Donald Trump Is An Economic Ignoramus. Can I Get An Amen?
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Lol, Hannity tell you that? Do you know anyone that thinks that?
You need to get out from under conservative propaganda a little more.
First off, you guys need to understand a little tongue-in-cheek. But since that doesn't work, I'll provide the rebuttal to the argument above. I agree in normal operation, free markets are better than government controlled markets. That's why I want the government OUT of healthcare and not a single-payer solution. Its why I'm a capitalist and not a socialist. However, in this instance, free trade isn't the solution as their economy is completely controlled and managed by an oppressive, communist regime, and opening of our markets to them simply funds the regime and not the people beneath it. We could spend billions in buying Cuban goods and its the Castro's who will net the profits. The people of Cuba will still live in 3rd world poverty conditions. That's the case with all Socialist economies. The government gets to choose who the winners and losers are, and they have 60 years of evidence in showing that those winners will not be the people of Cuba.
As for my conservative propoganda, please tell me where my nutshell definition of socialism is wrong? Isn't Marxist socialism explicitly about equality. The teacher and the scientist earn the same amount as they both contribute equally to society. Am I wrong that Bernie Sanders proclaims himself a socialist and that his arguments for it are strongly based in the wealth imbalances created by the capitalist system. Feel free to edumucate me as I do only have a public school education, and I grew up in the Reagan era where socialism was actually considered a bad thing.
As for my conservative propoganda, please tell me where my nutshell definition of socialism is wrong? Isn't Marxist socialism explicitly about equality. The teacher and the scientist earn the same amount as they both contribute equally to society. Am I wrong that Bernie Sanders proclaims himself a socialist and that his arguments for it are strongly based in the wealth imbalances created by the capitalist system. Feel free to edumucate me as I do only have a public school education, and I grew up in the Reagan era where socialism was actually considered a bad thing.
Free market trade with a communist dictator led regime. Sounds legit. We should open up free market trade to North Korea too.
We should be free traders with everyone. We should be a nation of traders, not empire- building exploiters. We should be the shining light that people across the globe want to emulate. Free trade is the essence of peacefulness.
I respect your perspective and politely agree to disagree. Supporting trade to oppressive, communist regimes serves as implicit support for those policies and behaviors.
China?
What about China?
I bet I could think of some others if I thought about it.
The trade embargo with Cuba has next to nothing to do with there status as a communist regime IMO. It has everything to do with the political bloc of Cuba American voters in Florida and the US.
Off the top of my head I could add Vietnam to the list. Vietnam has changed drastically for the better once the sanctions, business bans, travel restrictions, etc were lifted and relations somewhat normalized.
In time, I believe the same would/will happen in Cuba.
Now for a reality check: the "changes" Trump made were so minimal that not that much has really changed in regard to Cuba. So now I can't go as an "individual" - I have to travel to Cuba as part of a tour group, or as an individual traveler if I book passage on a cruise line. In the big picture, this was far more about PR and "optics" than any actual change in policy or procedure.
This is true regarding Trump's Ted Cruz friendly crap.
Vietnam and China aren't comparable to Cuba though. Communist is a loose term used by the dictator of Cuba much as it is used in North Korea. Raul Castro has made some strides, but there it's not much more than politispeak when calling trade with Cuba "free trade."
Why aren't Vietnam and China comparable?
They seem pretty damned comparable to me. If not as they are now after the opening of trade, certainly in the days leading up to doing so.
Communists.
Dictatorships.
Initially some small concessions to capitalistic open markets in their countries, but only if it benefits the central government directly. Increased economic ties and trade with US that led to even greater and more open capitalistic reforms after the door was opened.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure you know the answer. An objective comparison of China's government and that of Cuba and North Korea will give it to you if you don't.
Lol.
How about you spell it out for me? All I've gotten so far is because you say so, and you're pretty sure I know why you say so.
Comparing China or Vietnam NOW 40/20+ years after trade relations opened with US to Cuba BEFORE free trade with the US is implemented isn't the objective comparison to be made.
Compare China in 1978 when trade accords were reached with the US and come back and talk about how there is no comparison.
Compare Vietnam prior to the reopening of relations with the US including trade and come back and talk about how there is no comparison.
The point being, trade relations between those countries helped make the difference in China's government and Cuba's that exist today.
Who is the dictator of China? Who is the dictator of Vietnam? If you want to use dictatorship and communist synonymously, feel free. We'll have to readjust history to account for communist Iraq, communist Syria, communist Libya, etc. I'm cool with that if that's the M.O. on here.
You keep wanting to compare China....after 40+ years of free trade with the US with Cuba who presently has had exactly 0.
Again, hat's not the valid comparison to be made.
Mao was the dictator and primary autocrat of the first generation of party communism of China until his death in 1976.
Deng Xioping out maneuvered Mao's chosen successor and became the primary figure and leader of the 2nd generation of communist party leadership. He was the guy primarily responsible for making the calls to crackdown on Tianamen Square protesters. He was also the guy that was the architect of the economic changes in China and entered into an accord with the US to increase trade. China following the death of Mao and subsequent opening of relations with US under Xioping are squarely comparable with Cuba following the death of Fidel and the opening of relations with US under Raoul.
Are you saying that because China is ruled by a small group of autocrats at the head of the Chinese Communist party jockeying to get as much power from the other party heads in controlling the nation, there is valid no comparison to a country ruled by a single, sole dictator?
Is that the basis of your distinction between "communist" and "dictator" and the objection to using them synonymously?
IMO. They aren't exactly the same thing, but they are pretty damn close. Certainly comparable when you are talking about the effect of free trade on the two.
If that is where we disagree....cool. I'm really trying to figure out why you don't think China in 1978 or so is in any way comparable to Cuba now. If the above is it, we're just gonna disagree. Which is groovy and all.
Is that the basis of your distinction between "communist" and "dictator" and the objection to using them synonymously?
IMO. They aren't exactly the same thing, but they are pretty damn close. Certainly comparable when you are talking about the effect of free trade on the two.
If that is where we disagree....cool. I'm really trying to figure out why you don't think China in 1978 or so is in any way comparable to Cuba now. If the above is it, we're just gonna disagree. Which is groovy and all.
Free trade is at best an oxymoron; it only exists in la-la-land. Every country is self-serving, and none of the others give a shit about our shining light and "emulationization" of us. Last time I checked, it's everyone for their own.
