Youtube comments of Fredinno (@innosam123).
-
6200
-
3700
-
3000
-
1200
-
868
-
472
-
436
-
357
-
301
-
278
-
228
-
201
-
183
-
179
-
171
-
170
-
166
-
148
-
145
-
140
-
137
-
118
-
117
-
Why is it that every timeline that Germany is on the losing side of WW2 does Germany end up with the Oder-Neisse borders? They don’t make sense for anyone unless you’re Stalin and deliberately trying to move Poland and Germany as far away from you as possible and have no problem with forced expulsions and genocide.
Though this is kind of a minor gripe as well, it seems unlikely Romania and Bulgaria would still surrender to the Soviets, since the Allies could easily capture Adrianopole and move north- and neither wanted to be under Soviet domination.
Hungary might become a Soviet puppet if Operation Margarethe still works out, but with the allies closer and Soviets farther, that seems to be more a toss-up. Bohemia was also mostly unoccupied when the war ended and isn’t the easiest part of Europe to invade, so unless it’s specifically doled out to the Soviets, it would also likely go to the West.
Basically, the Warsaw Pact wouldn’t exist.
Would Morocco and Tunisia remain French? Also, Algeria kind of means there’d be a lot more Arabs in France. So you could end up with the awkward situation where there are more Muslims in France than Catholics. France doesn’t have the demographics to assimilate Algeria without it also going a lot the other way around.
Though, overall, pretty good video. I went into this thinking that nothing would change because the Axis would mop up the weak forces left in Algeria, but then I remembered- this is Benito we’re talking about here.
115
-
109
-
107
-
106
-
105
-
103
-
95
-
95
-
90
-
72
-
72
-
70
-
69
-
68
-
62
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
35
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
TBH, a Depression is not likely.
You showed the Debt-to-GDP ratio as a a supporting factor in your argument- but it’s only a meaningful number if you include private as well as public debt to GDP. Private debt to GDP in the developed world has fallen since 2008, resulting in overall stagnation or decline in total debt-to-GDP.
Economists generally agree that public debt is less of an issue than private debt due to the fact they can just print money (which has issues, but not as bad as private sector defaults.) There is a reason Japan has such a high government debt-to-GDP and is still a stable, functioning economy.
Worst case scenario is stagflation.
Second, despite the arguments from Austrian economists, there has not been a single economic depression since 1946 (COVID was artificial, and cheating- if I included it, I would also have to include the similar 1920 depression.)
Meanwhile, from 1830-1930, there were 3 depressions.
Arguably, without interventionism, there would have been 2 more depressions- the late 1970s, and 2008.
No inflation… and worse economic performance.
Global currencies have always been maintained by the geopolitical and commercial strength of the nations backing it. Britain was not the only nation with currencies backed by Gold. Its decline coincides almost perfectly with its decline as a superpower.
Has it been abused? Yes.
So did Britain.
That’s just how it works. Countries use their power for good and evil.
Is it right? Arguably no, but that’s not the point.
This is the same “guilt” you’ve criticized the modern left for.
—-
Note also that the current bout of inflation is also accompanied by reindustrialization and economic growth in North America.
No matter how badly Biden tries to fuck it up.
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@user-ym1bs7om9e Look at any map of the Pacific Front in WW2, and overlay it onto a map of the important parts of China.
https://youtu.be/tS-BWXfFkVY
The Japanese conquered almost all of the important and valuable lands in China (with the exception of Sichuan). The issue for the Japanese is that the war became a war of attrition, less because the Japanese couldn’t beat them (half of the army was being stationed in Manchuria to protect against the Soviet Union, which was busy elsewhere) but because they knew there was no point.
The Japanese, for all practical purposes, had already ‘won’ after the initial invasion (as in, they got most of what they wanted). It didn’t matter, and dumping more troops into the Chinese meat grinder made no sense. Especially since they were literally months from running out of oil and they needed more ASAP. Especially once they were getting pummelled by the Americans.
