I don't know if this has been posted, if not here you go. Let the reactionary, isolationist

[RB TexLa]

and not always so veiled racist rants begin.



SHANGHAI - HEADS may have turned when more Chinese firms than ever made Fortune's list of 500 top global companies, but experts say the increase reflects Beijing's power - not companies' competitiveness.

An unprecedented 34 firms from mainland China made the list of the world's top companies by revenue, up from 25 last year. Conversely, the number of United States (US) firms fell to 140, the lowest since Fortune began the list in 1995.

The Chinese firms may not be global household names, but the impact of companies like top-10-ranked Sinopec is felt around the world as they jostle with other Fortune 500 firms to snap up acquisitions. In the past month alone, the Chinese oil giant has signed deals in Iraq, Angola and Canada.



http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Money/Story/STIStory_406456.html

[provis99]

1. Take that, capitalism!

It's hilarious when firms from the world's biggest communist country are more successful at capitalism than western companies!

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Yeah, like you free traders aren't just as fucking racist.

"Jobs that Americans won't do!"

"They LOVE picking our lettuce and mowing our lawns!"

"They have a superior work ethic!"

"Their families place more emphasis on education!"

"It's not about atrocious labor practices and evading environmental standards so stop saying that!"

"The world is flat! The Lexus and the Olive Tree! I saw this Bangladeshi at the airport ordering something on the internet!"

"There's a thriving middle class in China! Never mind those silly things you heard about repression and slavery!"

"We can export pollution to poor countries because the people die from other causes before they succumb to things like cancer!" (Larry Summers)

[OhioChick]

23. Well Said.

Don't you just love these pro-free traders and globalists? :eyes:

[MADem]

3. What sort of "racist rants" were you expecting?

China has a number of competitive advantages, not the least being a cheap and willing workforce that's motivated to earn.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Right.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.html

[Hello_Kitty]

5. BTW, "cheap" and "motivated to earn" is kinda contradictory.

Unless you mean "motivated to earn" for the people at the top.

[MADem]

6. No, they aren't contradictory at all.

Wages and prices are lower in China. The entire economy is quite different. You can hire people for a song compared to here, and they'll find what you pay them to be a living wage and they'll even be able to save on it.

Also, you can edit a post within an hour, you know, rather than providing a separate reply every time you think of another point.

As to your other link, there's this: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-06/2008-06-19-voa51.cfm?CFID=262962442&CFTOKEN=21420748&jsessionid=de309270cefcdbeef1b94b662445723f7829

We are less than effective in enforcing labor abuses.

I am, furthermore, not averring that the Chinese don't abuse their advantage, but I also did not understand the "racist rants" comments. I don't really get what you're griping about, either, frankly. If you have a point, you're not making it.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. I'm perhaps more aware of the OP's posting history than you are.

And I don't see how your link invalidates my point. If you think it's news to me that U.S. corporations benefit from labor abuses in China, it's not. The OP thinks whatever happens in the glorious quest of Free Trade is hunky-dory. He's especially giddy when Americans lose their jobs. He still hasn't figured out the American consumer is the linchpin in the whole thing, and apparently you haven't either. That "comparative advantage" isn't worth a warm bucket of spit to China when Americans can no longer afford to buy their products because their wages have stagnated, or they got laid off.

Now, it could be that China has enough economic heft that it can grow its own economy without us. Wonder if RBTexLa will accuse them of being "isolationist" then.

[MADem]

10. WTF is wrong with you? I have no desire to "invalidate your point."

I'm actually trying to figure out what your point is, which is why I replied in the first place.

You don't know me, so I'll thank you to stop "assuming." You do know all about "assuming," I trust? Your thesis with regard to what you think I've "figured out" is entirely incorrect. And your tone is a bit aggressive, for reasons I don't care to explore.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're spoiling for a fight. I'm not in the mood for one, so you have a nice evening.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. What's your point? eom

[MADem]

14. You have a nice evening. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Also, I can do as many separate replies as I want.

Last I checked, there wasn't a limit.

[MADem]

9. Why yes, you CAN. And you can also make it difficult to impossible to have a

conversation with you when you do that.

But hey, knock yourself out.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. The sort that accompany any post on DU that is favorable towards non-Murikans.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. I'm not favorable toward exploitation and wage suppression.

Are you?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. Your concern for the Chinese factory worker is duly noted. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

18. As is your lack of concern. And your lack of concern for "Murkins".

Now run along and try to get your cookie from Bill Gates.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Yeah, I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy...

...for people living in the richest, most resource-consuming country on the planet complaining about people in developing nations who make $2 a day.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

15. Aaaah. I see this is quite the hornet's nest. I don't think this is shaking out to

be a productive discussion on trade policy, pity that. Too many guns drawn, it's already like the OK Corral!

[Hello_Kitty]

16. You can't explain or defend your "point", whatever it is.

And pray tell, how would an OP that started out with "Let the reactionary, isolationist and not always so veiled racist rants begin" shake out to a productive discussion? Hmm?

[MADem]

19. I told you I wasn't going to fight with you. Have a nice evening.

Sheesh. Take a hint, already.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. And yet you keep responding. While not defending your original statement.

By all means, regale us with the wonders of the business model in China.

[MADem]

21. I never said the business model in China was a wonder. WTF is wrong with you?

Why are you so senselessly combative?

[leftstreet]

22. UnKick & UnRec

DU is never more unattractive than when showcasing deliberate race-baiting threads.

Huh, I guess the UnRec feature isn't so bad after all.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Dick! Uh....I mean..... Kick!

Darn those Freudian typos.

[OhioChick]

25. ........

:rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

27. It really was a typo! But I liked it so much I kept it in.

:P

[HughMoran]

26. Shrugs

What are you talking about?

[Hello_Kitty]

30. Just once, I'd like to see a free trade fan explain

How their glorious globalized economy works without the US consumer being able to buy stuff.

[HughBeaumont]

32. Yep, I don't know why he's still here either.

All your talking points are a load of Freidmanite manure and no amount of playing the "Xenophobe" and "Protectionist" cards from the bottom of the deck can save them. We're not a producer economy, we're a consumer economy. That's courtesy of your 80s outsourcing/offshoring idols. In case you weren't aware, people without jobs here spells bad news for the American economy.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. Which spells bad news for the world economy. eom