US Financial Crisis/Bailout, China's Role

FugitiveVisions said:

By greater economic freedom, I mean that there ought to be restrictions on the monopoly of government power that is widely used to force unwilling parties into detrimental transactions. For example, the local governments often use their power to grab land at extremely low prices from poor farmers, and a lot of them also tax the heck out of these poor people, thus in effect, taking away their economic freedom to use their money for the most productive causes. I do not see any way that restrictions placed on officials for these kinds of low-life activities would in any way harm CCP's control. On the contrary, I think that if these kinds of restriction are not in place in the foreseeable future, there will be enough political and social instability fostered by social discontent that CCP's power to rule will be directly and seriously challenged.

Click to expand...

There are such restrictions in place, which some low-lifes simply ignore. Other times, the local officials completely reinterpet laws regarding land use to legitimatize their activites. In rare circumstances, court cases go all the way to the State Council, and the victims got ruled in favour as result. In subsequent land garbs though, the local officals just make extra sure that the central government won't have any knowledge on the situation (cover-up).

As you can see, restrictions are in place. But when they can't be properly enforced, they might as well be useless.

FugitiveVisions said:

Again, those are tremendous burdens on the economy of the country that you don't see, because no one reports on the amount of revenue that never materializes from these uncertainties.

Click to expand...

And on the subject of economic freedom, there are plenty of people setting up "factories" in their tiny court yard and got away from paying taxes. They are obviously pretty free in setting up business, and aren't controlled. Unfortunately, these are lost of legimate tax revenues, not to mention that the quality of the products from these places are extremely problematic, which endanger the health and safety of the publics. And you are still expecting to see less control? When will less control be less control?

FugitiveVisions said:

For arbitrary taxes and fees levied by corrupt officials: strip away the power of local officials to impose their own tax code.

Click to expand...

How do you find out who is collecting arbitrary taxes and fees, particularily when these people made sure they won't get exposed easily?

FugitiveVisions said:

For corrupt during the business formation process: streamline the process and/or do away with the bureaus that control how people invest their capital in business.

Click to expand...

If you see this through, how would you know who setup a business? Expect them to come to you and say "oh, I love paying taxes. By the way, I've just set up a business"? Please see my point on tax evation in my previous post.

FugitiveVisions said:

For the problem of government officials holding information: eliminate the government organs or functions that regulate consumer products and let the private sector consumer advocacy groups fill in the gap.

Click to expand...

And how would you ensure those advoacy groups won't collude with corrupted businesses? How would you know that the advoacy groups aren't set up by corrupted businessmen to advertise their products?

FugitiveVisions said:

I have not heard of one case where the corrupt government regulatory agencies have saved one life by exposing one faulty product. Doing away with the whole thing seems to me would not hurt anyone one bit.

Click to expand...

Because they don't. Their job is to prevent products from hurting people, not figure out ways to let media get extra ratings.

Engineer said:

There are such restrictions in place, which some low-lifes simply ignore. Other times, the local officials completely reinterpet laws regarding land use to legitimatize their activites. In rare circumstances, court cases go all the way to the State Council, and the victims got ruled in favour as result. In subsequent land garbs though, the local officals just make extra sure that the central government won't have any knowledge on the situation (cover-up).

As you can see, restrictions are in place. But when they can't be properly enforced, they might as well be useless.


And on the subject of economic freedom, there are plenty of people setting up "factories" in their tiny court yard and got away from paying taxes. They are obviously pretty free in setting up business, and aren't controlled. Unfortunately, these are lost of legimate tax revenues, not to mention that the quality of the products from these places are extremely problematic, which endanger the health and safety of the publics. And you are still expecting to see less control? When will less control be less control?

Click to expand...

Regarding the first point about enforcement, one of the constructive roles that the government should play in the economy is the enforcement of contract laws and private property protection. It seems to me that what you are saying points to the fact that the government can't even regulate themselves from breaking such laws and encroaching on property. Do I need to say more to prove my original point, which is that the government has played a detrimental impact in the course of economic development?