It’s similar to the Americans in Vietnam. The Americans were winning, but external factors unrelated to the battles themselves resulted in an American defeat. The Americans rejected sending more troops even before the Tet Offensive, because it would have been pointless. It was a war of endurance, not military strength.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Wouldn’t Oman, Aden, Somaliland, Burma, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Malawi, Solomon Is., Fiji, and the UAE still be under British Influence?
They also got Libya and Italian Somalia from Italy after WW2.
I guess Malta and Cyprus would be larger Gibralatars?
Wouldn’t the Hong Kong accession cause problems for the Imperial Federation?
Also, Botswana had a significant White population...
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Peter Zeihan says hi.
...
OK, no, but seriously, you should probably watch his stuff.
This is a pretty interesting perspective though. I skimmed parts of it, but I've wanted to add my take as well, so here we go:
I have studied China a lot:
I would point out that Land-based trade orders are inherently inferior to sea-based ones in terms of cost of trade, and if the US was to blockade China, even if everything worked out well with the Belt and Road, it would still be a massive blow to Chinese manufacturing and trade.
China is not the only cheap manufacturer, and it's not really especially good at high-end manufacturing (assuming the trade war doesn't kill that option in its cradle).
China has also relied on the Belt and Road to prop up its 'Rust Belt' Northeast, which WILL inevitably decline even further eventually- and it will have the same problems as the American Rust Belt.
Debt has also increased to levels at or exceeding the US in relative terms, assuming you choose to take Chinese data at face value. That's not encouraging for a developing economy.
China may become a global power. But my worry is that Xi knows that the Chinese have already squandered its opportunity to be one, or are losing their chance as the world turns against them, their population ages, and their debt turns bad. Desperate people will do desperate things. Like invade Taiwan or India.
In other words, the issue isn't that China is going to overtake the US. It's that China wants to- and is losing its chance.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Gao XiangShuai Dude, just because EVERY foreign ethnic group that lives in China isn’t revolting is a stupid argument to make. The Koreans don’t revolt because they’re more closely tied to Chinese culture than the ‘problematic’ ethnic groups, which is the problem.
Mind you, Xi is also trying to sinicize the Hui by forcing them to give up Islam.
However, historically, China has given the Hui and Koreans more freedom to do what they want. Considering that’s changing for the Hui, don’t be surprised if the Hui suddenly decide to become ‘problematic’. People don’t want their own country if they get what they want under the nation’s banner (in this case, freedom of culture and religion). Big shocker, I know.
China never gave any of the Mongolians, Uygurs, or Tibetans a choice or vote to stay. Stop attaching moral equivalence to the West.
The US Civil War was fought over Slavery. The war also did not start until the confederates decided to attack US federal property, which was definitely illegal, even if the constitution allowed for separation of states and self-determination- Federal property is in a state, but it does not belong to the state.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
LOL Diamond 101 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
“Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]”
Mercantilism can exist in a capitalistic system- in fact most countries are mercantilistic to varying degrees. Rome definitely had everything in the definition (at least before the Crisis of the 3rd Century).
https://www.mikeanderson.biz/2009/02/capitalism-in-roman-republic.html
“As Rome grew the demand for business grew, but the nobility considered merchant activities off limits for them – it lacked dignitas. Since there was no government administration the Senate looked to the Knights to handle the business of the Republic. The first of these “businessmen” were called Publicans. They were employed by the state to manage public contracts: to collect taxes, manage mining companies, and oversee road construction. These contracts were awarded at auction and their duration was five years.
During the Punic Wars Publicans built ships for the Roman Navy and equiped the Roman Army. The nobility began to covert the profits of the Knights and become involved in sea trade, until a law was passed in 218 BC forbidding Senators from owning ships with a larger capacity of more than 300 amphorae (1 amp= 6 gal). In 215 three Publican contractors were censured because they provided financing to Spanish tribes (the enemy). They scuttled their ships and sued the Republic for reimbursement for the loss.
The Senate chose to utilize the Knights commercially, instead of creating a civil service, and disregarded their political claims. But the power of the Knights grew and they were able to exert great influence as a class. In 169 BC the censor Tiberius Gracchus cancelled all Publican contracts because of corruption, but the Knights rebelled and accused him of treason against the state. Tiberius was acquited, but the Knights has flexed their muscles.
