Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

“Companies outsource because it improves their bottomline.” Exactly. And outsourcing ships American jobs overseas. Therein lies the problem.

I was shocked to hear Pres. Bush claim outsourcing is good for America. Yeah, maybe it is for the corporations looking to improve their bottomline. But not for workers.

Maybe its time America’s workers get a government that is of them as well, since they are “the people.”

Look, our companies survived for years without pulling the kind of stuff today’s corporations are. we had a vibrant economy, and great economic growth. But then, some people got the idea that what happens inside the corporation is more important than what happens outside. Since then, we have gotten more and more of an ivory tower focus on numbers and accounting tricks.

My general impression is that companies would do just fine hiring here. It might not be as cheap, but both the productivity, and the use of the wages earned on the market would be a boon to the market here and abroad. We’ve got massive trade deficits with China and Japan right now, which means we are losing money as a nation to these countries, losing wealth, and they aren’t buying our products in return. We’re paying to employ the taxpayers of other countries, to pump money into the communities of another nations, instead of feeding the life of our own.

The trouble is, people aren’t outsourcing out of desperation. They’re outsourcing to increase profits at the expense of laborers here. We are also giving the overseas outsourcing people no reason to improve wages or working conditions for their people. And with libertarian free trades, we can’t give them any reasons. We have no leverage. If I were Kerry, I would tax those who take their businesses out of the country, defeat the very purpose of that accounting tax haven. It is corporate welfare to allow these people the benefits of being American Businesses without the payment of the taxes that support those policies. We should not have to bribe people to live by the rules and keep their loyalties here.

Today’s business culture unfortunately has become so isolated by socioeconomic forces that it no longer considers business decisions in the context of the people they effect, because they are no longer among those people as part of their community.

There’s only so far this outsourcing can be taken before it starts wearing away at our ability to generate wealth here at home, and abroad, before we start getting saddled with the expense of supporting people who once were capable of supporting themselves. At some point the sacrifices you’re asking of the working and white-collar classes will catch up to the rest of our economy, if it hasn’t already. When that happens, growth will stagnate, consumer spending will go down as people become incapable of it, and social unrest will increase.

And your people will continue to insist the system is working like it should But how will most of them tell the difference? The upper-classes that support this are mostly insulated by their wealth. It isn’t their next door neighbors that are having to suffer, it isn’t their local business that are going under, it isn’t their children who can’t get jobs.

And it will go on like this until somebody actually loses their shirt. But by the time that happens, it will be too late, and this country will have been profoundly damaged. It’s already happened to some extent, but people are trying to convinces themselves that the corporate scandals are isolated incidents, and that the market is punishing those who violated its written and unwritten laws.

That’s much easier than admitting your approach to business is dysfunctional. It’s much easier than looking your workers in the eyes and seeing the damage the staff cuts and the general cheap bastardry is doing. it’s easier to tell yourself the ends justify the means, and if we wait, we won’t have to live with the leftover imprints of those means on the system, or the entrenched processes the means become.

My question is this: If it’s been belt tightening all along, why haven’t I heard of teh corporate executives sucking in their breath. why haven’t their wages remained stagnant How were they making money at all during the booms of the 90s, and finally should we really be supporting the companies that are unable to hire a perfectly good set of people here to do good business? I thought the whole point of the market was that those who did not have the means to do business within a community would be pushed aside by those who do.

But perhaps that kind of free market is just to scary for modern American business.

let’s face it exploitation is good for America especially when you degrade them too. And maybe a nice spanking with a leather riding crop. We can say Oh Pepito it’s discipline time, stop making soccerballs and put on these chaps, slut! They love that! spank! spank! spank!

Exploiting the Chinese is fun too but only for shirtless oil wrestling and making plastic children’s toys. Unless you are in Bangkok of course.

Exploitation is good for America!

let’s face it exploitation is good for America

That’s one way to put it. What you call “exploitation” in sweat shops is actually massive improvement in standard of life for the people working there. Without the “sweat shop” and American consumers they’d be jobless, homeless and hungry.

Here’s a first hand report (Kristof, NY Times).

Today’s business culture unfortunately has become so isolated by socioeconomic forces that it no longer considers business decisions in the context of the people they effect, because they are no longer among those people as part of their community.

This is exactly the notion I was trying to beat.