If the quality of the product is problematic, it seems to me that the logical action of the consumer would be to shun away from it. Here's where demand from consumers on adequate disclosure would push the creation of non-governmental consumer advocacy groups that would serve to gather and disseminate info regarding quality. For those that would rather take the chance and purchase the products without proper labels or whatever, well, that's the decision that the consumer has taken. For a cost, the amount of risk faced by the consumer could be lessened. It's up to the individual consumer to decide what the cost/benefit equation should look like, not government regulators.

As far as forgone 'legitimate taxes', if the incentive to produce and to hire is created by the tax evasion, so be it. Everyone is better off anyway.

FugitiveVisions said:

Regarding the first point about enforcement, one of the constructive roles that the government should play in the economy is the enforcement of contract laws and private property protection. It seems to me that what you are saying points to the fact that the government can't even regulate themselves from breaking such laws and encroaching on property.

Click to expand...

As I have said, regulations need proper enforcement, not more abritrary regulations.

FugitiveVisions said:

As far as forgone 'legitimate taxes', if the incentive to produce and to hire is created by the tax evasion, so be it. Everyone is better off anyway.

Click to expand...

Funny you should say "so be it" when you were just complaining loudly how people money are stolen. :roll: Tax evation is a form of thief.

Engineer said:

How do you find out who is collecting arbitrary taxes and fees, particularily when these people made sure they won't get exposed easily?

Click to expand...

Independent judiciary. Come on, this isn't rocket science.

If you see this through, how would you know who setup a business? Expect them to come to you and say "oh, I love paying taxes. By the way, I've just set up a business"? Please see my point on tax evation in my previous post.

Click to expand...

You do because you have a government official record the formation of the business, just like anywhere else in the world. What you don't do and what I want to see eliminated is people waiting months and having to spend thousands on bribes to obtain the proper papers. That's a tremendous and unnecessary loss for society.

And how would you ensure those advoacy groups won't collude with corrupted businesses? How would you know that the advoacy groups aren't set up by corrupted businessmen to advertise their products?

Click to expand...

Same reason that Lenovo don't try to sell shoddy computers or Chery trying to sell crappy cars. They are private enterprises formed to meet a demand by the market, and their sole ability to stay in business is to adequately meet that demand. If the advocacy group collude with big business, it's better than the government colluding with business because the consumer can take choose another advocacy group. It's that simple.

Because they don't. Their job is to prevent products from hurting people, not figure out ways to let media get extra ratings.

Click to expand...

Excuse me but this makes no sense. On one hand you acquiesce to the fact that government has not exposed one thing or saved anyone, and in the same breathe you prod them on as protectors of the consumers. It seems to be you better choose your sides.

Engineer said:

As I have said, regulations need proper enforcement, not more abritrary regulations.

Click to expand...

So your solution to the problem of the government breaking their own laws is to trust that they would be magically adopt proper enforcement. Right.

Funny you should say "so be it" when you were just complaining loudly how people money are stolen. :roll: Tax evation is a form of thief.

Click to expand...

Stealing money and fleeing abroad to spend it all on Russian hookers like thousands of CCP officials have done is a lot different than using internally generated profits from businesses to invest in more jobs and more capacity rather than hand the profit to the 'people' mentioned above. I'm not advocating tax evasion. In fact, I just said in my previous post that business entities ought to register with the government. But let's not be ignorant about the distinction of the two cases.

FugitiveVisions said:

Independent judiciary. Come on, this isn't rocket science.

Click to expand...

And how would an independent judiciary, such as yourself, find out who is collecting arbitrary taxes and fees, particularily when these people made sure they won't get exposed easily?

FugitiveVisions said:

You do because you have a government official record the formation of the business, just like anywhere else in the world. What you don't do and what I want to see eliminated is people waiting months and having to spend thousands on bribes to obtain the proper papers. That's a tremendous and unnecessary loss for society.

Click to expand...

So, you are saying you want to eliminate having to obtain proper papers?

FugitiveVisions said:

Same reason that Lenovo don't try to sell shoddy computers or Chery trying to sell crappy cars. They are private enterprises formed to meet a demand by the market, and their sole ability to stay in business is to adequately meet that demand. If the advocacy group collude with big business, it's better than the government colluding with business because the consumer can take choose another advocacy group. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

Consumers can only choose another advocacy group if they know the current advocacy groups collude with business. You are assuming that an advocacy group which is corrupted, should be self evident. But you are forgetting that people who do bad things will try to hide them. You keep on making the mistake that system would automatically solve problems, when in fact it doesn't.

