Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "VICE News" channel.

College amateur athletes are wage slaves?
10
The goal isn't to get all of the production in the USA. The goal is to stop China (and others, to a lessor extent) from running all other manufacturers out of business. You people have obviously never read Marx. Or you have and you just accept it. Then move to China.
3
@orang1437 It's not 'capitalist' to allow Communists to exploit their own labor (in the name of Social Justice for workers!) and deceive other nations with the same oppressive doctrines to extract natural resources and then use those cost advantages to get the rest of the world to stop manufacturing.
3
Ben Ghazi How it is "someone else doing it better" when foreign nations abuse their laborers to gain a cost advantages? You like authoritarian Communist rule? You think that's "better"?
3
@brokenking5044 You're insane because you make insane claims and then double down by calling your insane claims 'stating facts'.
3
@williespeirs6134 Well, let me ask you this: If we free the slaves and the price of X goes up is that an argument in favor of protecting the slaver economic paradigm? Because your objection to tariffs is that it hurts those that compete on price by exploiting labor, the exact economic equivalent of plantation slavery except that we now have (silicon) chip factories (not to mention steel forges and the like) and assembly lines instead of open air plantations to preserve. I defend tariffs if they are explicitly targeting bad actors and will be reduced or eliminated as the bad actors turn away from their clearly immoral practices that give them (their abusive ruling class) economic advantages.
2
@williespeirs6134 You actually have no idea what the effects are because your simplistic comments are based only on talking points. The US must change as well, but not for China's sake. All of these things must be done in order and POTUS can not lead them all, never mind in synchronized fashion to meet your ignorant expectations.
2
"“Thinking that tariffs are the magical tool that is bringing the entire supply chain, the entire ecosystem, to the United States is a task that’s larger than even Apple could accomplish,” Wiens told VICE News."" Search: Straw man argument
2
@josephgrossi8925 The homeless problem started in the 1960s, created by the "summer of love" and follow up campaigns to encourage creating visible "disparity" in order to justify raising taxes and consolidating power in the capitals, first, the SF Mayor's office, then Sacramento, and finally in DC. Di Fi's career (colluding against the free People's interests with parasites like Ted Kennedy) is a perfect illustration of how California Communism poses as "altruistic" elitism.
2
Why do it if you're unhappy with the terms? Why criticize "the system" that nobody is forced to participate in? What kind of nonsense is this? Marx's labor theory is not enforceable law. It's not even a valid legal doctrine in any sense. It's pure demagoguery. Maybe students that get top grades should get paid for that, since it enhances the school's reputation and allows them to raise tuition and so forth. Where does it end? It ends in failure, that's where it ends.
2
@tastytacos8038 LMAO. The Clintons are deranged boomers.
2
Corker also screwed us on Iran, pretending to be "keeping an eye" on the lying Obama administration when he used parliamentary chess moves to trade away the Senate's power.
1
@Nicholas C That's an idiotic meme. Of course self-interest drives all sentient decisions. The "challenge" (apparently for you unskilled and unaware pontificators) is figuring out what is in one's best interests. Figuring out how to develop cooperatively so that you at least have an even shot at competing against the other people that are allowed to sell in your markets leads to cooperative competition and maximum prosperity for all while at the same time rewarding high achievers. The real parasites are the unions. That's a problem. But China's effect on markets is worse than any union. Try to figure out what they have in common. Hint: It's related to labor theories promoted by ignoramuses since before the industrial revolution proved them all wrong.
1
@alexs1640 You don't get it. You should read Milton Friedman and then Frederic Bastiat. Then read Sowell. When you've properly synthesized the basic doctrines AND the caveats what you realize is that there's a Goldilocks zone for dealing with other nations that use interventionism to attack you when they are not democratic, have no potential to develop a consumer class, and threaten vital national (security) interests. This must be done. What makes me sick is how ignorant all of the whiners are. It's like you have all bought in to Marxist labor theory and "End of History" prophecy. "And that is why Trump supporters are idiots, because at their very core, they are backwards." Put Freud on that reading list of yours.
1
@geode9512 It wasn't well said. "Alex S" is an unskilled and unaware idiot.
1
Ben Ghazi Moron, your example doesn't actually prove that Communist regimes are not destroying us with bad faith economic paradigms. I have consistently objected to the entire New Deal paradigm and have pointed out that such interventionism is only justified when dealing with specific threats to national security. Otherwise it's just power for its own sake. And ultimately, the New Deal IS a root cause of these problems, yet we must undo the knot in reverse order since we must do so in the real world where "do overs" by going back in time are not actually possible outside of Hollywood films.
1
@brokenking5044 You're insane.
