Indeed. The wrong reference just sounds so wise though!
The "Poverty Trap" budget
- Thread starter DerKaiser
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. The wrong reference just sounds so wise though!
Pretty sure that Zhou Enlai's oft quoted response was prompted by a question on the effects of the 1798 French Revolution.
Probably apocryphal - the question was supposedly raised by Nixon on his visit to Chine
No, it came out earlier this year that he wasn't talking about that.
[broken link removed]
Thanks Sunny.
God - that's terribly disappointing though, I wish I hadn't heard the truth
Thanks Sunny.
God - that's terribly disappointing though, I wish I hadn't heard the truth
I know! Felt the same.
I think the simple answer is no. While you cannot freely enter North Korea, I believe it is possible to enter Cuba to live, but I could be mistaken. I think it's pretty safe to say that more Cubans flee the country for the US than people from the rest of the world try to enter it for non-tourist purposes.
Hayek wrote an excellent book, The Road to Serfdom, on why socialism has and always will end up in tyrannical states, regardless of how well natured and intended the initial intentions and plans were; I highly recommend it, here is a free pdf copy: http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook351pdf.pdf.
I think the most basic summary is that socialism, even in very mild forms of economic planning, requires infringement on liberties; the more liberties are infringed on, the less happy people are happy with this and the more they try to rebel against them leading the state to make further restrictions. Ultimately you end up with an authoritarian state which in the worst case scenario forbids its people to leave under threat of violence(e.g. East Germany, USSR).
While China is politically communist and pretty much authoritarian, its economy is quite free and getting freer by the year ever since the reform started. There are numerous examples of how much easier it is to do and set up business in China than in the western world. One example I came across is a friend of mine in Germany who produces specialty high pressure valves. He wanted to expand his business but the red tape involved with extending his manufacturing facility, dealing with union demands, and getting the machinery into the country frustrated him so much that after 5 months he scrapped the plan. Less than 3 months later he had a factory set up in China producing the very same stuff he want to produce in Germany.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
I wonder if the fact that he could pay the Chinese 1/10th or maybe 1/50th of what he pays his German staff might have influenced his decision just a little bit too?
I don’t know about this specific example but better return on capital is usually a reason for moving that capital to a country where wages are low. This is the best thing about capitalism; it moved to where people are poor and gives them a job, causes their economy to develop and, over time and with a democratic government, improves the quality of life of the average citizen. This is something that socialism has never achieved, not once.
People need to have the opportunity and incentive to better themselves. In a way this comes back to the title of this thread; a budget that removes the up-side of hard work and personal risk while at the same time rewarding not working is destructive to the economy, society and state.
Presumably the multinationals that came to Ireland did so for cost reasons as well?
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
More likely the so-low-as-you-can-barely-see-it corporation tax, I'd have thought.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
By the way, the effective corporation tax rate for the biggest companies in France is lower than here. Our system is just simple, open and easy (cheap) to administer.
Someone should lean down and whisper that into the ear of the French midget with the Napoleon complex who seems so concerned about it.
I'd say it was a combination of both. Regardless, the effect is the same - jobs that would have been based in the home country (the US in this instance) were moved to a cheaper country (Ireland).
It had an impact on the decision, but nowhere near what you are stating and was not the primary or even secondary reason. As mentioned the valves my friend produces are highly specialized, and the people that operate the machines are not unskilled workers. He set out with full intention of expanding his existing operation in Germany and hadn't considered setting up in China, as he thought it would be too much hassle. The main factors were that after 5 months the local council still refused to grant him permission to expand his premisses, then there was some bizarre EU tariff on the machinery he could source cheaper abroad, and when his workers' union decided that a business expansion plan was enough to demand higher wages for existing workers he simply had enough. He still has his operation in Germany, but all his expansions will be done in China. A picture perfect example of red tape, bureaucracy, tariffs and union demands having the exact opposite effect of what the intentions were.
You should get him to expand his Chinese company into Ireland. He can't get grants from the IDA moving within the EU but he can expanding from China into Ireland. He'll then get his low taxes, grants and access to the EU without duties.
But you see some people would probably argue that this in unfair to the Chinese!
Yeah but.....they dont have a "World class education system".
You're right...the first thing they should do with their teachers is pay them way more, unionise the lot of them and let them teach what they want (just like in Finland and here
).- Status