By the fall of the Republic there were hundreds of corporations selling shares to investors. Manufacturing and trades flourished: including furniture making, leatherwork, weaving, metalworking, stoneworking, and food processing.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYruhJb8e0
Shows Rome had a primitive banking system.
Also, Denmark has a tax to GDP ratio of 45%. Any more, and they’d actually be losing money due to the Laffer Curve. Ancient Rome? 3% wealth tax, plus a 2.5% customs tax (and other taxes, but none were higher than single digits %). They were practically Reaganistic in tax policy.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
4:00 Eh, not sure.
McArthur was correct in viewing China and the USSR as only weak allies. North Korea wasn’t that important to the USSR, and they offered a lot less direct support than one would imagine to the North Koreans.
Stalin was paranoid, but also kind of a dick. He wasn’t Trotsky. The USSR had supported the Kuomintang for longer than they’d supported Mao, and saddled the CCP with huge debts for their ‘assistance’. Which was one of the reasons for the Great Leap Forwards.
When Mao didn’t blame the disaster on natural disaster, he blamed it on the debts the USSR forced on them.
Also, the USSR and CCP almost went to nuclear war THEMSELVES a few decades later.
Also, Mcarthur was only planning on nuking the border of North Korea as a tactical nuclear weapon.
Also, Stalin was planning on invading Yugoslavia first, before the West, from what I’m aware.
Made a lot of sense, it shortens the line in Europe enormously.
Which would have ended about as well as Afghanistan did for the Soviets, because Tito was the one dude who could have pulled something like that off.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Too soon. But in any case, if AIG, GE Financial, and Bear Sterns failed, the financial system would be in deep shit. The Collapse of Lehman Bros triggered a major recession, and forced Congress to pass TARP in desperation. Iceland is a pretty good analogue to what might happen; the banking sector imploded, causing its investors to lose all their money.
The difference is that the USA is a much bigger beast- its financial system is the largest in the world, and the British financial system, the next largest, wasn't in a good position either.
Thus, the domino effect of people selling and pulling their investments would continue to spiral into a depression-level scenario. The Bailouts stopped that process, at the cost of hundreds of billions of taxpayer $.
The US government would spend hundreds of billions more attempting to stimulate the economy via stimulus in a worse Great Recession, though, so I don't think it saves much money.
Not much knowledge outside the USA though, but the EU and China also suffered horribly in the Great Recession, the former caused the EU to begin fracturing, and the latter caused the most civil unrest in China since Tiahmen Square due to the mass layoffs that followed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@advisorynotice But it was Russia that held the Germans off in the critical years of 1941-1943. Proportionally, Ukraine lost the most, but mostly because it was occupied by the Germans and a battleground in the East for half of the war. The situation simply isn’t comparable.
Russia (not really Central Asia - even Kazakhstan was more agricultural than the Slavic parts of the Soviet Union) had to pick up the pieces after losing Belarus, the Baltics, and Ukraine. At the time, that was over 1/3rd of the Russian economy.
Also, Kazakhs ended up becoming a minority in their own country as a result of the push of industry and agriculture to the region. The people actually working in the factories sent East were Russians, not Kazakhs. And of those, most of the industry went to the Russian-dominated North Kazakhstan, not the Turkic South.
Lend Lease played a huge role- but it were not Americans pushing the Germans out of Kursk. Even if you assume offensive operations would have been impossible without lend-lease due to a lack of trucks, aviation fuel, and ammo, in 1943, 4/5ths of all German divisions were in the East. Only in 1944 did the Western Front become a serious priority in terms of numbers for the Germans- and the most elite formations were also in the East.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ryankuypers1819 Note that only Corporate and Govnt. debt are elevated above 2008 levels to GDP. Household Debt, for example, has remained below 80% of GDP since 08, including during COVID.
Corporate Debt to GDP spiked during COVID, and is not back to 2008 (and Y2K bust) levels.
