TPP failure would cost the US trade dominance

[jhungary]

The term of capital I used here is related to capitalism


Now you understand my point?

No.......Money control politician, however, not all politician are of the same party, so ipso-facto, not all medias are controlled by the same politician and parties. And my point still stand.

In simplest form, money can be goal for both you and me, but your way to earn money is different than my way to earn money. And since both way are different, they are, well, different, even tho the ultimate goal are the same.

 

[windywine]

No.......Money control politician, however, not all politician are of the same party, so ipso-facto, not all medias are controlled by the same politician and parties. And my point still stand.

Again wrong. Money controls all politicians. No politician can be elected without money. All media are controlled by money too. Politician and media both have a same boss---money. Both politician and media are not independent with each other. Your point is wrong.

In simplest form, money can be goal for both you and me, but your way to earn money is different than my way to earn money. And since both way are different, they are, well, different, even tho the ultimate goal are the same.

You are using the ways of earning wages as examples? You and I can have different jobs for making money, but the wages are determined by the capitalists.Similar to the difference in jobs, no matter how split or how different the medias show, the real deals are made by capital (money) behind scene.

 

[jhungary]

Again wrong. Money controls all politicians. No politician can be elected without money. All media are controlled by money too. Politician and media both have a same boss---money. Both politician and media are not independent with each other. Your point is wrong.

Dude, both your English and logical think need to have some work at.

Money is the grand goal of anything, however, politics does not just play one way, when everything is propelled by money, then you negate all the controlling done to the media. Again, There are two type of political value.

You can say Media is controlled by Money, and Politician in General are controlled by the money and corporation, but since you have more than one corporation, it negate the effect between Politician and Media, Hence the medias system is independent to the Ideal in Politics. Politics and Politician cannot control media as a whole, just because the common denomination is money, that does not mean GOP's money is the same as Democrat's money.

You are using the ways of earning wages as examples? You and I can have different jobs for making money, but the wages are determined by the capitalists.Similar to the difference in jobs, no matter how split or how different the medias show, the real deals are made by capital (money) behind scene.

No, different job comes with different wages, skilled job earn more, un skilled job earn less, experienced worker earn more, and less experienced worker earn less, male earn more but female earn less, even at the same job at the same level, 2 people can earn a different amount with the same job. so no, money is the final goal but how do you get there and how much when you get there is very different.

looks like you have never work in your whole life, if you do not know this.

 

[TaiShang]

In the US there are various forms of media.

The fringe media (which are either far left, or far right, in most cases) are not effective and they are at the receiving end of credibility assassination, often.

The mainstream media appears to have different shades of certain colors. But what they share as common trait is their regime-friendliness. It does not have to do with a certain government (although they may fall in line with certain government more strongly than the previous ones or vice versa), it has to do with the US regime as an elitist, supra-multiparty minority-controlled institution.

In this highest realm, the popular mainstream media is on the side of the regime at all cost.

Since they are money-bound industries that control the state, the supra regime they maintain and preserve is closer to fascism.

Inherently right wing capitalist state-regimes are always fascist, implicitly or explicitly. The shade and dose of fascism depend on the historical conjectures.

 

[windywine]

Money is the grand goal of anything, however, politics does not just play one way, when everything is propelled by money, then you negate all the controlling done to the media. Again, There are two type of political value.

Oh God, you Need go to the elementary school again. In US money controls everything including medias and political system. In contrast, in China, political system controls and dominates money.

You can say Media is controlled by Money, and Politician in General are controlled by the money and corporation, but since you have more than one corporation, it negate the effect between Politician and Media, Hence the medias system is independent to the Ideal in Politics. Politics and Politician cannot control media as a whole, just because the common denomination is money, that does not mean GOP's money is the same as Democrat's money.

Wrong again. Where did you learn that money or corporations have to compete with each other? And more importantly, monopoly is everywhere. The medias system is NOT independent to the Ideal in Politics and Politician. They all are owned by money.

No, different job comes with different wages, skilled job earn more, un skilled job earn less, experienced worker earn more, and less experienced worker earn less, male earn more but female earn less, even at the same job at the same level, 2 people can earn a different amount with the same job. so no, money is the final goal but how do you get there and how much when you get there is very different.

