Unrelated to China but related to your first paragraph about how leftists view the world- I've always felt that the difference between the left and the right is demonstrated in how they view the concept of work/labor. To the left, work is inherently demoralizing and demeaning unless it's the correct, approved type of work. To the right, work itself is almost always uplifting and it doesn't matter the type of work involved. Even the lowliest, least glamorous job is educational. To a leftist, having a job is tedious. To someone on the right, having a job shows that you are being productive.
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022Liked by Jeffrey Carter
I would add one thing that many people overlook when analyzing the economics of China.
Performing daily security checks on one billion people is not free of charge, it costs China an immeasurable fortune to follow its citizens around, spy on transactions, trace money from point A to point B, make sure everyone is pretending to be a good communist who is loyal to the party and to chairman Xi. The Chinese do laugh, and appropriately so at what they call "Baizuo". American hypocrites who use virtue signaling to display their so-called purity. Can there be anything more artificial than to pretend for an entire lifetime that you are everything the government wants you to be? China, the laugh is on you.
I think that in general there is nothing less practical than communism as a governing philosophy. It takes no account of human nature and behavior, which is why it appeals to academics. I think that is because communism relies on the simple fact that in order to survive, a person must indeed work. It adds a lot of pretty little bells and bonnets to hide it but in the end, work is about survival. While this is also true of capitalism (i prefer the phrase free enterprise), capitalism gives the individual a choice as to type of work, intensity of effort beyond survival needs, location of work, etc. I think it is that choice that gives the concept of work more dignity in free enterprise systems than it does in communism. Without choice, it is slavery. Since leftists tend to be OK with communism, they see work as slavery. Hence, unapproved work is slavery and thus, demeaning.
I can't tell you how many times I've come across a Leftist raging about "millionaires and billionaires." I then have to get to the "stupid" level of simple questions, essentially getting them to see that wealthy people (on the whole) have created their wealth, not taken it. Of course, there are exceptions, namely theft, corruption, monopolistic behavior or rent seeking by government fiat. But generally the free market is a wealth creating structure, not a wealth transferring one, like governments.
I always get the quizzical look.
When you explain to someone that they don't have to do anything for Jeff Bezos simply because he's a billionaire, and that anything they do for his "billions" is purely voluntary--some get it, most don't. Then when I explain they also don't have to give him any "billions" in exchange for what he's selling, some get it, most don't.
I say, "so if you are not forced to interact with Bezos on the selling side or the buying side, including your own labor...why do you care how much paper money he has? Why does it bother you?"
"No one should have that much money."
"But I just explained to you that money is just a representation of a unit of exchange. You are not obligated to do any exchanging with him, thereby rendering his wealth of no importance to you either way, right? If it is only others who voluntarily work with him and his billions, then why is that a problem for you?"
At this point, I have a completely confused Leftist on my hands and I just have to go to the summary: "the only reason wealth is created is because two parties decided to enter into a transaction that created wealth for both. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. A billionaire is someone who has literally created wealth for other parties billions of times. That's like saying they gave something to many, many people. What's wrong with that?"
But they are stuck on the pie being one size, and everyone has to fight for their piece. They don't get it.
You mentioned the original effect of the Kung flu on China, but unless I misunderstood your point you neglected to mention that China's hysterical overreaction to Covid continues. It is by far and away the most restrictive country in the world in this regard (among so many others). This has got have an effect on the the economy.
Did you mean to say Leftists see the world as half-full, but also later in the piece you say Entrepreneurship sees the world as half-full? I figured there would be a contrast, because I don't imagine Leftists and Entrepreneurs see things the same way
Great article. I wonder how long before the system implodes and what collateral damage it will cause. A wounded animal is dangerous. Do you think Xi does other things like invade Taiwan or start trouble elsewhere before the end comes?
