Chinese communists have no choice but to veer away from free enterprise. But we do. (China can not turn back. No leader in China can change course now_.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/chinese-communists-have-no-choice-but-to-veer-away-from-free-enterprise-but-we-do/ar-AAOM9t6?ocid=msedgntp

On 25/9/2021 1:30 am, Rusty Wyse wrote:
> Chinese communists have no choice but to veer away from free enterprise. But we do. (China can not turn back. No leader in China can change course now_.)
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/chinese-communists-have-no-choice-but-to-veer-away-from-free-enterprise-but-we-do/ar-AAOM9t6?ocid=msedgntp
>

It is not veer away from free enterprise, but rather to free up market
monopolies and prevent market controlling and enterprise buyouts of new
startups.

To also manage and even out powerful manipulative conglomerate
enterprises from battling down small and medium enterprises.

This so that more entry entrepreneurs can be created that will not be
readily eaten up or easily folded up by dominant conglomerates, due to
market entry bullying like not selling parts or things to them,
deterring market entry and competition,

Also, deterring the small and medium enterprises from high barrier of
entry costs making start up costs immeasurably heavy and costly to
succeed and costly when failed.

In short, it is to prevent market dominance of many big corporations
from making huge profits from their power of money dominance. It is to
create more choices and more competitions, and more entrepreneurs and
more bread and butter businesses to consumers.

Such market revenue monopoly and market product dominant, bullies to
startups, are similar to what is currently happening in the US.

Such happening is what the US congress is going to pass laws into taking
and breaking up action to curb market dominant companies, product
bullies, restrictive market channel.

Arisen from these, billions of dollars of revenues were enriched from
them by dominant enterprises and companies such as, I-phone, Google,
Microsoft, Oracle, and many more corporations.

Also, EU are afoot in bringing these companies down in EU turning them
down into many companies at competitive level entry market enterprises,
so that consumers are not at the mercy by them.

Even the jack on the phone is not allowed to be allowed to be different
from other common jacks used by other phone makers. I-phone may have to
change it with two ears if and when EU passed resolutions on it.

I-phone has accumulated cash reserves of 3/4 of a trillion US dollars
from sales of I -phones and sales of non-interchangeable accessories
only for used on I-phone only.

In short, China is doing a good thing to consumers and entrepreneurs,
and small and medium enterprises, and peers. The ultimate is to prevent
them from bending and kneeing down to them instead.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 9:17:35 AM UTC, bondi wrote:
> On 25/9/2021 1:30 am, Rusty Wyse wrote:
> > Chinese communists have no choice but to veer away from free enterprise. But we do. (China can not turn back. No leader in China can change course now_.)
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/chinese-communists-have-no-choice-but-to-veer-away-from-free-enterprise-but-we-do/ar-AAOM9t6?ocid=msedgntp
> >
> It is not veer away from free enterprise, but rather to free up market
> monopolies and prevent market controlling and enterprise buyouts of new
> startups.
>
> To also manage and even out powerful manipulative conglomerate
> enterprises from battling down small and medium enterprises.

Right on.
China is more democratic than the US. Chinese government has the freedom
and chooses to satisfy the people's needs and desires. In contrast, US government
has its hands tied. The US is an Inverted Totalitarianism.

