The absorbingly cinematic Ascension explores the pursuit of the “Chinese Dream.” This observational documentary presents a contemporary vision of China that prioritizes productivity and innovation above all.
The absorbingly cinematic Ascension explores the pursuit of the "Chinese Dream." This observational documentary presents a contemporary vision of China that prioritizes productivity and innovation above all.
"They are as "capitalistic" as USA. Or, in other words, they have a trade-based society. As simple as that. Produce, trade, consume."
That is not what capitalism is. China is functionally capitalist to a degree, yes, but not because they have production and trade and consumption. It's because many of the means of production are held privately, and to a degree they have the capacity to buy and sell as they wish.
Well the truth is that capitalism, socialism, or other isms are vague ideals.
The means of production being privately owned means near to nothing since they are always under the weight of a gov. USA or China. You can't just own a business, meaning be able to trade as an individual under your own rules. You are always restrained and directed by gov, laws, rules, regions.
In essence what we have globally is a society of trade, where trade is the main activity and drive. China, USA, Europe, whatever hey call themselves as communist, free markets, socialist, capitalist, in the end is all about a trade-based society.
It makes a great deal of difference whether the means of production are privately owned or not. For one thing, private companies can and do fail; the government would hardly ever allow one of its departments to shutter based on bad performance in the market. For another, if the government owns the means of production, you have a monopoly; such a thing is barely possible under free market capitalism.
Private companies, if big enough, will be bailed out by the gov. See SpaceX, Tesla, and more. The gov will also intervene to stop monopolies from creating, at least in theory. They split apart the largest telecommunication company in the USA not long ago. So gov is intervening, from capping the prices of drugs, providing subsidies, tweaking taxes, etc..
China, USA, Europe or the rest. The gov is always intervening.
For another, if the government owns the means of production, you have a monopoly; such a thing is barely possible under free market capitalism.
A...sorry what? Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google ?? We live in a world of monopolies. In another book I wrote I showcase that in detail tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t…
Private companies, if big enough, are sometimes bailed out; I agree. They should not be. That is cronyism, not capitalism. They should be allowed to fail, and indeed sometimes are.
As to monopolies, nearly all of them are enabled by government action, not stopped by it.
Tell me; what does google have a monopoly in? Putting aside, of course, that we absolutely don't live under free market capitalism.
But they are....I am talking about the real world we live in not idealistic concepts. I compare USA with China and their self imposed labels, not the official and mushy definitions of capitalism vs communism since these do not exist.
As to monopolies, nearly all of them are enabled by government action, not stopped by it.
They are enabled by a system of trade that incentivizes companies to grow and individuals to seek profit.
Tell me; what does google have a monopoly in?
Too many things. Mobile operating systems, search engine, browser, online videos, online advertising, etc.. Again see here tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t… - I spent a year on this book.
Yes, they are..sometimes. Which still leaves plenty of small companies and some large ones that are allowed to fail; that is a good thing.
LIFE incentivizes individuals to profit from their action. That's true under all economic systems.
Nope; there's iOs/sailfish/Ubuntu touch, duckduckgo/yahoo/ask/dogpile/plenty more, firefox/opera/safari/chrome, peertube and odyssey, plenty of other ad companies.
Those you mention are barely "competitors". Google owns the market of mobile operating systems (over 70%), search prob over 90%, video platform, browser, etc.. They even give Firefox a ton of money to keep google as the default search engine. Basically google has no competition in many areas.
LIFE incentivizes individuals to profit from their action.
The environment pushes people to become one way or another. Currently we live in a trade-based society that incentivizes people to profit, compete, be selfish. etc..
Those I mention are competitors. They exist, plenty of people can and do use them, and therefore google does not have a monopoly.
Yes, environments shape people. Please, provide literally any example of an environment where an individual is not incentivized to profit from their action.
Yah those are as much competitors as I am for Usain Bolt. I mean I can run...but have no chance to ever win a race with Usain. Same for Firefox and the like.
Please, provide literally any example of an environment where an individual is not incentivized to profit from their action.
Sure. We have a directory of such organizations where people volunteer without making any profits directory.trade-free.org/
Poor comparison. No one imagines you can run anywhere near as fast as him,. PLENTY of people use the products and services of other companies, me included.