Wrong again. When there is a final job offer in front of you, you either take it or quit. Similar as common voters, for the candidates, you either vote or don't vote. No other choice. No matter how hard you work, how skill you are, your wages are determined by your boss ultimately.

 

[windywine]

I am not debating you whether money control everything, I am debating your thesis between money and politician and media.

I am debating your thesis between politician and media. Politician and media are not independent with each other. I am not saying politicians control medias nor politicians depend on medias. They both are owned by money

Money bring power, and power bring competition, the whole point of free market is competition. Where do I learn that money and corporation have to compete with each other? how about THE DAWN OF CAPITALISM? This, competition, is the sole purpose of capitalism.

Were you born just now?
Money bring power, power bring competition, leading to a monopoly.

Do tell me how GOP can control NBC, a traditional Democrat supporter, if money are the same across the whole spectrum? If you cannot answer this question, that mean YOU ARE WRONG

You are Wrong again. Money owns GOP politicians and Democrat Politicians, and Money owns PRO-GOP medias and PRO-Democrat medias. That's my answer. Money dominates the whole spectrum and makes decisions and deals behind scene. Money comes from the same monopoly sources across the whole spectrum.

Maybe in China, not in America. Now I doubt you were even in America, have you heard of something called Labor law? Each job comes with a minimal wage you must give regardless of experience and skill. Your wages does not just depend on your boss ultimately. As a employer, you cannot go out and ask for unrealistic wages and expect your employee to give or take. This is ILLEGAL in the United States.

Wrong again. China also has a minimal wage, even so do some developing countries. Regardless of experience and skill, your wage above the minimal standard does just depend on your boss ultimately.

Are you really living in the US? As you know jack shit about America and your English, well, basically, sucks.

All right. Finally you started personal attacks? I recalled this is not your first time, right?

 

[windywine]

Where do I learn that money and corporation have to compete with each other? how about THE DAWN OF CAPITALISM? This, competition, is the sole purpose of capitalism.

LOL. You really did make me laugh loud this time. The sole purpose of capitalism is making profit. Maximizing the profit is the sole and ultimate goal of capitalism. Competition, the sole purpose of capitalism? Where the hell you learned this kind of stuff?

 

[jhungary]

I am debating your thesis between politician and media. Politician and media are not independent with each other. I am not saying politicians control medias nor politicians depend on medias. They both are owned by money

So? Again, I have already say money control media, but seems to me, you don't get what we are debating, we are debating whether or not Medias are independent from Politics, money control both media and politics does not equal to medias are not dependent from politics,

Numerous issue have been raise, none answered. Either you tell me how money control medias turn into medias not being independent to Politics, you can keep saying this, but this will just be your opinion

Were you born just now?
Money bring power, power bring competition, leading to a monopoly.

Competition leads to monopoly?

Wow.........So, I guess IPhone vs Samsung = Monopoly, Mac vs Window = Monopoly, GM vs Ford = Monopoly?

Man, you just rewrite the concept of market economy, and not in a good way...

You are Wrong again. Money owns GOP politicians and Democrat Politicians, and Money owns PRO-GOP medias and PRO-Democrat medias. That's my answer. Money dominates the whole spectrum and makes decisions and deals behind scene. Money comes from the same monopoly sources across the whole spectrum.

So in other words, you have no answer as to how GOP can control NBC?

fair enough

Wrong again. China also has a minimal wage, even so do some developing countries. Regardless of experience and skill, your wage above the minimal standard does just depend on your boss ultimately.

lol First of all, you cannot pay wages "REGARDLESS OF EXPERIENCE AND SKILL" in the US, you may be able to do so in China, not in the US.

Again, Labor law determined a acceptable wages for each jobs with respect to the skill and experience, employer can ONLY go higher, not lower than the limits, that mean the wages does not depend on the employer.

All right. Finally you started personal attacks? I recalled this is not your first time, right?

Your English do sucks, this is not a personal attacks, this is a F.A.C.T. It took me two read to understand what are you saying.

And again, you don't know anything about America, you only online at Chinese Time Zone (The post you wrote you would have write them early in the Morning if you are living in the US, not saying it can't just seems strange) so what's wrong with me doubting your country of origins?

LOL. You really did make me laugh loud this time. The sole purpose of capitalism is making profit. Maximizing the profit is the sole and ultimate goal of capitalism. Competition, the sole purpose of capitalism? Where the hell you learned this kind of stuff?