Let’s get this straight —- business doesn’t give a flying #&@! about community —- and it shouldn’t. Business is an activity driven by personal profit, by trading with consenting partners. And this ends up being good for everybody.

Adam Smith was probably the first to identify this principle:
Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it…He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

OK, who wants to pay $2,000 again for a basic personal computer? How about an extra $8,000 for that new car that was built from 100% “American Made” parts?

We have been “outsourcing” jobs for decades. It first started with jobs to Japan and Germany. Now it’s Mexico, Canada, Singapore, China, you name it. While I do feel bad for the people that lose their jobs, most of these positions are with the manufacturing sector (and lately some positions in IT). But to frce companies to keep jobs in he US will make them completely anticompetitive with the world market.

Kerry can pitch this, but you know and I do as well once the money starts rolling in from corporate donors; the rhetoric will stop….

In the 1940s and 50s manufacturing companies outsourced from the Northeast to the South with simular consiquences. Of course it was good for small rural southern communities to get the textile and furniture plants then. It was bad for Northeastern manufacturing employees.

In many respects todays global economy is smaller (in respect to the movement of goods and services)than the US economy was 50 or 60 years ago.

Times change arguements don’t. Losing jobs always hurts the individual who loses. Lower prices help everyone.

Free markets have led the way to much that we consider good in this world: democracy, high standards of living, longer life expectancy, higher education, cleaner air.

I do believe that we should have tax law that does not encourage the relocation employment off shore but at the same time we should not regulate the methods that firms employ to maximize return on capital.

Vivek, It’s class warfare, plain and simple, not Adam Smith. Adam Smith would remind you that everybody competes, and that competition is built on their self-interest. There is something that’s virtually communist about expecting people to take such draconican pay cuts for the good of the collective, instead of competing for higher wages.

Of course, that is no coincidence, given we’re competing with China. Natural market forces would seek to balance wages there, with wages here. But not in China. In China, you have command economy mixed with business and labor practices right out of Dickensian times.

Essentially, Chinese labor is cheaper because it’s virtually slave labor in comparison to our own system. The harsh, corrupt, authoritarian rule of the nation doesn’t help.

Both here and there, we are putting more money into wealthier hands, while encourage a socially destructive squeezing of the lower economic classes for their labor. It may profitable now, but context matters in economy, and these business practices don’t improve the context for the vast majority of people in either of our countries.

I believe in the calming effects of prosperity. As long as the tide does indeed raise all boats, the economy works well, but if we fail to properly pay and take care of the employees lower on the rungs, it will only serve to degrade the rest of the economy.

I am shocked and sickened that Democrats who usually care about workers in extremely poor nations have joined some of the worst elements of the conservative movement by employing Pat Buchanan-like rhetoric on the issue of outsourcing. I am actually working on an article on this very topic that I should put out next week (As soon as my laptop get fixed).

Something you’re not taking into account is that this outsourcing of jobs is creating more unemployment, which means that people are not able to afford to by these products that these companies are producing.

Bottomline = greed. All you need to do is look at CEO’s paychecks and bonuses.

Misha, according to what I’ve read, it’s not doing them much good at all. They don’t even have the money to feed themselves. The fact is, this is only possible because China is ruled by a corrupt, totalitarian regime that won’t even let its workers form their own unions. If you want an idea of how bad it is, you should know that Tianamen square was as much a crackdown on a union strike as it was a crackdown on protestors for democracy.

I mean, this is the problem of modern free-trade ideology- it’s only real choice is give us no choice at all, to throw away the benefits of being able to manage our economic power.

There are those that say that the way we will take the communists out of power is by economically plying them towards democracy. What that misses is that it’s the economic failures, not the successes, of Russia that brought the Soviet Union to a close. What we are doing with China is letting it suck on our economic lifeblood like a leech, nourishing it’s economy at our expense, and instead of yanking that sucker off, and letting China’s ruling powers fade away, we’re giving them enough economic strength to continue their unjust system. I mean, tell me, since 1989, how much progress has China made towards democracy?

Stephen, I agree with some of your analysis of china- their government is killing any chance that they can really benefit from our free trade policies. Our main concern with that country should be some way to get those thugs out of power.