Also, last quarter GDP fell by 0.9%, lower than the 1.6% drop in Q1. This is comparable to the trajectory of the US economy during the dot-com bust, which was a ‘soft landing recession, with the US economy only shrinking around 1% quarterly.
GDP may drop below the 1% quarterly level, but only if the Fed raises rates faster than the market has in its forecast.
Aka. A recession beyond that caused by inflation and rate increases may occur, but will likely not be disastrous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cwx8 Should I call the, “Indians?” BC is weird in NA. It’s the only place other than Latin America where the Natives are the ethnic majority in much of the rural countryside. In terms of total population, Whites and Asians dominate, but most of them live in the cities or smaller towns. Also, no treaty like the numbered treaties were ever signed.
Hence, building a pipeline in undeveloped BC is…problematic.
Kitimat is also at the end of a long, winding inlet that is a magnet for ship crashes. This is why Prince Rupert became the primary port in the area, despite being further away- it’s safer (in theory, though many ships still use the inlets (eg. Gardner Canal) to get to Prince Rupert from the South, like passenger ships, mostly because this protects them from the waves. Oil and Gas tankers would go straight out to sea though, so this is a moot point.)
Many pipeline companies have decided to build to Kitimat because it’s the shortest (ie. cheapest) route to the sea from the oil and gas fields in Northern BC and Alberta (also, land is cheaper than in the Lower Mainland, lowering construction costs.)
It has been proven that’s probably a stupid-ass plan with CGL, even if they get government support (the Natives are actively destroying construction.) The Fortis BC Delta LNG port expansion will process comparable additional amounts of LNG to CGL, and has gone comparatively smoothly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@motherlandbot6837 “Vassals” whose payment basically consists of military bases and tribute payment for them in the form of foreign policy alignment and trade deals, in exchange for being protected by the biggest military in the world and having market access to the largest economy in the world.
Yes, by a certain given definition of vassal, yes. But very loose vassals. More like the old Chinese Tributary system- except again, there is an actual guarantee of protection (which the Chinese never gave to its tributes.)
People are saying China won’t become the next superpower because of demographics because the one nation that has hit the demographic cliff is Japan, which people also believed would become a superpower.
Europe is also hitting a demographic cliff, and is part of the reason it has become a complete nightmare with slow growth (especially in the periphery).
But more to the point, any nation with a massive retiree population has to spend money on retirees that they can’t spend anywhere else. China has a probable birth rate near 1-1.2, which is amongst the lowest in the world due to the one-child policy.
And China’s economy is horrifically dependant on investment (look up % of GDP by composition), causing the debt rate and real estate prices to spiral out of control (if you think prices in San Fran or Vancouver are bad, remember the price- to wages ratio is similar- but averaged across the entire country - Good luck getting an apartment in Beijing) and MUST run out of steam because their population is already mostly urbanized (60%, vs US 80%)- and the law of diminishing returns applies.
Also, if you want another reason, it’s because people don’t WANT a Chinese- dominated world. Ask India or Japan or Vietnam. For several reasons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@harshjain3122 Thanks.
1. I don’t doubt the US could keep forces in the Middle East if they wanted to- the issue is that there’s no obvious reason to.
Afghanistan survived so so long because it was a base against the terrorist-infested region. Arguably, the garrison (which was indeed a garrison, it was well below 10,000 men even before peace negotiations began, which is the size of a large US garrison, like Thule) was useful enough to keep, but… too late now.
Oil is not a good reason to now either.
The US also never was very involved in Africa.
The thing is that it probably won’t matter until as such Turkey or Iran start to become major powers, or India becomes a larger threat than China. The only other theoretical currency competitor is crypto, and it won’t matter if it is forced to go underground because every major economy put massive restrictions on it.
Gold has existed as an option since Nixon went off the Gold Standard. If people wanted to trade solely in Gold, they’ve had almost 50 years to do so.
Yuan… That’s like going from fighting a bear to taking a dunk in lava. Getting money into China is easy. Getting money out of China… is harder. Especially nowadays.
2. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/manufacturing-production
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/manufacturing-pmi
Note the comparison between 2008, 2000, and today. This is despite inflation panic and mass supply shortages.