You forgot about the word EVERYBODY.

Do you even know how mac get started? Mac was started in Steve Jobs Garage, the purpose of capitalism is so that everyone can start their own business and compete with each other, if business can be monopolized.

EVERYBODY want to make money, that's why it promote competition. In a capitalist world, GREED is GOOD, and the reason why capitalism works is because everyone is greedy, that create competition, not monopoly. In the US< there are Laws against Monopolising a Business, it is Impossible in the US to become a monopoly.

Please go read about Rocketfeller Family and standard oil in any source, It's called Anti-Trust law.

And where the heck did you learn about capitalism? Backyard with your communist friends? Because that is exactly what a communist would say about Capitalism.

@Jlaw @TaiShang @windywine

Keep all your personal feeling on me to yourselves, I will report EVERY post you discuss about me in any thread, unless you want to get ban for off topics, you should either go talk to a moderator in private or start your own little group from on the side to start hating me.

Talk about the points here, not talking about the member, if you want to derail a perfectly good discussion, then it's your call, just that I will report any post that is off topic and not address to the point, and if you get banned, then it's your own faults. Not mine.

It does not make you look cool to talk about me on a thread, it make you look like a loser on wits end for talking about me instead of going after my point.

@waz @Slav Defence @WAJsal

 

[windywine]

So? Again, I have already say money control media, but seems to me, you don't get what we are debating, we are debating whether or not Medias are independent from Politics, money control both media and politics does not equal to medias are not dependent from politics,

Finally. You got the thing right. We are debating whether or not Medias are independent from Politics. The fact that money control both media and politics does mean that medias aren't independent from Politics. They are connected via the money and work for the money.

Either you tell me how money control medias turn into medias not being independent to Politics, you can keep saying this, but this will just be your opinion

Since you accept money control both media and politics, why you keep rejecting the fact that media and politics are not independent from each other? They are connected via money, which owns them.

So in other words, you have no answer as to how GOP can control NBC?

Wrong again. Why you keep asking me to prove GOP can control NBC?? I never said politicians can control medias in US. I just said politicians and medias are not independent with each other. They are connected through money that control them.

lol First of all, you cannot pay wages "REGARDLESS OF EXPERIENCE AND SKILL" in the US, you may be able to do so in China, not in the US.

Again, Labor law determined a acceptable wages for each jobs with respect to the skill and experience, employer can ONLY go higher, not lower than the limits, that mean the wages does not depend on the employer.

The limit is the minimal wages. You don't need mention that again. Labor law in China requires that too. We are talking about the wages above the minimal standard. The wages above minimal standard are ultimately determined by the employers.

Your English do sucks, this is not a personal attacks, this is a F.A.C.T. It took me two read to understand what are you saying.

And again, you don't know anything about America, you only online at Chinese Time Zone (The post you wrote you would have write them early in the Morning if you are living in the US, not saying it can't just seems strange) so what's wrong with me doubting your country of origins?

LOL. Then I also can say your English sucks. You even couldn't understand what I am saying. ...The time someone responded to your comment will affect the country of origin of that person? Well, this is the second time in this thread make me laugh out loud.

Do you even know how mac get started? Mac was started in Steve Jobs Garage, the purpose of capitalism is so that everyone can start their own business and compete with each other, if business can be monopolized.

No. Anyone who has his/her own business is to make profit. The goal of competition is for profit, not for competition. Their efforts on making profit induce the competition, which is the initial outcome during its early stage. Competition inevitably induces and evolves into monopoly, which aims to maximize the profit.

. In a capitalist world, GREED is GOOD, and the reason why capitalism works is because everyone is greedy, that create competition, not monopoly. In the US< there are Laws against Monopolising a Business, it is Impossible in the US to become a monopoly.

Wrong again. Monopoly is the inevitable result of competition. The forms of monopoly includes cartel, syndicat, konzern, trust etc, which we can see that happened in Western history. Because the monopolized organizations hurt the interest of US, US has established LAWS to limit the monopolized organizations. However, capitalists can easily bypass the LAWS by ways such as cross-shareholdings.

Till now Monopoly is still everywhere in US, including all the important areas like Wall street, Military industrial complex, Silicon valley, Petroleum & energy, and Pharmaceutical & biotechnology etc.