If no one can compete with google in some domains, then google is a monopoly. And that is the case. Read the NPR article don't waste my time here please. npr.org/2024/05/02/1248152695/…
By the way "free market capitalism" sounds like a horror show. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_mar… And partially it is present since big companies control governments in many cases giving them a "free" hand at doing business.
To the contrary. If police is enforcing the law, but some people with power can buy the police officers, their guardian status is dissolved. Same with the gov. Big companies can buy off the gov rendering its guardian status as null. Thus creating a sort of free market for them. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government ;).
You claim that people pay the government to operate in their favor, thereby creating a free market, as define by...the government not intervening. Pure contradiction.
Please, drop me a line when you can reconcile the government getting involved and the government not getting involved. Until then...well, I can see why no one would pay for your "books". Have a nice day,
By the way "free market capitalism" sounds like a horror show. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_mar… And partially it is present since big companies control governments in many cases giving them a "free" hand at doing business.
There is no such thing as "free market". And it does not even matter it is still a system of trade that suffers from the same symptoms: greed, consumption, profit, corruption, etc..
No one "markets" "freely". There are regulations in place. Even for backpacks.
And mostly no I am not greedy but it depends on what situations I face. Look at what I've been doing for the past 15 years tiotrom.com/projects/ - all free. Never made a profit. So likely I am not greedy most of the time.
Of course you need to have a license for producing such a thing, patents, pay taxes, and a license to sell and where to. If you start to make backpacks now and sell them on the street you may be fined. You are also forced to pay taxes for your business and more.
Really? You're not greedy? It's rare to meet someone willing to make such a claim. What a saint you must be.
I said probably most of the time I am not. I released 2 huge documentaries, published over 30 books, made videos, articles, run trom.tf (free services for everyone), tromjaro.com linux distro, and more. All trade-free. Not a saint, but prob not greedy either.
Ok let's move on since you are slipping into nonsense. Please move on. You are starting to troll a little bit and I have a broken finger I barely can type.
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •"They are as "capitalistic" as USA. Or, in other words, they have a trade-based society. As simple as that. Produce, trade, consume."
That is not what capitalism is. China is functionally capitalist to a degree, yes, but not because they have production and trade and consumption. It's because many of the means of production are held privately, and to a degree they have the capacity to buy and sell as they wish.
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •Well the truth is that capitalism, socialism, or other isms are vague ideals.
The means of production being privately owned means near to nothing since they are always under the weight of a gov. USA or China. You can't just own a business, meaning be able to trade as an individual under your own rules. You are always restrained and directed by gov, laws, rules, regions.
In essence what we have globally is a society of trade, where trade is the main activity and drive. China, USA, Europe, whatever hey call themselves as communist, free markets, socialist, capitalist, in the end is all about a trade-based society.
I wrote a book about it all if anyone is interested - tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t…
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •Private companies, if big enough, will be bailed out by the gov. See SpaceX, Tesla, and more. The gov will also intervene to stop monopolies from creating, at least in theory. They split apart the largest telecommunication company in the USA not long ago. So gov is intervening, from capping the prices of drugs, providing subsidies, tweaking taxes, etc..
China, USA, Europe or the rest. The gov is always intervening.
A...sorry what? Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google ?? We live in a world of monopolies. In another book I wrote I showcase that in detail tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t…
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Private companies, if big enough, are sometimes bailed out; I agree. They should not be. That is cronyism, not capitalism. They should be allowed to fail, and indeed sometimes are.
As to monopolies, nearly all of them are enabled by government action, not stopped by it.
Tell me; what does google have a monopoly in? Putting aside, of course, that we absolutely don't live under free market capitalism.
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •But they are....I am talking about the real world we live in not idealistic concepts. I compare USA with China and their self imposed labels, not the official and mushy definitions of capitalism vs communism since these do not exist.
They are enabled by a system of trade that incentivizes companies to grow and individuals to seek profit.
Too many things. Mobile operating systems, search engine, browser, online videos, online advertising, etc.. Again see here tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t… - I spent a year on this book.