Most stuff that made sense to outsource (textiles, etc.) were already outsourced long ago.
Also, the decline of US manufacturing accelerated enormously after 2001…at the same time China joined the WTO. This appears to be unique to China, as things like NAFTA (1994) have little correlation with a sustained pattern of decline. This is consistent with many studies on the subject-China is infamous for effectively product dumping things like steel (which makes no sense to outsource, it’s heavy AF and low value/ton) onto the global market.
The reversal should reverse the previous trend…in theory.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jackson Wu Well, people could conceivably hire more landscapers to take care of their yards, considering that’s not that common.
You could make the same argument with other sectors. How much food do people really need?
Who is mandating these jobs? Why are they being paid when they’re unproductive?
Now, *mind you*, there are definitely cases where this does happen, or people are made to work longer than they should or need to because it seems it would improve profits when it doesn’t. This isn’t a stable state though, and eventually changes because the market self-corrects because people find out those positions aren’t needed or hours can be reduced without losing production. (see: Adoption of 4-Day workweek)
But for the most part, if you’re able to find someone to pay for something, it may be useless from a certain perspective, but it’s probably not, because people are clearly *paying for it*, because they want it. For example, Christmas trees are kind of useless from a practical perspective, but it’s a Billion-Dollar Industry. Most supplements and beauty products are useless. And yet people pay for that shit. A lot.
Nothing is useless from an economic perspective if there is organic demand for it. Jobs are not ‘made up’ for no reason. They are satisfying actual demand. If I could get people to buy trash off me for a cent per ton, and there was demand for it, the jobs that are created selling trash are no less fake than that of farming food. If I wasn’t selling trash, that demand would go unfulfilled. Would it seriously negatively impact the people who didn’t get the trash? No, probably not. But that doesn’t matter.
The entire economy is honestly ‘made up’. The entire concept of money is an abstract thing that doesn’t actually exist except in our minds. Bills aren’t money. They’re paper. What people want to trade the paper for depends on the people who hold them. And them moving that paper around is fundamentally what drives the economy and creates jobs.
But that raises the question of what you would use to define productivity if profit isn’t it? The two primary drivers of technology through history are self-interest to generate profit, and war.
2
-
Jackson Wu Thing is that ‘increased consumption’ often involves the increase in demand for old jobs- like Horticulture, which has really taken off in recent years due to increased consumption and is difficult to automate. Construction is also not all that easy to automate either, and people wanting bigger houses and more kids if they have more money isn’t hard to imagine (it’s actually kind of a trend). Modular Construction has existed for years and will honestly likely never become mainstream. People just don’t like them, and they’re not flexible. Psychology is also a difficult field to automate, and is becoming more prevalent as a consequence of technology (not exactly for good reasons, but...)
There is a reason we all still have jobs despite eliminating so many already.
Also, demographics means that the labour pool of most industrial nations will shrink or stagnate, meaning consumption will increase as there are fewer people to work... we’ve seen this before in Japan, and the net result, despite high levels of automation isn’t no jobs, it’s the reverse. Unemployment rarely goes above 5% despite being in a recession for over 2 decades. Any serious loss of jobs are counteracting the lack of workforce available in the first place.
The biggest threat for jobs may actually be in the third world, where wages increasingly matter more vs education and infrastructure. People in the First World have much more flexibility in getting and creating new jobs. If a factory can produce shorts cheaper than any wage worker, but needs to have educated engineers behind the scenes, the former isn’t going to get a job. And they have no consumer base to back into.
This is already happening in the textile industry. https://youtu.be/OsSDI8wWAyQ
——
With the last one, we really have no idea what we should do if no jobs exist. There is no real precedent, and the ones we kind of have (communities where everyone is on welfare and unemployed) are... not promising.
I don’t believe we can decouple work from that innate human need. Human Psychology ingrained over eons of evolution can’t be reversed in a couple decades. Science has yet to find a way to actually fulfill a psychological need with a pill or some other substitute. The primary ways to deal with a psychological problem right now are dealing with its effects and fulfilling the need that isn’t being met.
