.

Bank on that.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:04 | 1736069 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Wow, the brainwashing is staggering.  Do you really believe that the answer to the To Big To Fail companies offshoring, is to prevent any kind of tariff that makes offshoring less profitable?   Do you even think about what you say before you start typing?  

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:48 | 1736143 AustriAnnie
AustriAnnie's picture

You mean the tariffs that make goods more expensive for small business and consumers here in the U.S., meaning that people's paychecks buy less, and the small businesses have to lay off more workers.

You go ahead and slap a tariff on tires and steel and lumber and whatever else you want.  You'll see 20 more construction workers, laid off, standing in front of the hardware store begging for work on Monday morning.  And those poor guys will pay more when they go to the store as well, since most of what they buy has tariffs as well.

Tariffs are a wealth redistribution that makes corporations and unions rich at the expense of everyone else.

Thu, 10/06/2011 - 12:32 | 1746190 TeresaE
TeresaE's picture



Brainwashing?  You are delusional.  Nope, thankfully I quit drinking the koolaid a long time ago.

In our "free" trade with China, I cannot export my products to China because their buyers are unwilling to pay the tariffs THERE.

Yet, my competitors that are located IN China, face no such thing when their products FLOOD our market.

How many jobs have you created?  How many times have you forsaken your pay, your bills and gone into debt to make sure your employees are paid, their health insurance not canceled and the local firement & cops, not to mention janitors, get to be paid for life?

Me?  TEN years worth while watching what OUR government allowed China to do to us.

I cannot wait until the truth becomes evident.

Well, yes I can, because life is going to look pretty horrible around here when it happens.  I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit you were off base.

What a tool of the establishment you are.  I guess you must be getting a guaranteed for life gubment paycheck - or work with one of their chosen minions. 

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:57 | 1736264 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

Cool, so lets get rid of the "too big" and the regulation on the too small.  I love it.  I have run small businesses for 8 years and regulations can be really annoying.  Like I had to supply sealed bottled water to half my residents in a mobile home park even though there was still water in half the park and we could have saved money by just filling up the bottles from the day before.  Very irritating since I know municipal water companies do not have to supply bottled water, when they have a failure.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:41 | 1736024 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Like China which has no regulations and no tort system?  Who is the dipshit now, dipshit? Tell me about the lawsuits in China.  

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:38 | 1735874 PrintButtonMoney
PrintButtonMoney's picture

No remove those too.  Again, the market in the absence of Government will regulate these things on its own.  When you regulate, you allow the big businesses who can buy carbon credits and special pollution allowances the leeway that small business can't afford, and thereby can't compete, creating government sponsored monopolies. 


If people didn't want to buy things made by kids working fourteen hours a day then they wouldn't.  Let demand speak for itself, because the Government continues to fuck it up pretty bad.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:42 | 1735882 Baptiste Say
Baptiste Say's picture

The reason there is no child labour in your shithole country is not because of legislation, afterall we all know legislation is written by the money holders.


The true reason there is no child labour in USA is because generations of valiant capitalists have suceeded in mechanising and automating production processes which means the future utility of a educated child in a professional or technical position is much greater than the current utility of a child in a labouring position.


Similarly China won't end child labour by legislation, if this was possible then the leaders would end it tomorrow. It will end child labour by encouraging greater capital investment and innovation by respecting property rights, eventually there will be no child labour in China, by the time this happens I fully expect your bankrupt shithole country will find it's only exports are from child labour and the illegal organ trade.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 01:06 | 1736032 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Are you actually espousing Rand values and trying to justify them by pointing to China, the ultimate in central planning and crony capitalism?  And did you really get several positive votes from your Randian friends?  Amazing.  Truly amazing.  Okay, Randers. Admit who you are and put it in a response. Seriously. 

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:17 | 1736211 Baptiste Say
Baptiste Say's picture

Care to counter my post rather than cry about 'Randian values'?



Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:12 | 1736206 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The true reason there is no child labour in USA is because generations of valiant capitalists have suceeded in mechanising and automating production processes which means the future utility of a educated child in a professional or technical position is much greater than the current utility of a child in a labouring position.


No. The true reason is simply because the US has exported its own child labour demand. They shifted that burden onto an exterior. It was outsourced, long ago, in times US citizens did not moan about globalization because well, they were on the good side of globalization.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:28 | 1736218 Baptiste Say
Baptiste Say's picture

Child labour disappeared from America over a century before China rose to the manufacturing powerhouse they are today.


The average Chinese sure doesn't moan about globalisation either, the opportunity it offers is much preferable to some of the deathly closed economic systems they've experimented with in the past.