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Yes, they are..sometimes. Which still leaves plenty of small companies and some large ones that are allowed to fail; that is a good thing.
LIFE incentivizes individuals to profit from their action. That's true under all economic systems.
Nope; there's iOs/sailfish/Ubuntu touch, duckduckgo/yahoo/ask/dogpile/plenty more, firefox/opera/safari/chrome, peertube and odyssey, plenty of other ad companies.
So, again, what does google have a monopoly in?
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •Those you mention are barely "competitors". Google owns the market of mobile operating systems (over 70%), search prob over 90%, video platform, browser, etc.. They even give Firefox a ton of money to keep google as the default search engine. Basically google has no competition in many areas.
The environment pushes people to become one way or another. Currently we live in a trade-based society that incentivizes people to profit, compete, be selfish. etc..
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Those I mention are competitors. They exist, plenty of people can and do use them, and therefore google does not have a monopoly.
Yes, environments shape people. Please, provide literally any example of an environment where an individual is not incentivized to profit from their action.
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •Yah those are as much competitors as I am for Usain Bolt. I mean I can run...but have no chance to ever win a race with Usain. Same for Firefox and the like.
Sure. We have a directory of such organizations where people volunteer without making any profits directory.trade-free.org/
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Poor comparison. No one imagines you can run anywhere near as fast as him,. PLENTY of people use the products and services of other companies, me included.
Oh, I see the issue here. You're restricting yourself to MONETARY profit. Here you go: merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
Definition of profit
Merriam-Webster DictionaryTio
in reply to AKingsbury • •No one imagines Firefox will overthrown Chrome or Linux Microsoft...these are clear examples of monopolies.
By not making a profit I mean they do not ask anything in return. They just do/help. Good people.
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •It's irrelevant whether anyone imagines that anyone else will "overthrow" chrome or anyone else. Here:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
As to "not making a profit', do you imagine that do not see a valuable return for what they do?
Definition of monopoly
Merriam-Webster DictionaryTio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •"If no one can compete with google in some domains"
Such is not the case. I challenge you to name me a single domain in which no one, NO ONE, offers a plausible and functional alternative to google.
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Please. You linked to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_mar…, which in the SECOND SENTENCE says "Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government", and then went on to nonsense like social.trom.tf/display/dbc8dc4…
form of market-based economy
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Tio
2024-08-03 01:50:17
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Seriously?
"Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government"
"And partially it is present since big companies control governments"
Do you actually not see the contradiction here?
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •Sorry to be rude but I'll never drop you anything. I hope you can find other things on the fediverse.
And no one can pay for my books since they are free. And they are books not "books", I think you may not understand the use of quotes.
I hope we can say goodby now and you go on your way :)
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •"And partially it is present since big companies control governments in many cases giving them a "free" hand at doing business."
Then you fail entirely to understand what a free market even is.
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •There absolutely is such a thing as a free market. For example; who regulates who is and is not allowed to make, buy, or sell backpacks in the US?
As to your complaints about things like greed; tell me, are YOU greedy?
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •No one "markets" "freely". There are regulations in place. Even for backpacks.
And mostly no I am not greedy but it depends on what situations I face. Look at what I've been doing for the past 15 years tiotrom.com/projects/ - all free. Never made a profit. So likely I am not greedy most of the time.
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Please, show me the regulations on who can buy, sell, and/or make backpacks in the US.
Really? You're not greedy? It's rare to meet someone willing to make such a claim. What a saint you must be.
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •Of course you need to have a license for producing such a thing, patents, pay taxes, and a license to sell and where to. If you start to make backpacks now and sell them on the street you may be fined. You are also forced to pay taxes for your business and more.
I said probably most of the time I am not. I released 2 huge documentaries, published over 30 books, made videos, articles, run trom.tf (free services for everyone), tromjaro.com linux distro, and more. All trade-free. Not a saint, but prob not greedy either.
AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •No, no, no claims. Please link me to actual regulations that say you need, for example, a license to produce backpacks.
No, no, don't sell yourself short. If you're not greedy, don;' engage in false modesty. Just admit you're not greedy.
Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •AKingsbury
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to AKingsbury • •