If the shutdown lasts two more weeks, the cost to the economy will exceed price of Trump's wall

Rely? Like fall apart without government support?

 

A rise because the are moving to uncentralize the economy and moved to more open and free market capitalism.

You just named them as an example of successful central planning, you think they should go back to more central planning and get rid of the free market capitalistic reforms? What was better and more successful previously? How about North Korea which is still HEAVILY centrally planned?

 

How much of Wall Street is still viable ENTIRELY due to government support in 2008-2009 to undo their criminal stupidity? You seem to have an awfully short or selective memory.

 

You haven't read my posts. I've been saying this for 10 years. Does this qualify as a legitimate economy to you?

 

What? They have been a successful economy for 30 years. The first 15 were under a complete and utterly Central Plan. That was the first bit of the rise. Then in 93 they opened themselves up to some Market Reforms yet still kept State Run monopolies in a few industries, then in 05 they started back to a more Centrally Planned version under Xi. It wasn't until the Tariff war with the US that they have started to really falter.

http://scid.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/69wp.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20170818133405/https://asia.nikkei.com/print/article/287096
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...e-companies-are-getting-the-communist-9133736

How about it? They are also a dictatorship that doesn't allow any market (or heck, Any kind of) access, routinely punishes its people and has cut itself off from the outside world. Not exactly a great example.

I think your misunderstanding my position here. You asked for a successful, non-free market economy. China's first 15 years (before 1993) is an example of a successful, centrally planned economy (from a purely economical perspective). Now, the measure of success is debatable, but this is clear. I also am not supporting it, nor do I think it's something for any country to aspire too (as the success of such economies relies on the complete lack of any human rights, or individualism as it basically needs expendable drones (humans in this case) to do the heavy lifting and be ok with not sharing in any of that success.

Now, care to answer my question that you asked a question in answer to? Name a successful, legal, free market that has no Govt intervention or oversight.

 

They were starving their people because they could not feed them, the basically had no economy until they started to allow outside companies come in and mover to more open markets and capitalism. But hey if you want to declare the centralized government under the Chinese a success when it was purely centralized go ahead and your comments about economic systems will be judged accordingly.
Or else study up

How China went from communist to capitalist
Founded in 1949 as a hardline socialist country, the People's Republic of China has steadily embraced the tenets of capitalism, especially since economic reforms were enacted in 1978.

Today, China's economy is the second-largest in the world and will likely overtake the U.S. sometime this century.

Explore the following slideshow to learn how China has transformed itself into an economic powerhouse, and what it aspires to achieve in the future.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-went-from-communist-to-capitalist-2015-10

And then of course we can look to Venezuela to see what happens when you go the other way or is that another of your successful centrally planned economies?

 

Ok, I don't think your understanding where I'm coming from. I'm not 'defending' the concept of a centrally planned economy. You don't need to keep bringing up alternative places that some how defeats the original question. I'm not defending the barbaric practices that were necessary to bring them success. I also said that 'the metric of success isn't always the same for everyone'.

http://globalpoverty.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/69wp.pdf

You and I are in agreeance that the best economic model is a free(managed) market capitalism.

But that wasn't the question. The question was whether any Centrally Planned economy was successful. And the Chinese Govt that was centrally planned (using free market techniques implemented incrementally, to be sure, but still the primary overarching system was still centrally planned) between 1978-1993 fits this bill.

So, again, what free and legal market exists in a successful manner without Govt planning or Oversight?

 

So the people who do this for a living (border patrol officers) are wrong?

I was playing along with your analogy. How is Trump holding the government hostage any more than the Dems? How are the Dems trying to ''bring the kind home" any more than Trump? They're BOTH trying! You make it sound like Trump wants to keep the government shut down - well okay, but he wants it no more than the dems.

 

He absolutely does not want to open the government more than the Democrats. He says that out of work federal workers support him, that they are mostly Democrats, and his top staff have suggested that this is a vacation for them. He has rejected GOP lead efforts, Democrats led efforts, and bipartisan lead efforts to open the government. He has absolutely refused to budge one dollar from his demand and said his (acting) chief of staff was ****ing it all up by suggesting a compromise of less than 5.7 billion.

And no, they are not wrong. The wall does work in the limited areas where they are located and for limited periods of timrle.

But the border agents are myopic and beholden to trump, who controls their access to money, resources, and manpower. The improvement to security is also myopic because the 250 miles of wall does absolutely nothing to address illegals already in the country.

 

I wasn't suggesting that he wants to open the government more than the dems, but no more or no less.

Oh? Did the dems make an offer of a revised wall fund?

So then what's the problem?

Were they also myopic and beholden to Obama?

Who is saying that it does something to address illegals already in the country?

 

So then what's the problem?

 

It is an inefficient vanity project aimed at staving off impeachment as opposed to actually doing something productive about illegal immigration. It is opposed by a majority of voters who just elected a massive group of Democrats, in part, because of their opposition to this wall.

Also the government is being shut down by trump solely over a wall for which someone else was supposedly to pay.

 

I'm confused. Did you not say, "the wall does work?"

How is the government not EQUALLY being shut down by Shumer and Pelosi?

 

An inefficient solution can still work.

Trump claimed ownership of the shutdown. Trump rejected a democratic led proposal to open the government. Trump rejected a bipartisan plan to open the government. Trump rejected a Republican plan to open the government. Trump refuses to fund parts of the government wholly unrelated to the border. An overwhelming majority of Americans blame trump the most for the shutdown.

That's how.

 

How can a solution work if it is ineffective? You're just not making sense now.

What Republican plan to open the government are you talking about?

 

Ineffective and inefficient are two different words.

If I count 10 boxes of apples that each contain 10 apples one at a time, i will get the correct answer. It will take much longer than doing the simple multiplication, because it is inefficient.

https://www.postandcourier.com/poli...cle_7b82f3f4-180c-11e9-9dcd-47ca6878c1cf.html

 

Yeah, I totally messed that up! I read your use of "inefficient" as "ineffective."

This article refers to an interview with Graham on Fox News last Sunday, in which he said, "I would urge him to open up the government for a short period of time, like three weeks, before he pulls the plug, see if we can get a deal." Like you, the article also refers to this as a "proposal", but how in the hell is this a "proposal?"

 

No problem. I am sure that I have used the phrase " inefficient and ineffective" in reference to his wall, but the later is not probably not technically true.

And the proposal is, "Agree to a funding deal that opens the government at the agreed upon levels for three weeks and use that time frame to negotiate a border wall deal and reserve the right to declare a justified national emergency after the three weeks has elapsed."

 

Guess Pelosi and Schumer should have realized just detaining the 50,000+ trying to cross the border illegally every MONTH is costing us $2.6 million per day just to provide a bed, not including health care, food and an attorney for immigration court.

 

And once the tunnels are dug they can keep detaining that many.

 

What I mean is, where is the reporting on Graham proposing it? Google only returns results that Trump rejected it.

 

How is the solution "inefficient?"

 

Wish-casting.

SHE’S JUST A POOR GIRL FROM A POOR FAMILY:

A Virtue Signaling Nancy Pelosi Is STILL Receiving Pay When Federal Workers Aren’t, And Trump Wonders Why.

 

The Debt to GDP ratio is lower today than when Obama The Unfortunate left office.

 

Democrats represent Government and illegals, but they like illegals more than they like government workers.