In short, the US government serves the interest of the property class. Thomas
Jefferson's famous words are "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Liberty, since
the founding fathers, is a matter of property. More property entails more liberty such as
the liberty to donate large sums to political candidates from whom super-wealthy donors
could receive favorable government policies in return. Good for the very wealthy. Bad for
rest of the society.
>
> This so that more entry entrepreneurs can be created that will not be
> readily eaten up or easily folded up by dominant conglomerates, due to
> market entry bullying like not selling parts or things to them,
> deterring market entry and competition,
>
> Also, deterring the small and medium enterprises from high barrier of
> entry costs making start up costs immeasurably heavy and costly to
> succeed and costly when failed.
>
> In short, it is to prevent market dominance of many big corporations
> from making huge profits from their power of money dominance. It is to
> create more choices and more competitions, and more entrepreneurs and
> more bread and butter businesses to consumers.
>
> Such market revenue monopoly and market product dominant, bullies to
> startups, are similar to what is currently happening in the US.
>
> Such happening is what the US congress is going to pass laws into taking
> and breaking up action to curb market dominant companies, product
> bullies, restrictive market channel.
>
> Arisen from these, billions of dollars of revenues were enriched from
> them by dominant enterprises and companies such as, I-phone, Google,
> Microsoft, Oracle, and many more corporations.
>
> Also, EU are afoot in bringing these companies down in EU turning them
> down into many companies at competitive level entry market enterprises,
> so that consumers are not at the mercy by them.
>
> Even the jack on the phone is not allowed to be allowed to be different
> from other common jacks used by other phone makers. I-phone may have to
> change it with two ears if and when EU passed resolutions on it.
>
> I-phone has accumulated cash reserves of 3/4 of a trillion US dollars
> from sales of I -phones and sales of non-interchangeable accessories
> only for used on I-phone only.
>
> In short, China is doing a good thing to consumers and entrepreneurs,
> and small and medium enterprises, and peers. The ultimate is to prevent
> them from bending and kneeing down to them instead.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 9:17:35 AM UTC, bondi wrote:
> > On 25/9/2021 1:30 am, Rusty Wyse wrote:
> > > Chinese communists have no choice but to veer away from free enterprise. But we do. (China can not turn back. No leader in China can change course now_.)
> > >
> > > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/chinese-communists-have-no-choice-but-to-veer-away-from-free-enterprise-but-we-do/ar-AAOM9t6?ocid=msedgntp
> > >
> > It is not veer away from free enterprise, but rather to free up market
> > monopolies and prevent market controlling and enterprise buyouts of new
> > startups.
> >
> > To also manage and even out powerful manipulative conglomerate
> > enterprises from battling down small and medium enterprises.
> Right on.

> China is more democratic than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

> Chinese government has the freedom
> and chooses to satisfy the people's needs and desires. In contrast, US government
> has its hands tied. The US is an Inverted Totalitarianism.
>
> In short, the US government serves the interest of the property class. Thomas
> Jefferson's famous words are "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Liberty, since
> the founding fathers, is a matter of property. More property entails more liberty such as
> the liberty to donate large sums to political candidates from whom super-wealthy donors
> could receive favorable government policies in return. Good for the very wealthy. Bad for
> rest of the society.
> >
> > This so that more entry entrepreneurs can be created that will not be
> > readily eaten up or easily folded up by dominant conglomerates, due to
> > market entry bullying like not selling parts or things to them,
> > deterring market entry and competition,
> >
> > Also, deterring the small and medium enterprises from high barrier of
> > entry costs making start up costs immeasurably heavy and costly to
> > succeed and costly when failed.
> >
> > In short, it is to prevent market dominance of many big corporations
> > from making huge profits from their power of money dominance. It is to
> > create more choices and more competitions, and more entrepreneurs and
> > more bread and butter businesses to consumers.
> >
> > Such market revenue monopoly and market product dominant, bullies to
> > startups, are similar to what is currently happening in the US.
> >
> > Such happening is what the US congress is going to pass laws into taking
> > and breaking up action to curb market dominant companies, product
> > bullies, restrictive market channel.
> >
> > Arisen from these, billions of dollars of revenues were enriched from
> > them by dominant enterprises and companies such as, I-phone, Google,
> > Microsoft, Oracle, and many more corporations.
> >
> > Also, EU are afoot in bringing these companies down in EU turning them
> > down into many companies at competitive level entry market enterprises,
> > so that consumers are not at the mercy by them.
> >
> > Even the jack on the phone is not allowed to be allowed to be different
> > from other common jacks used by other phone makers. I-phone may have to
> > change it with two ears if and when EU passed resolutions on it.
> >
> > I-phone has accumulated cash reserves of 3/4 of a trillion US dollars
> > from sales of I -phones and sales of non-interchangeable accessories
> > only for used on I-phone only.
> >
> > In short, China is doing a good thing to consumers and entrepreneurs,
> > and small and medium enterprises, and peers. The ultimate is to prevent
> > them from bending and kneeing down to them instead.