What I was referring to was nations who do not have oppressive regimes taking away their freedom, but are simply poor. Our anti-free trade policies starve farmers in countries like ghana, because they cant compete- if we decide to go anti-free trade on the outsourcing stuff, we will do the same to workers in Mexico and India. How are they expected to compete for jobs when our government is basically subsedizing those who are competing against them? Remember that every job “created” here by anti-free trade policies takes a job away from someone in another country who needs it a LOT more. Now this is NOT the primary reason I support free trade- I support it because I think as a matter of justice, a person who is willing to take a job and an employer who is willing to give it should be able to partake in that transaction without interference of the government. But I do think that those whose biggest concern is the material wellfare of people in true poverty (like in those nations I mentioned above) should not be joining the Pat Buchanan’s of the world in their call to halt “outsourcing”. anyway, look for my article next week on this, and let me know what you think.

I am amazed! China has been looming as the greatest challenge to America’s economic preeminence for almost 2 decades now. And here I find American’s wanting to condemn them out of hand, without any history, without every having kept up on the current events of the nation. In other words, they want to discuss China from an almost total state of ignorance.

Fact 1) China has been incorporating free market and capital market reforms for more than 15 years. They have done so incrementally, and in a targeted fashion both by industry and geography and have completely circumvented the problems that still plague Russia after their attempt to switch from a command economy to a mixed economy.

Fact 2) China’s worst GDP year tops our best. At the lowest point of world wide recession their GDP growth was 8.2% while ours was in negative territory for a short while.

Fact 3) Our industrial age began with sweat shops, child labor, and complete non-involvement by government in industrial development and capital growth. We now here conservatives long for those days, and yet, they would condemn China which in many sectors is following that same paradigm.

Fact 4) China has successfully completed one of the largest civil projects on earth and managed to dislocate and relocate a couple million people without an uprising, without civil conflict, and with a large degree of equity and fairness toward those dislocated.

Fact 5) China is reeducating its population to compete in the 21st century. What is the U.S. doing? Lowering immigrant standards for skills we need and outsourcing jobs where skilled labor anc collective bargaining have accrued a living wage.

Fact 6) The U.S. has too many people concentrated in too small areas, and too many people to ever hope of recovering the splendor of our countryside as late as the 1960’s. China had a population inconceivably large which threatened mass starvation for decades and civil war. China averted such cataclysm with a pragmatic solution which. when stripped of Judeo-Christian values as a measure, can only be praised for the 10’s of millions of lives and suffering that their solution averted.

America will never again be able to lead international affairs again diplomatically, we have displayed our ignorance and arrogance about and toward the rest of the world. And we see on blogs every day such pride and backslapping over our ignorance and arrogance. Problem is, the rest of the world is seeing it too on this internet.

Jobs. Defined in Democratic (leftist) terms apparently means eternal entitlement. Let’s talk about how many wagon wheelwrights jobs we’ve lost. Or what about all of the whale oil industry and or lantern manufacturers?

At the founding of the United States close to 98% of the population worked in agriculture. Today that percentage is closer to 1-2% depending on how you calculate it. That’s a lot of jobs lost, but one can see that we are in fact better off.

Most of the arguments over jobs are purely emotional. I would say the majority of the people out there have very little knowledge of any macroeconomic principles to put any of the debate in perspective.

Brian was getting the big picture with his comment about paying $2000 for a computer. Keeping jobs here means paying the higher premium… which for me is the BIG ISSUE… Why are wages here so high that companies are looking to outsource to other countries?

Grocery workers in California are striking over $5 a week that they would have to chip in to their health insurance. It’s a messed up system.

David- wow. China is ruled by a tyranical regime, that restricts freedom of speech, does not allow the people to have a say in how their government is run, and has a system which basically forces the murder of millions of children. By what mandate exactly do the “rulers” of china get their power? the mandate of the gun.

I am glad you are so supportive of their macromanagement of their population, and that you believe that as long as a dictator is taking measures that you find congenial, you are willing to support their ruling by force and threat of death. From your rhetoric, I almost have to conclude that you believe that men who are rulers of china because they have the most guns actually have a “better” (in some bizarre, utilitarian, i guess), sense of the word that America does.

As for the rest of the world seeing our “arrogance” on the internet… maybe some of it is, but if you lived in China, you would only see if the government censors allowed it. And goodness forbid you tried to post the sort of dissent you do about the American government in China against their people’s paradise…

It will never cease to amaze me the extent to which the American left will attack its own nation, but refuses to hold countries that do FAR FAR worse things to any sort of moral standard. This is why I am so much more drawn to the conservatives- not because they are right most of the time (they are wrong almost as much as the left), but at least I can USUALLY see whether they are coming from. I cannot imagine any sort of moral system or world outlook that would lead someone to make such a spririted defense of china while leveling complete attacks at the United States.