We aren’t going to solve the problem on the first try- or solve it by theory anyways. Historically, the most likely option is the natural one- Darwinianism - until we find the right solution.
Meaning pain. Lots of pain.
I personally think that we’re ultimately never going to create many intelligent/sentient AI, and that technology will eventually stagnate. That effectively means there will still be a decent number of jobs around, and we don’t have to deal with the AI can of worms.
That’s not really make-work, just normal work. Solving the problem by never entering the problem to begin with.
2
-
Jackson Wu So what’s the solution? We already have a welfare state. We already effectively HAVE UBI for poor people, and if everyone makes 0 income, then it’s a UBI in effect anyways. Yay! You made sure nobody starves! Society has still imploded, and humanity has no idea what to do with itself with no work. Not everyone, but some people, are going to go crazy - humans are not designed to sit around and do nothing.
Marxism doesn’t work. Honestly, Capitalism kind of has to exist unless we live in a society where literally everything (including time) is infinite, because money is how humans allocate limited resources. Which is probably impossible.
Truth be told, we don’t have any idea. None of the ideas proposed by people present an actual solution, and won’t, unless work is replaced by something else.
Honestly, a human-level or super-human level AI able to beat humans on everything is unlikely to get too far. Either everyone decides not to open or use that box, or they end up replacing or assimilating with humanity.
Really, a human-level AI is really just an artificial humanoid in most respects. We’d be replacing humanity... by making new humans. Humans that also *consume*, in one form or another. The last things AI will replace are the last things that will separate the two (likely something like consciousness and free thought).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
StrategicFooyoo China needs foreign currency (like any nation without a hard currency), and they’ve got that from exports and debt. Exports to the rest of the world collapse due to trade sanctions, and all of a sudden foreign currency debt levels explode, or the Chinese starve. (They have to import food to feed themselves despite using excessive inputs of pesticide and fertilizer, causing water pollution to get even worse.)
Chinese foreign currency debt is 2 trillion. Or 13% of GDP.
Most Western nations are inherently considered hard currencies and are trusted in international trade. Unlike the Yuan.
The USA negotiating with the Fed is not necessarily default.
Also, note that the president can appoint the Fed Chairman.
Also, note that the reason the Fed doesn’t directly fund the US government has to do with legal handicaps the Federal Government gave the Federal Reserve*. It’s currently *illegal for the Fed to print money and just give it to the government (effectively being the same as a US Treasury banknote).
Also, note every developed economy is attempting to fight *deflation* due to the baby boomer retirees. Instead of the inflation being pumped into QE, some could be given directly to the government.
Also note that implementing a 5% VAT could raise $355 billion/year (excluding rebates, adding rebates would likely increase the real rate to something like 7%). https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0721_vat_for_us_gale.pdf
A Carbon Tax would raise ~$250 billion/year. That would cut the deficit by 2/3rds. Both are supported by economists as good ways to reduce the deficit ASAP.
Both could easily be implemented by a competent Democratic Administration (like the Clinton Administration did in the 90s). The reason the deficit is so high is the inability for Republicans to actually cut spending.
Few nations have ‘funded’ its future liabilities. Not Canada. Not the EU. Not Japan. Not China. Not Russia. Literally every country WITH pensions has massive unfounded liabilities.
https://www.weforum.org/press/2017/05/global-pension-timebomb-funding-gap-set-to-dwarf-world-gdp
China in particular is nearly as bad as the US.
If the US is fucked, so is everyone else.
Assuming the CCP isn’t sacked after being in the world to the brink of a nuclear war?
The biggest issue with ANY nuclear tactical use is that it risks easily turning into a nuclear war. China attacks American boats with nukes, the US retaliates by nuking Chinese shipyards and naval bases. The Chinese retaliate by attacking US cities, because they think those shipyards were too close to population centres or because hitting land was a red line. Then the world ends.
There’s the other thing that if a world war actually started and tactical nuclear weapons became a risk, the US military would dust off SDI’s Brilliant Pebbles (which was actually somewhat affordable- a couple hundred billion), which would give the US all the leverage in a nuclear exchange. It hasn’t happened yet because that hasn’t been a threat since the USSR collapsed. Launch and satellite costs have also fallen since the 80s.