Another thing, a public which trust an untrustworthy advocacy group is so much more damaging than a government which is expected to have elements which collude with business.

FugitiveVisions said:

Excuse me but this makes no sense. On one hand you acquiesce to the fact that government has not exposed one thing or saved anyone, and in the same breathe you prod them on as protectors of the consumers. It seems to be you better choose your sides.

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. If regulations are properly enforced, then products should be safe. And when they are safe, there will be no problem, and there is no problem to be exposed.

FugitiveVisions said:

So your solution to the problem of the government breaking their own laws is to trust that they would be magically adopt proper enforcement. Right.

Click to expand...

Nothing works when there is no enforcement. You kept on droning on regulations to rein in corrupted officals (which aren't bad ideas), but provided no information as to how your ideas could properly be enforced.

FugitiveVisions said:

Stealing money and fleeing abroad to spend it all on Russian hookers like thousands of CCP officials have done is a lot different than using internally generated profits from businesses to invest in more jobs and more capacity rather than hand the profit to the 'people' mentioned above. I'm not advocating tax evasion. In fact, I just said in my previous post that business entities ought to register with the government. But let's not be ignorant about the distinction of the two cases.

Click to expand...

Stealing is stealing, there is no distinction. Personally, I think those who flee open themselves to assissination, which again comes down to proper enforcement.

Engineer said:

And how would an independent judiciary, such as yourself, find out who is collecting arbitrary taxes and fees, particularily when these people made sure they won't get exposed easily?

Click to expand...

telecommunications? again, this is not rocket science.

So, you are saying you want to eliminate having to obtain proper papers?

Click to expand...

uh, reading comprehension. All I said was that the process ought to be streamlined so that people don't have to wait months or take bribes to get the papers.

Consumers can only choose another advocacy group if they know the current advocacy groups collude with business. You are assuming that an advocacy group which is corrupted, should be self evident. But you are forgetting that people who do bad things will try to hide them. You keep on making the mistake that system would automatically solve problems, when in fact it doesn't.

Click to expand...

No, it is you who lack the basic understanding of how a free market works. You automatically assume that those who produce shoddy products or in this case, shoddy services can somehow hide it from the people. Well guess what, unless the government interferes, which it has in every single case of product failures, the market recognizes the problem fairly quickly. It was only when the government, which had interests that conflicted with the interests of the consumers whom they were supposed to protect, lied and covered up for the guilty companies were the consumers not able to recognize the problem with the tainted milk. People aren't stupid. Especially in this age of telecommunication, word spread fast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the market is self correcting when you see that the most successful corporations in every business tend to be the ones producing the highest quality products at the lowest costs. Empirical evidence simply does not support your assertions.

Another thing, a public which trust an untrustworthy advocacy group is so much more damaging than a government which is expected to have elements which collude with business.

Click to expand...

Makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. If regulations are properly enforced, then products should be safe. And when they are safe, there will be no problem, and there is no problem to be exposed.

Click to expand...

right, because as we all know, the reason that the government hasn't uncovered any shoddy products is that none exists in China. No shoddy products at all whatsoever.

Engineer said:

Nothing works when there is no enforcement. You kept on droning on regulations to rein in corrupted officals (which aren't bad ideas), but provided no information as to how your ideas could properly be enforced.

Click to expand...

I'm not droning on more regulations. Quite the opposite. I'm for codifying the removal of certain powers and authority of the government, which is backed by an independent judiciary. It is you who keeps harping on a self-regulating government like some kid demanding to see a real unicorn at the zoo. Uh, it doesn't exist.

Stealing is stealing, there is no distinction. Personally, I think those who flee open themselves to assissination, which again comes down to proper enforcement.

Click to expand...

Oh sure, there ought to be zero moral challenges to government authorities whatsoever. If Mao wants you to go work in the fields for free for the rest of your life, and if you disobey him, you are automatically a lawbreaker in the same league as a petty thief. Bow to the chairman.