I will report EVERY post you discuss about me in any thread, unless you want to get ban for off topics, you should either go talk to a moderator in private or start your own little group from on the side to start hating me.

Why I need hate you? Stockholm syndrome?

In that comment, I just said my only negative rating so far is given by you. If that's wrong or there is any insulting word in that sentence, then I sincerely apologize. Otherwise, I just simply described a thing you did before. I don't know why you'r mad and what you'r mad at. @waz @Slav Defence @WAJsal

 

[jhungary]

Since you accept money control both media and politics, why you keep rejecting the fact that media and politics are not independent from each other? They are connected via money, which owns them.

Because it wasn't connected, you have not show me in any one example how politician controlling medias in general with money, As I say, if you can outline how GOP control NBC, or how Medias goes unison in a single topic for or against a running government, I will accept your point, otherwise it is your opinion, and your conjecture. Not a fact.

Wrong again. Why you keep asking me to prove GOP can control NBC?? I never said politicians can control medias in US. I just said politicians and medias are not independent with each other. They are connected via money that control them.

No, again, that's your conjecture, not a fact, Because I am talking about in a general sense, not in a specific case, you claim in general Medias are dependent on Politician, this is physically and categorically untrue, and your own response already point to it, if politician cannot control medias in the US, then that is by definition medias and politician have a non-dependent relationship, since it's money can force the medias to change its stance, not the politician (Given GOP's money are as good as Democrats' money).

I accept Medias is dependent on the money (Who wouldn't) but Medias in general are most definitely not dependent on politician.

The limit is the minimal wages. You don't need mention that again. Labor law in China requires that too. We are talking about the wages above the minimal standard. The wages above minimal standard are ultimately determined by the employers.

If you have a limits on then it is not solely dependent on one side, how can you not get this idea?

Employer need to determine a wages that Labor Law Allowed, they can only go up, not down, that's a limitation,

LOL. Then I also can say your English sucks. You even couldn't understand what I am saying.

Well, If you think my English sucks because I cannot read yours, then yes, my English sucks, so does every native English Speaker, (And this is a sarcasms)

No. Ultimate goal of capitalism is making profit. Competition is the initial outcome of making profit and monopoly is the final inevitable form of competition, which aims to maximize the profit. Anyone who has his/her own business is to make profit. The goal of competition for profit not for competition.

Wrong again. Monopoly is the inevitable result of competition. The forms of monopoly includes cartel, syndicate,konzern, trust etc, which we can see that happened in Western history. Because the monopolized organizations hurt the interest of US, US has established LAWS against monopoly. However, capitalists can easily bypass the LAWS by ways such as cross-shareholdings.

Till now Monopoly is still everywhere in US, including all the important areas like Wall street, Military industrial complex, Silicon valley, Petroleum & energy, and Pharmaceutical & biotechnology etc.

Did you study economy at all? Monopoly can only come when the competition is over, the problem is, according to economic principal, the only way a competition is over is when either the supply or the demand drawn to a close (Either no more supply or no more demand) Meaning in economic point of view, monopoly is the lowest yield on either scale.

As long *** there are supply and demand on something, people will try to get in and earn a piece of pie from it, and hence generate competition, and competition generate anti-monopolism. If monopoly can actually exist, then there are not gonna be new market to explore and China will not get to today status as US and Japanese company will long be monopolized the market in the 70s and 80s long before China open the door.

I would have thought of all people you will understand.

And no, you can have dominated company, but according to basic economic principal, when there is room for supply and demand, there will ALWAYS be competition, and hence monopoly cannot be established, simply someone can always find a cheaper way to do something to stay competitive.

Why I need hate you? Stockholm syndrome?

In that comment, I just said my only negative rating so far is given by you. If that's wrong or there is any insulting word in that sentence, then I sincerely apologize. Otherwise, I just simply described a thing you did before. I don't know why you mad and what you mad at. @waz @Slav Defence @WAJsal

You do know what does Stockholm syndrome means? right........Way you are using it does not make sense at all.

Anyway, the way I say it is the fact, this is a place for idea exchange, your or anyone's feeling about me is irreverent, Unless you think talking about me instead of my point is not off topic, otherwise my point stand, I don't care what you or anyone think of me, if you insult me or anyone, I will rate you negative. It's that simple.