You know David- the way you talk of China is the way american “intellectuals” spoke of the Soviet Union during its supposed heyday. They were talking about how the brilliant macro-management of Stalin and co would eventually put the Soviet Union over the united states- while not realizing that real people were have to live under the yolk of that tyranny. luckly my famiy and I were able to get out. A wise man once said, when it doubt about which system is “better”, look at which country has to put up walls to keep people in, and to which country people will DIE to come.

If China continues to move to a more market economy- it will end in either two ways. Either the freedom they let seap in to uphold their corrupt political system will lead to the ouster of their government- ala Chile- ala Russia; or they will realize this before its too late and crack down. Economic freedom and political slavery are incompatible and the thugs of China will hopefully learn it by their countrimen rising up and demanding political freedom, by the destruction of the small ammount of economic freedom they are gaining.

Wow.

Sorry, they rule at the behest of the their people. Seen any revolutions in China since Mao took over. The Chinese politburo is no more tyrannical than the Bush regime. They issued a law with the best interests of their people in mind. The law said, one child. Those who broke the law were not killed, or sentenced to life in prison. If it was unintentional the pregnancy was aborted. If it was intentional, sterilization was performed. The law was and is effective in preventing the mass starvation of 10’s of millions of human beings. I call that humane. You call it what you will.

Have there been horrible consequences to the law? Yes. A black market in babies has arisen, but, of course, we passed a law against recreational drugs and created the largest black market in the Western Hemisphere. Government does not rule in a vaccuum. For every law, there will be negative consequences. One hopes the law does more good than harm.

Misha, your reference to a dictator in China displays your lack of knowledge, current events or history of CHina. I suggest before one runs around criticizing other nations, one do their homework. You would ask that of foreigners evaluating America wouldn’t you, that they get the facts before making assessments. China has no dictator. Do you know what a politburo is? Do you know that China has a people’s Congress where the concerns of the people are addressed?

And before running around and casting such a prejudiced view on other nations, how about taking a long close unprejudiced view of the U.S. I know Bush and his gang don’t want patriots to do that, but, try it, it can be an eye-opening experience. Here will execute innocent people on a regular basis - and our government won’t foot the bill for DNA tests. Whassup with that? We have millions of malnourished children in this country - whassup with that? We got 42 million people without health care coverage and our President just issued orders relieving emergency rooms from an obligation to treat those folks if they can’t pay. Whassup with that?

Does China have some serious problems politically and socially - of course it does. Are they worse problems than those found in the USA per capita? I don’t see it. Want to crusade - crusade for true democracy in the USA - one person, one vote, can the electoral college, ban campaign financing from all organizations - restricting it to individuals - and restrict it to a maximum of $1000.00 per individual. That would make our Government responsive and responsible to the people again.

Look fact is Russia never was Communist as laid out by Marx and Engels. China came as close to a real implementation of Communism as has ever been tried on this earth for a nation, and by all measurable criteria by which a nation can be assessed objectively as successful or not, China is succcessful. Scares the hell out of a lot of folks, I know. But, hey, the fear is fear of success. The Chinese model would, could never work here. Just as the American model of democracy would, could never work in China. If China had American democracy - they would not be able to resolve their population growth - limits on food production and distribution problem. One can always tell a conservative, one size fits all and don’t matter what the facts are. Of course, the same may be said of a liberal. Pragmatists on the other hand, recognize different solutions for different problem sets is how the real world is and functions regardless of ideology.

We have to really ask: what is the price of democracy? In a global market place, where capital flows are unrestricted by tarriffs, import quotas, or other types of trade restriction, what is the “overhead cost” of democracy? Democracies worldwide have illustrated a tendency toward greater levels of worker safeguards, unionization, freedom of association, and environmental standards. These are often cited by business speakers as components of manufacturing costs.

