Definitions, Progressive-Democrats, and Economics

Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for President, and mayor of South Bend, IN, Pete Buttigieg is an illustration of the Progressive-Democrat candidates’ lack of understanding of two of those three.

Proximately, he’s upset that President Donald Trump demurs from the socialist movement of Party and its cronies of the Left and Far Left; Buttigieg actually is insisting that

the word [socialism] doesn’t have the same negative connotations it did for past generations.

This is just an Alinsky-esque attempt to change the subject by falsely defining it.  Unfortunately, though, it’s clear (just consult any current English language dictionary*; apparently his grammar school lesson on how to use a dictionary was not a safe space for Buttigieg) that socialism remains government control of the means of production—of our economy.  And that’s exactly what he and his fellow candidates from Party are proposing: high taxes on those who produce; high taxes on the mere existence of wealth and success; nationalization, not just of the industry of health coverage plans but of the very provision of health; government control over our energy production; government control over our transportation means; and on and on.

Buttigieg also said

We are a market-based economy. You can’t kill off a discussion by calling it socialism.

On the other hand, you can kill off a market-based economy with socialism.

 

*Here’s the current American Heritage Dictionary‘s definition:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Here’s Merriam-Webster‘s definition:

1  : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2   a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

As Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit wrote in a different context,

For our system to work, however, we must share a common language. When the American people come to a consensus, there must be a way to reduce the agreement to words that we can all understand and accept—both today and in the years to come. We must have confidence that our words will be faithfully construed in the future, consistent with our common understanding.

Surely, Buttigieg and his fellows know this.

Demographics and Retirement in the PRC

The People’s Republic of China is facing an increasingly serious demographic problem.

New data show the reversal [in the one-child policy] isn’t having the anticipated impact. The number of newborns in China dropped to 15.23 million in 2018, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. That’s two million less than 2017 and 30% below the median official forecast of more than 21 million.

This has serious implications for, among other things, the PRC’s old-age pension and medical care capacity (eliding the impact on the PRC’s ability to man an armed forces establishment of the size it currently has).

By 2050, there will be 1.3 workers for each retiree, according to official estimates, compared with 2.8 now.

Most of these retirement programs are funded by local jurisdictions, rather than from the center, and most of those jurisdictions’ facilities are badly underfunded and getting more so (sound familiar?).  As a result, the PRC is trying to increase national control of those retirement facilities and to increase the bite on businesses to pony up more for the programs.  That last, especially, has its own problems.

Huang Weibin, the general manager of a property-management firm in Guangdong province, said higher pension costs mean his business will suffer a loss this year, likely forcing him to lay off some of his 80 employees.
“If the government doesn’t help us out with subsidies or tax breaks, we will go broke for sure,” he said.

He and the PRC government need only consult with that famous American economist and blogger, David Roberts:

If the question is what the [PRC] can afford…, the way to think about it is not in terms of how much money the country has. It literally has as much money as it wants. It prints its own money!

Problem solved.  Or maybe not.