- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,095
- Reactions
- 12,692
Any ideas why China a basically, authoritarian communist country is now the richest country in the world, and the paragon of capitalism the US is declining?
Anyway, I think you guys need a bit more Adam Smith in your life, so I will leave this here.
Because America is more communist than China , and China a model of raw capitalism in many areasAny ideas why China a basically, authoritarian communist country is now the richest country in the world, and the paragon of capitalism the US is declining?
maybe a very sad , twisted joke .. but yes i agree on the sentimentMaybe it does not make sense to build cars, but the fact we struggle to move up the vaule chain, at all, is a joke.
yes because the US and EU are run by greedy kleptocrats ( not statesmen/women )Any ideas why China a basically, authoritarian communist country is now the richest country in the world, and the paragon of capitalism the US is declining?
no , but a former co-worker went there for several extended trips ( to handle family affairs )You haven't been to India, have you?
Amen , Bro .Fortunately no.
China has gotten richer as they have taken on more capitalist principles, they have not gotten wealthy by being communist.Any ideas why China a basically, authoritarian communist country is now the richest country in the world, and the paragon of capitalism the US is declining?
The Chinese government owns about 25% of their economy, most in strategic industries like energy.China has gotten richer as they have taken on more capitalist principles, they have not gotten wealthy by being communist.
The USA is not really in decline, they could do a much better job and spreading the spoils of their productivity around though, eg bring in universal healthcare for instance.
I am the first one to admit the USA has a lot of problems, they don’t stem from basic capitalism though, they stem from a whole host of other political and religious ideologies.
1. The australian government owns about 30% of every single company in Australia, of course we don’t issue the government a share certificate, they just take 30% of the profits through company tax. The Chinese government owning part of big businesses is kinda of the same thing. But, where the Chinese government invests into business it’s still using capitalist principles.1. The Chinese government owns about 25% of their economy, most in strategic industries like energy.
2. I would like to find someone who thinks privatisation of energy in Australia was a good idea (for consumers that is not investors). Prices have just gone up and up and that affects our business and industry competitiveness as well as households.
US, much bigger market and more room for competition, so no real comparison.1. The australian government owns about 30% of every single company in Australia, of course we don’t issue the government a share certificate, they just take 30% of the profits through company tax. The Chinese government owning part of big businesses is kinda of the same thing. But, where the Chinese government invests into business it’s still using capitalist principles.
2. I think prices would have gone up either way, if the government hung on to the assets prices would have gone up still, whether that was on the bills or hidden in government losses and tax payer funding.
Some of the cheapest power grids in the USA are private.
1. US, much bigger market and more room for competition, so no real comparison.
I thought that you had enough of this thread. LOL.
And he's a great investor? Haha.Warren Buffett’s own office pays double the amount for its electricity that it buys from the state than he sells to his customers about 5 kilometres away from his office on the other side of the river.
Are you suggesting he move across the river to save money on his electric bill? That’s not the type of guy he is. His office is 5 mins from his house he has lived in for 70 years, I doubt he would commit to tripling his commute time to the office just to save on the electric bill, especially when his 24 person office probably uses hardly any electricity.And he's a great investor? Haha.
I just realised you might have misunderstood what I said.And he's a great investor? Haha.
OK, so what produces the expensive power and what produces the cheap power?I just realised you might have misunderstood what I said.
He isn’t buying expensive electricity and selling it at a loss.
He owns the grid and generation assets in Iowa, and sells the power to customers in Iowa for half the price that the government owned utility across the river in Omaha sells that it generates for its customers.
Warrens office is in Omaha, where the power is supplied by the state, so his power he consumes at his office is expensive.
But, across the river from his office the grid is privately owned by him, and the power is cheaper there.
Yes so the expensive power is coal and nuclear, but it’s not just the generation that makes it expensive, it’s the inefficient state ownership model.OK, so what produces the expensive power and what produces the cheap power?
Omaha, , coal, nuclear
Iowa, wind(60%), gas, coal, hydro.
An indication for us if we go down a certain p at.
Not necessarily. When Australian Srates each owned their power networks they made power as cheap as possible to attract business and industry to their Srate.Yes so the expensive power is coal and nuclear, but it’s not just the generation that makes it expensive, it’s the inefficient state ownership model.
Srate = State, sorry about that.Not necessarily. When Australian Srates each owned their power networks they made power as cheap as possible to attract business and industry to their Srate.
Under private ownership there is no such incentive and its cost plus profit.
Power prices started to rise almost immediately the networks were sold.
The states sold their power systems because they had run them into the ground, and they required large capital outlays to meet the forecast growth.Not necessarily. When Australian Srates each owned their power networks they made power as cheap as possible to attract business and industry to their Srate.
Under private ownership there is no such incentive and its cost plus profit.
Power prices started to rise almost immediately the networks were sold.
ah yes i remember , and took great delight ridiculing the state for that ( and selling candles at a nice return .. as a side hustle )The states sold their power systems because they had run them into the ground, and they required large capital outlays to meet the forecast growth.
The state owned networks are a cost plus profit model two, if they make less than their costs the either go bankrupt or need tax payer subsidies, and they get their capital from issuing government debt which requires interest payments/profits to the investors providing the debt.
So either way this capital outlays would have had to happen, which either would have raised costs, or raised government debt.
When I grew up in Brisbane, black outs were a regular thing, even though Queensland kept control of their grid they relied on private investment to add the capacity to keep the lights on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?