An optimist looks at half a glass of water and says the glass is half full. A pessimist looks at it and says the glass is half empty. An engineer looks at it and says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Unrelated to China but related to your first paragraph about how leftists view the world- I've always felt that the difference between the left and the right is demonstrated in how they view the concept of work/labor. To the left, work is inherently demoralizing and demeaning unless it's the correct, approved type of work. To the right, work itself is almost always uplifting and it doesn't matter the type of work involved. Even the lowliest, least glamorous job is educational. To a leftist, having a job is tedious. To someone on the right, having a job shows that you are being productive.
I would add one thing that many people overlook when analyzing the economics of China.
Performing daily security checks on one billion people is not free of charge, it costs China an immeasurable fortune to follow its citizens around, spy on transactions, trace money from point A to point B, make sure everyone is pretending to be a good communist who is loyal to the party and to chairman Xi. The Chinese do laugh, and appropriately so at what they call "Baizuo". American hypocrites who use virtue signaling to display their so-called purity. Can there be anything more artificial than to pretend for an entire lifetime that you are everything the government wants you to be? China, the laugh is on you.
I think that in general there is nothing less practical than communism as a governing philosophy. It takes no account of human nature and behavior, which is why it appeals to academics. I think that is because communism relies on the simple fact that in order to survive, a person must indeed work. It adds a lot of pretty little bells and bonnets to hide it but in the end, work is about survival. While this is also true of capitalism (i prefer the phrase free enterprise), capitalism gives the individual a choice as to type of work, intensity of effort beyond survival needs, location of work, etc. I think it is that choice that gives the concept of work more dignity in free enterprise systems than it does in communism. Without choice, it is slavery. Since leftists tend to be OK with communism, they see work as slavery. Hence, unapproved work is slavery and thus, demeaning.
I love this point.
I can't tell you how many times I've come across a Leftist raging about "millionaires and billionaires." I then have to get to the "stupid" level of simple questions, essentially getting them to see that wealthy people (on the whole) have created their wealth, not taken it. Of course, there are exceptions, namely theft, corruption, monopolistic behavior or rent seeking by government fiat. But generally the free market is a wealth creating structure, not a wealth transferring one, like governments.
I always get the quizzical look.
When you explain to someone that they don't have to do anything for Jeff Bezos simply because he's a billionaire, and that anything they do for his "billions" is purely voluntary--some get it, most don't. Then when I explain they also don't have to give him any "billions" in exchange for what he's selling, some get it, most don't.
I say, "so if you are not forced to interact with Bezos on the selling side or the buying side, including your own labor...why do you care how much paper money he has? Why does it bother you?"
"No one should have that much money."
"But I just explained to you that money is just a representation of a unit of exchange. You are not obligated to do any exchanging with him, thereby rendering his wealth of no importance to you either way, right? If it is only others who voluntarily work with him and his billions, then why is that a problem for you?"
At this point, I have a completely confused Leftist on my hands and I just have to go to the summary: "the only reason wealth is created is because two parties decided to enter into a transaction that created wealth for both. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. A billionaire is someone who has literally created wealth for other parties billions of times. That's like saying they gave something to many, many people. What's wrong with that?"
But they are stuck on the pie being one size, and everyone has to fight for their piece. They don't get it.
I think of it as people who want a larger slice of a shrinking pie as compared to people who want the pie to grow so that their slice gets bigger.
You mentioned the original effect of the Kung flu on China, but unless I misunderstood your point you neglected to mention that China's hysterical overreaction to Covid continues. It is by far and away the most restrictive country in the world in this regard (among so many others). This has got have an effect on the the economy.
Did you mean to say Leftists see the world as half-full, but also later in the piece you say Entrepreneurship sees the world as half-full? I figured there would be a contrast, because I don't imagine Leftists and Entrepreneurs see things the same way
Great article. I wonder how long before the system implodes and what collateral damage it will cause. A wounded animal is dangerous. Do you think Xi does other things like invade Taiwan or start trouble elsewhere before the end comes?
An optimist looks at half a glass of water and says the glass is half full. A pessimist looks at it and says the glass is half empty. An engineer looks at it and says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.