You can insinuating whatever you want, just don't do this here. Open a group for it, talk to a moderator for it, I don't care.

 

[windywine]

Because it wasn't connected, you have not show me in any one example how politician controlling medias in general with money, As I say, if you can outline how GOP control NBC, or how Medias goes unison in a single topic for or against a running government, I will accept your point, otherwise it is your opinion, and your conjecture. Not a fact.

I never said politician controlling medias. I said politician and medias are not independent from each other. Why you kept asking me to prove the point I never said?

Because it wasn't connected, you have not show me in any one example how politician controlling medias in general with money, As I say, if you can outline how GOP control NBC, or how Medias goes unison in a single topic for or against a running government, I will accept your point, otherwise it is your opinion, and your conjecture. Not a fact.

Like I said before, the attacks, fights, splits shown among the medias never touched the core value of the system. Have you seen any mainstream media in US criticized the system?

If you have a limits on then it is not solely dependent on one side, how can you not get this idea?

Employer need to determine a wages that Labor Law Allowed, they can only go up, not down, that's a limitation

The minimal wages just can support a person's basic life. That's like money also has to obey some rules and can't do whatever it wants.

You do know what does Stockholm syndrome means? right........Way you are using it does not make sense at all.

Make sense. You are thinking a stranger that only exchanges some online conversation hates you.

Did you study economy at all? Monopoly can only come when the competition is over, the problem is, according to economic principal, the only way a competition is over is when either the supply or the demand drawn to a close (Either no more supply or no more demand) Meaning in economic point of view, monopoly is the lowest yield on either scale.

Have you ever heard the word of globalization? Competition among the countries still exists even though the monopolized organizations dominate individual country.

And no, you can have dominated company, but according to basic economic principal, when there is room for supply and demand, there will ALWAYS be competition, and hence monopoly cannot be established, simply someone can always find a cheaper way to do something to stay competitive.

Syndicat is the typical form of monopolizing the supply and demand.

Anyway, the way I say it is the fact, this is a place for idea exchange, your or anyone's feeling about me is irreverent, Unless you think talking about me instead of my point is not off topic, otherwise my point stand, I don't care what you or anyone think of me, if you insult me or anyone, I will rate you negative. It's that simple.

Of course that's why I am here, debates and exchanges the thoughts with you. When I first saw your aggressive words, I was kind surprised and disappointed.

For anyone who started the trash talk, I always tried my best to respond in a neutral way. I think I did pretty well.

 

[jhungary]

I never said politician controlling medias. I said politician and medias are not independent from each other. Why you kept asking me to prove the point I never said?

Do you know what you are arguing about actually?

Do you know what is the meaning of "Dependent" relationship between Medias and Politicians?

Medias depends on money, because they need financial sponsorship, advertisement to stay afloat, hence they will always talk about the general direction where money goes, hence we have these much garbage TV program since late 2000s. This is how medias depending on money in a relationship, it show how money control the medias

If you cannot proof Politician controlling the Medias, or Medias controlling the Politician, you cannot say the both have a dependent relationship to each other.

This is the core of the thesis.

Like I said before, the attacks, fights, splits shown among the medias never touched the core value of the system. Have you seen any mainstream media in US criticized the system?

And like I said before, if you cannot provide any substantial proof, that's your own opinion and conjecture.

The minimal wages just can support a person's basic life. That's like money also has to obey some rules and can't do whatever it wants.

no. minimal wages is there so that basically the employer cannot do what you said they are doing.

Again, if limitation are set by a third party, then it is not totally up to the employer anymore

Have you ever heard the word of globalization? Competition among the countries still exists even though the monopolized organizations dominate individual country.

if competition can exist even tho the monopolized organisations dominated individual country, then that organisation is not a monopoly by definition, as there are competition within that market.

Do you even know what you are talking about? You are simply repeating my point...

Syndicat is the typical form of monopolizing the supply and demand.

No, a syndicate is not a typical form of monopolizing supply and demand. by definition monopoly have to be incharged by one entity (hence mono) syndicate is a collective organisation which share their dominance by dealing and negotiation, hence no one single party monopolize in a syndicate.

It's a good way to cover the anti-trust law in the US, but definitely not a form of monopoly. As the word MONO in monopoly means one.