I listened to the NPR show “The Connection” recently, which hosted two textile mill owners from North Carolina, who were struggling to keep up with those exporting jobs to China and Mexico. They indicated that even if labor costs would be identical, costs of manufacturing in the U.S. are still higher due to occupational and environmental standards that require investment for, in the speakers’ eyes, no financial return. They said that they wanted to run clean mills, but it’s hard to compete with a firm in an LDC who doesn’t have to comply with these regulations.

If democracies tend to choose those regulations (many of which show a net benefit, if you look at the White House OMB’s analyses of benefits and costs of federal regulation), and these standards cause the “external costs” of business such as air pollution to be internalized in the overall price structure of a democratic economy (as any Microeconomics 101 class would describe as a laudable goal), doesn’t that disadvantage democracies in global economics?

One more thing I’d like to bring up is the conservative tenet put forth by the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the like, is that “free trade creates democracy.” It’s kind of a chicken-and-egg question… a recent World Bank/Columbia University analysis claims that “[g]lobalization may be fostered by democratization” (“Why the Rush to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries.” Milner and Kubota, 2003). Why insist that the free trade/democracy pathway is cause/effect? The Milner and Kubota analysis also found that “Many countries, it seems, choose to reduce their barriers before they enter the GATT or even if they have no plans for entering it. Furthermore, countries that are already in the international organization [GATT/WTO] are much less likely to become open.” This statement appears to fly in the face of the claim that free trade causes societies to open once free trade sets in.

I would be eager to hear from a conservative correspondent to rebut me. I hope that my view is not a true one, but fear it is!

David:

The Chinese politburo is no more tyrannical than the Bush regime.

Such a statement can only be fueled by a reason-destroying hatred of Bush. I can understand people disagreeing with Bush and his policies, but to compare him to a communist junta really is a bit much. Ultimately, it shows your deep cynicism towards the system of American democracy.

Yes. A black market in babies has arisen, but, of course, we passed a law against recreational drugs and created the largest black market in the Western Hemisphere.

Again, I can understand arguments against the war on drugs, but comparing a baby market to a drug market?!!! Holy crap!!

This is so tired by now. Oh yes, the only reason the wonderful idea of communism didn’t work was because it was hijacked by evil dictators. Look at how good China is doing by micro-managing its citizens!

The Chinese model would, could never work here. Just as the American model of democracy would, could never work in China.

Root of all evil: multi-culturalism. Those Chinese people are doing so well with their benevolent commies! Wouldn’t work over here with us Americans, but it’s A-OK for them!

Like a previous comment said —- all this is academic —- just look at how people vote with their feet.

“Ultimately, it shows your deep cynicism towards the system of American democracy.”

This criticism ultimately shows a blind almost religious belief in hero worship that requires no reason, rationalizaton, skepticism, or cynicism. Such persons exalted Hitler to power.

See we can go on all day trying to characterize each other as Anti-American, or anti this or anti that. It really gets us nor our country anywhere.

Ahh, you didn’t like my black market comparison of babies to drugs, eh? How about their black market in babies and our black market in teens and pre-teens? How about our priesthood? How about our family insest numbers (oh, sorry, shush, wasn’t supposed to talk about that in public, too many guilty parties might get upset). Give it a break. The U.S. has some abominable social problems just as every other society does. There is nothing holier than thou about this country save the ideals set down in the Constitution, and our politicians, including Bush, are trashing those as fast a convenience and power preservation demand and allow.

Our founding fathers knew that a true patriot is a citizen who refuses to trust government or its leaders, - a true patriot is a citizen who stands vigil over the politicians and shedding light on the corruption and distortion which cannot be separated from persons in power.

Kerry-Edwards, head-to-head

In an exclusive, this Sunday morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” get what every Democratic voter deserves and every political and media insider wants to see: John Kerry and John Edwards talking about the issues. No process, no polls, no “who wants to be whose running mate?”. Just the issues. You’ll see this nowhere else: the two men will explain in depth their views and plans for America on the big issues: jobs and taxes, trade, health care, Iraq, and the war against terror. That’s this Sunday morning on “This Week,” with the two men talking to George Stephanopoulos.

The cash that is freed up is usually invested into other growth oppurtunities.

CEO salaries?

/just sayin’

David, I think things in China are much more complex than they seem at first glance. Here’s a Frontline from last year on that subject.
Frontline: China In The Red

To the readers here in general, I’d say this: Not all gains can be seen through the lenses of a financial cost-benefit study. While investors may not see an instant, obvious returns on environmental and safety regulations, we will not end up suffering the degrading of our health, our land, air, and water. We will not end up losing workers and our investments in those workers to job-related stress, preventable disabling accidents, and family conflicts caused by overwork.

