A Sleeping Giant Awakens

China does import commodities and natural resources, such as oil and iron ore, as well as advanced semiconductors that it hasn't figured out how to engineer. But China's dominance in manufacturing and exports cannot be overstated.

Take automobiles, the anchor of so many industrialized countries' manufacturing sectors for the past century. Around 20 years ago, China was a nonfactor in automaking. By 2018, it had the capacity to produce 40 million gasoline-powered cars per year, far more than the 25 million its economy needed. Since then, it has added, thanks in part to substantial government subsidies for the industry, the capacity to make 20 million electric vehicles annually, a number that may soon rise to 30 million. Annual global automotive demand is 90 million cars; China has the capacity to produce around two-thirds of that.

This pattern is replicated in sector after sector. China routinely produces more than half of the global supply of steel, more than half of the world's aluminum and more than half of the world's ships. In clean technology sectors such as solar cells and batteries, China can produce many multiples of current global demand, and there are fears that it could replicate these successes in memory and automotive chips. What's more, China has partly made up for the fall in domestic steel demand (caused by the housing implosion) by subsidizing the building and equipping of new factories that use domestic steel in churning out yet more manufactured exports for overseas markets.

All told, Chinese export volume is growing three times as fast as global trade. This means China's success is directly coming at the expense of manufacturers in other countries, which increasingly cannot compete and face pressure to abandon sectors that China targets. With China's real estate market still in the doldrums, the pattern shows no signs of changing. This points to a world economy in which China has no need for the industrial inputs of other countries while leaving those countries dependent on Chinese-made goods — and vulnerable to Beijing's political and economic pressure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/opinion/china-xi-jinping-trade-manufacturing-tariffs.html

Milton Friedman - The Robber Baron Myth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

I found this text on Facebook that I wrote 9 years ago:

I've been asked to share my opinion on how the government should handle monopolies.

Before addressing the issue of monopolies, I want to discuss core beliefs. But before that, I have a question to ask.

By my calculation, government spending in 2015 was about 37.5% of GDP. In recent years, this figure has been closer to 40%. The real number is worse because all government spending is included in the GDP calculation. So my question is: At what point would government spending have to rise before those on the left would say, "Enough is enough"? Would it be at 50% of GDP? How about 60% or 70%? The same question applies to taxation—would a 90% tax rate be considered fair?

I could make a similar argument about immigration. I genuinely believe that hundreds of millions of people would come here if they could, so we must set some reasonable limit.

I ask these questions because there doesn't seem to be any clear limit on how much some people are willing to expand government spending or increase government control over our lives.

If we look at two extreme forms of government—on one end, countries where the government controls 100% of GDP, such as the former USSR or North Korea, and on the other, places that have temporarily had little to no government, resulting in chaos—we see that neither extreme works well. However, as we move away from these extremes, conditions improve. That improvement happens more quickly at the lower end of government spending than at the higher end. Studies suggest that GDP growth tends to peak when government spending is around 20–25% of GDP, though some argue that because we lack examples of governments spending less than 20%, lower spending might be even better.

For this reason, I believe that minimizing government leads to greater prosperity, less poverty, and even reduced wealth disparity.

The Libertarian principle states that everyone has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. This includes the right to own property, engage in business, and make decisions without unnecessary government interference. If Walmart is one of the richest companies in the world, it is because people choose to shop and work there.

The issue of monopolies is so insignificant that I'm surprised it still comes up. I've debated this topic for decades. At one time, people claimed that Netscape had a monopoly on internet browsers, Microsoft had a monopoly on operating systems, and Lotus had a monopoly on spreadsheets. Yet, all of these have changed.

OPEC once appeared to have a monopoly on oil production, but that, too, has shifted.

Historically, monopolies have often been created by governments. Centuries ago, governments granted individuals exclusive rights to specific businesses and markets. More recently, government-created monopolies existed in industries such as telecommunications, and even today, many utility companies still operate as monopolies. Often, government regulations are used to prevent competition, with industries sometimes lobbying for these regulations to maintain their dominance.

In a free market, as a business begins to dominate a sector, it becomes more profitable, which naturally attracts competition. Even the mere threat of competition can keep businesses in check. For example, we've long known that artificial fuels can be produced for about $5.50 per gallon. OPEC has openly stated that they price oil at a level that keeps alternative fuels unprofitable.

There are many myths about monopolies in the late 19th century. In reality, this period saw some of the greatest economic growth in American history.

Is The Penny *Finally* Dead?

In my childhood, you could buy candy with one-cent coins, but by the early 1980s, you couldn't buy anything with them. Since everyone used cash in those days, I found the coin annoying.  I called the penny pocket-lint.  In 1982, I wanted the government to get rid of them.  Since then, the value of money has dropped by 2/3, making the one-cent coin even more worthless.

If we got rid of pennies, sales tax rates would have to be rounded to the nearest nickel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1KgxqEQn0A

DOGE

https://www.youtube.com/live/RcbHMKErAEk?t=1147s

Tariffs will be Trump's Downfall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQt0hlTbK4

I watched this video last night.  The original title was, "Tariffs will be Trump's Downfall."   I think this depends on how Trump uses the tariffs.

Video creators often start with a click-bait title and change it later, or they change the title because they aren't getting the views they hoped for.

I don't understand this idea of "returning control of the monetary system to the American people.' The Constitution gives Congress the power to create money. If we hypothetically turned this over to the banks, it would just result in a different concentration of power. We already see that with the Federal Reserve System and central banks around the world.

Fwd: $1 billion saved on DEI contracts

Musk rips 'fraudulent' Treasury payments as reports mount DOGE has access to federal payment system | Fox News