Of course that's why I am here, debates and exchanges the thoughts with you. When I first saw your aggressive words, I was kind surprised and disappointed.

For anyone who started the trash talk, I always tried my best to respond in a neutral way. I think I did pretty well.

I never start trash talking to people, not after I made the title, and if you think my word are harsh, you should go back on my history and see how your fellow PDF Chinese member call me.

Anyway, I am here to have fun and discuss, I don't mind nor does it matter if we saw eye to eye on some topic, I respect anyone's opinion, as long as they stick to the topic, been here too long and saw way too many of that and do go down hard and quick

 

[windywine]

If you cannot proof Politician controlling the Medias, or Medias controlling the Politician, you cannot say the both have a dependent relationship to each other

Oh GOD. Again? I never said that Politician controlling the Medias, or Medias controlling the Politician. What I said is they are both controlled by money and owned by money.

Money makes the real deals behind scene, decides which one can be the candidates for public to vote

if competition can exist even tho the monopolized organisations dominated individual country, then that organisation is not a monopoly by definition, as there are competition within that market.

The medias and politicians we discussed are also within an individual country- US.

No, a syndicate is not a typical form of monopolizing supply and demand. by definition monopoly have to be incharged by one entity (hence mono) syndicate is a collective organisation which share their dominance by dealing and negotiation, hence no one single party monopolize in a syndicate

Yes, by definition, a syndicate is a self-organizing group of individuals, companies, corporations or entities formed to transact some specific business, to pursue or promote a shared interest. Therefore, as I said, money forms a monopoly to maximize the profit, to pursue or promote a shared interest. And also they are the real deal makers

I never start trash talking to people, not after I made the title, and if you think my word are harsh, you should go back on my history and see how your fellow PDF Chinese member call me.

You should go back on my history. I always respond in a gentle way upon people's trash talk online.

Anyway, I am here to have fun and discuss, I don't mind nor does it matter if we saw eye to eye on some topic, I respect anyone's opinion, as long as they stick to the topic, been here too long and saw way too many of that and do go down hard and quick

Correct. That is the way a senior PDF member should show to us. I hope you can keep the way as you pointed here. I will try to forget the old impression I have on you.

 

[hoangsa74]

Non-U.S TPP's members' nominal GDP is 10 trillion; China's GDP is 11 trillion. Once the TPP is set in place; U.S companies will not need Chinese consumer market anymore. U.S companies will use TPP members to consume U.S products and supply raw materials for developed TPP members.

TPP is a way the U.S will award the Japanese her complete market. In return, Japan will re arm and take responsibility for being a peace keeper in Asia and take the burden off the U.S. This is why South Korea can't be a TPP member; Japanese companies will destroy every Korean company if Korea has to open her market to Japan.

The U.S has awarded the Chinese annual trade surplus of $300 billion for the past 20 years. Now the U.S is taking that trade surplus away from China and giving it to the TPP members. The U.S will no longer have to be "afraid" that American companies have to rely on the huge Chinese consumer market, because TPP's members will be used to replace China instead.

TPP is a geopolitical pact of the 21st century to destroy Chinese economy. Once the TPP takes off, the U.S can put economic sanction on China like she does with Russia. When China can't export to the U.S, Chinese economy will tumble like the ruble in a matter of a few months. Think about hundred of millions of Chinese workers without job directly or indirectly as a result of factory not being able to SELL to the U.S. TPP's members will replace China as raw suppliers for the U.S and developed TPP members. TPP's members will replace China as the consumer market for the U.S companies.

China can't win in an economic war against the TPP. China will not find any economy in this world that will give China annual trade surplus of $300 billion like the U.S. I repeat again, China will not find any economy in this world that will give China annual trade surplus of $300 billion like the U.S.

TPP is not something that was created by Obama, Trump, or Clinton. No single person can do that. TPP was created by a bunch of behind the scene powerful figures that run the U.S that nobody knows about them. Even if Trump or Clinton don't like it, they will have to follow the order and implement it. Mark my words for it; TPP will be carried out in full swing after the next election.

 

[beijingwalker]

If TPP fails, China takes advantage
The slow-drag on the TPP is turning the attention of some in the region back to trade possibilities with China.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...ls-china-takes-advantage-160927111115555.html