For someone in a boombing city like Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu there is a more diverse and prestigious range of jobs than ever before, for someone in a rural region there is greater income for produce as every year progresses.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 04:59 | 1736267 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

They want the kids in school to get them fully propagandized.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:11 | 1735775 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

yeah but americans are spoiled as fuck. so even if those manufacturing jobs do come back, we'll find a way to lose them to mexico.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:58 | 1736293 Seer
Seer's picture

"Remove the red tape encumbering manufacturing, and it will return to American soil in a heartbeat."

"It?" like it's some single entity?  What manufacturing? autos?  when we've currently got "channel stuffing" happening? when people are too broke (in debt, debts that need to be repaid, NOT directed to obtaining MORE debt)? when the costs of the required energy is increasing?

Sorry, can't relive the glory days other than in one's head.

But, yeah, there WILL be more localized manufacturing, but I'm thinking that we differ in what we see manufacturing becoming.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:01 | 1735742 Last_2_Sense
Last_2_Sense's picture

 Privately issued money is what we have now, we haven't had government issued money since JFK tried it with silver certificates and he got killed for it. We need money issued by The Peoples Govenment for use by the people. And not just us, every single nation of the world has to do the same. We can complain all we like about this aspect of the problem or that aspect, but until the cause is addressed, all we will end up with is more of the same. I think of it as a thistle plant, we can cut off any one of it's leaves that feed it (corporations/Wall Street) we can take off any one of it's flowers (politicians) we can scrape off it's means of protection (Gov. agencies/law enforcement) hell we can even cut off the the whole plant at ground level (capitalisim). But it will still grow back, it may look alittle diffrent but it will still be a thistle. Until we kill the root (The Federal Reserve) and plant something better and less vile, until the means by which we conduct commerce among ourselves is free of charge at inception nothing will ever change.

Mon, 10/03/2011 - 23:14 | 1735783 Last_2_Sense
Last_2_Sense's picture

LMAO, I made that comment and about 30 second later I got booted from the site. Had to come back thru a proxy server to make this comment, get the site not available message otherwise. I wonder if that's the new program the Fed put in place the other day?? Some bullshit, they are scared and I love it.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 05:07 | 1736271 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

You are right.  We need to end the Fed.  But we also need to end the "too big."  Ridding ourselves of both is needed.  The far left and the far right are both correct about what needs to happen.  And, really it's a worldwide issue with both the banking cartel and the multinationals.  And we need more participatory democracy around the world because when the few rule the many, the few are vulnerable to bribery and threat.  The only way to keep the evil from happening again is to not let the few rule the many anymore.  The few need less power.  They need another check and balance, and that check and balance is the many.  It will eventually repeat if we don't fix it.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 06:10 | 1736300 Seer
Seer's picture

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that removal of BIG would eliminate the "evil," rather, SMALL "evil" is less likely to be catastrophic to large numbers of people.

I think it was Bertrand Russell who stated that humans likely had worshiped every animal that there was, and that, clearly, those who worshiped the crocodile didn't make it.  The point being that if we all were mandated to worship the crocodile we'd be screwed, rather than just a small segment of humans.  We should be allowed the chance to prove a belief or to fail, but our actions shouldn't achieve such scale that we imperil all of humanity, that we are coerced into an action/behavior/system.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 03:02 | 1736200 pcrs
pcrs's picture

George Reisman once said:If containers with things people wanted washed on your shore for free, you have to be really crazy to think that this would hurt your economy.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 07:04 | 1736354 Seer
Seer's picture

People will raise the argument that it would be detrimental to their well-being if those items were items that you manufactured and then could no longer sell.  I suppose that it's a matter of what level one is looking at, whether the micro or the macro.  At the micro level some people would lose their jobs.  At the macro level it's all a wash, zero sum.

At the macro level what one saves in costs for one thing makes more money available for another.  This argument tends to nullify the idea that one must pay more for an item so that higher wages can be supported.  While paying more for one thing it means that one might not be able to then afford to purchase another thing, which therefore could mean that someone else would either have to be paid less or that they'd be out of a job.

Tue, 10/04/2011 - 07:53 | 1736445 UBIGDummy
UBIGDummy's picture

Ya but the BAFOONS should have done this 5 years ago.  TIMING is the name of the game.  When the world is on shaky legs on the verge of economic armageddon, this timing is FUCKING STUPID. 

Like playing with fire crackers in your hands.  Keep your palm open, get a little burned.  Wrap your digits around the firecracker, KABLOOWIE goes some parts of your anatomy. 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!