We spent the better part of the late 1800s and the early 1900s learning the lessons that have lead to the laws on the books concerning labor regulations. Those laws, against Child Labor, excessively dangerous workplaces, and sweatshop hours were hard-earned by our forebear’s experiences.

Many of our financial regulations were also the result of hard-won knowledge, this time during the depression. After investigating the events that lead to the market crash, congress legislated against the abuses that lead to the disaster. Years later, in the flush of our new economy, we repealed many of those laws. The results? History repeats itself! Should we be surprised?

All I’m saying is there exists penalties for those who unwisely imitate and enable those who cheat their way to success. One might call it being competitive, but in the end, what one is actually being is destructive of the law and order that supports this country’s freedoms and successes.

Once again ‘the communist meme’ rears it’s ugly head. It is my firm belief that history does repeat itself.

Look fact is Russia never was Communist as laid out by Marx and Engels. China came as close to a real implementation of Communism as has ever been tried on this earth for a nation, and by all measurable criteria by which a nation can be assessed objectively as successful or not, China is succcessful.

I hear this argument all the time. Every time I hear it it still puzzles me. In what sense can we say that Russia what not communist as laid out by Marx and Engels? In what sense can we excuse the ‘mega-death’ implemented by china as a communist nation?

I’ll tell you. In the sense that what communism promises is the complete opposite of what it delivers. When every time a group of true believers in communism get into power millions die, is that just some kind of fluke?

Don’t forget that the chinese communist history is not that much different from the Soviet.

At least 38 million dead since 1923-1987.

Includes 15,700,000 killed in Chinese concentration camps.

These totals do not include the 27,000,000 people who starved to death due to Mao’s mismanagement of Chinese agriculture in the early 1960s. This was the worst famine in human history, and it was caused entirely, though not deliberately, by politicians.

Additionally, there is the difficult question of involuntary abortion, of children desired by the parents, at the behest of the state or its agents. Whether the killing of a foetus is murder, and if not, whether it becomes murder when done against the mother’s will, is the problem. It is not clear if these abortions should be included in the democide totals.

But one may consider that Chinese abortions are often administered by allowing the mother to go through labor, then crushing the child’s skull with forceps as it is being born. This seems quite a bit like murder. Additionally, there have been numerous reports of infants being murdered following birth. Infanticide is not the official policy of Communist China. It is, however, the actual policy, official denials not withstanding.

The number of deaths resulting from coerced abortions and infanticide since 1971 is estimated at over 110 million, making this perhaps the greatest crime in all of history.
Death by communism

If Amerika = China then where are the famines brought on by the mismanagement of capitalism? Where are the concentration camps run by corporations? Or re-education camps, to get dissenters minds right, or else? I guess we have the abortions. But not involuntary ones… yet.

Dave, you are repeating communist propaganda. The liberal agenda and philosophy is built entirely on derivations of Marx and Engels. No wonder you do not want to admit to the infernal outcome of it’s ideas.

In previous comment blockquote should continue from “Includes 15,700,000 killed…” to the Death by Communism link.

David- I am honestly shocked and amazed at what I read as your response above.. you actually say “Sorry, they rule at the behest of the their people. Seen any revolutions in China since Mao took over. The Chinese politburo is no more tyrannical than the Bush regime”- So basically your logic is that because there have been no REVOLUTIONS, they rule at the people’s behest? is that what you would have said about the soviet union? I guess by your standard all that one would need to rule at the behest of the people is to get enough weapons to make revolution impossible. I honestly did not know anyone actually believe that America was WORSE (based on what system of morals?) than China. What you call pragmatism is really tyrrany, oppression, murder and a regime established not upon the rights of people to ELECTION TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT and FREEDOM OF SPEECH, but of the worst kind of murderous paternalism.

And David- if you are so right about how bad america is and how great the other countries in the world are, why is it that people are desperate to get into this nation and desperate to get out of their? Would you choose to live in China over America (dont answer that, but you have voted with your feet already). The answer is simple, david, if you had lived in those other countries, you would know the true difference. Your arguments sound like people who justified Stalins regime based upon “pragmatism”, thankfully few people would take such arguments seriously.