1
@brokenking5044 That is not salient to your first claims, and isn't even a fact but rather an irrelevant approximation of something that happens nowhere near today's modern universities. You're so pathetic that you don't even recognize your own lies when slammed right back in your deluded face.
1
@brokenking5044 You moved the goal posts to another hemisphere.
1
@williespeirs6134 People that compete "fairly" should not be subject to tariffs.
1
@ChrisShepley Wrong. US "Unilateral free trade" paradigms threaten the long term value of the USD.
1
@bluesteel6138 No, it's not. The problem is "bad" market interventionism.
1
@williespeirs6134 "...clearly China would always have the upper hand if they have alternative markets or counter tariff US exports to China - harming US agriculture, which clearly they have done." No. That does not give them the upper hand. Agricultural products can also find other markets. It's "disruptive" and makes central planners panic but in the end China in no way has the upper hand because their "victory strategy" is abusing and lying to people, exploiting power, not competence and actually delivery of anything of discernible value. They exert control and "win" by winning for their elites. It's purely story based. And then people like you come around and defend this abuse because you're confused by Marxist talking points and debunked labor/wealth creation doctrines.
1
@williespeirs6134 "The only justifiable reason for the imposition of tariffs is at the early stages of a detailed trade negotiation - and that sometimes can be considered necessary in order to reach an overall balanced agreement where there is a desire of one party to include a protectionist..." You're confused by your own rhetoric. If it's doctrinaire, it's bad. If the policy objectives are clearly defined and working towards equity for all (equal opportunity) to whatever extent we can support those paradigms, then it's not doctrinaire "protectionism" but creating rational "carrot and stick" regimes in transparent good faith to bring everyone to good faith agreements on what "fair trade" should actually look like, particularly across national borders.
1
@williespeirs6134 "The real difficulties arise when one party or the other attempts to break existing agreements." That's because any rules based paradigm must not only have agreement on "rules" but agreement on problem solving and objective standards for evidence itself, which we do not have. The root cause of all of this is the culture war that is not just about realignment of economic power but convincing the public that the traditional Western moral framework is inherently "racist" and "oppressive." Without these objective standards it's nothing more than a zero sum effort for one "party" to dominate the other(s), never mind what they claim rhetorically.
1
@williespeirs6134 LOL. How you'd determine that is anyone's guess. "BS - it's clear the president himself hardly understood the consequences of what he was doing - the consequence was China retaliated by imposing tariffs on pork and soya beans, resulting in him having to compensate agriculture - who picks that up - the US consumer..." Also, consistent with your logic is the premise that the entire New Deal paradigm is supported by the US taxpayer. No kidding. That's an excuse for defending the status quo? Really? "...the only beneficiary was the US steel and alumina manufacturers..." You have no idea how to organize coherent economic arguments. One minute you're for demagogic "dynamic scoring" and the next minute you offer proof by trope. It's actually all "proof by trope." "The US prefers to be seen as non-interventionist in trade - that's intervention." Wow. I have already explained it to you. The only way to understand the controversies is to map the claims to worldviews and then organize verifiable evidence. The US is "against interventionism" the same way Keynes was. "Good" interventionism is anti-interventionism, according to "altruistic" elitist interventionists. Just like "antifa" fascists are against fascism. They say. So the first order of business for serious investigators and analysts is to correctly organize the relevant data and to challenge claims not just with simply contrary data claims but to challenge the the fallacious logic of their critiques in the first place, including their language war that practically eliminates good faith exposition of their idiotic root doctrines. Basically, the zero-sum elites think: 1) One-way, lopsided deals to help "developing economies" is "anti-interventionist" because they see material as the driving factor of "progress" 2) Since according to the same idiotic elitists, "material distribution" drives wealth and "balance", the only critical issue is putting "altruistic" elites (demagogic elitists) in charge of "distribution balancing" points of power. Therefore, interventionism that helps them take power, like deals with other elitists, is "anti-interventionist" and "good." Bad interventionism is anything that makes the brain dead morons look incompetent or that pisses off their zero-sum allies. Like denouncing and punishing Chinese slave labor is "bad" interventionism. You don't know how to align the rhetorical claims with verifiable facts and selfish interests.
1
But these "facilities" are already "socialized." I thought you guys care only care about being "good" socialists? How about simply not signing contracts that you don't plan to honor?
1
@phillipgaley4416 "...the USA is the only nation who have even a prayer of going "self-sufficient" Erm, the free people of the USA promote cooperative self-sufficiency, not "survivalism." You don't know what the choices are. It's true that many of our demagogic "national" leaders don't know how to explain the full gamut of choices but why is your ignorance our fault? You must be a terrified post-modern parasite.
1