Of course, so could China. But then, neither side can effectively use nuclear missiles to gain an advantage on each other.
2
-
StrategicFooyoo 1. China is a developing nation with less ability to pay. Absolute Debt does not matter, only relative debt.
If I make $1000 a month and am in debt $10,000, I can probably pay it off. If I make $100 a month and am in debt $10,000, I’m screwed.
Assuming you trust official public & private debt and GDP figures, China’s facing a financial crisis. If you don’t, they’re facing economic collapse.
The US already had a financial crisis, and public&private debt-to-GDP has been on the decline since.
Also, much of their debt is denominated in foreign currency.
“Unfounded liabilities” are not debt. They’re designated future possible debt that would materialize if the US Government can’t find more money (taxes) cut benefits, or cut interest (ie. asking the Fed for money without going through the bond market, allowing for the direct printing of money).
2. China nukes US ships. Then what? You’ve basically set a precedent where the USA can now nuke all Chinese Naval bases (and ships), thus making the maneuver pointless. You’re still trapped.
Geography also dooms it, because unless you also take out all American military bases in the 1st Island Chain, China, air power can also be used to interrupt shipping. That’s still not a guarantee, because you can use pretty much any flat, empty strip that’s long enough as an air strip.
This discounts drone warfare, and the fact that US foreign and trade policy is in a state of disorganized, self-injuring flux as it reorganizes against China.
That assumes the USA hasn’t already destroyed all those naval and coastal air bases, which tends to happen in a naval war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Aran Butcher The Americans basically started funding the opposite side in the Mexican Campaign literally right after the Civil War. The French saw where things were going and gave up despite nearly conquering all of Mexico.
It’s not even good for the French on the long run, the Americans, British and Germans can start a multi-front war against France in WW1. Remember who was in charge of foreign relations in Germany at the time.
North and Northeastern Brazil are mostly multiracial, not Black. They had plenty of white settlers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilians
They just mostly bred with Blacks and Natives.
Which might end up happening here if they’re not being overly racist. Remember that they can’t use slavery in the late Victorian age and the Blacks were still fairly sparse.
I was referring to places like Townsville. Not the most populous part of Australia, but not empty either. Remember that Australia had a fairly low number of migrants for its carrying capacity, so obviously everyone took the best land first.
Libya and Eritrea are also as hot as West Africa, but had no issues finding Italian settlers. Libya is even worse because most of it is pretty marginal.
Britain viewed France as a rival right up until Germany started being more of a threat.
Maybe they could take Patagonia while Chile and Argentina were still disorganized, since it wasn’t actually under their control yet and thus the British may just let it slide. But it’s really only all that good for wool and has a population today of 2 million. South Island in NZ may also have been colonized if France was more organized. Which actually has good farmland, but it’s also tiny. It has only 1.16 million today, and even though it has an agricultural surplus, it can’t absorb all that many people.
West Africa and the Sahel are breadbaskets if you have the infrastructure to support it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
One interesting side note when doing my own research: Japan’s birth rate is close to the highest amongst similarly industrialized Eastern Asian nations (despite a very aged population- the primary difference between Japan and everyone else is that Japan had a baby bust at the end of WW2 because everyone there thought their world was ending) and is (very slowly) increasing since 2015, with the possibility of reaching replacement by 2100 (which makes sense to eventually happen, as everyone who’s not willing to give birth die out or get replaced by cultural groups with higher birth rates - something which is kind of happening in Israel with the Orthodox Jews)
Also, its economy is more adapted to bad demographics than anyone else in the region (or the world, really), and has a semi- independent foreign policy with the ability to do what it wants without American approval. So you could see Japan being able to carve somewhat of its own sphere of influence, especially if China ends up failing in its own bid to become superpower.
The bad demographics also had pretty good timing for making Japan no longer a threat to the US right when Japan needed to ally against China.
Japan could become a sleeper power/black swan power, becoming a major player, despite everyone counting it out as a lost power since the 90s, the same way people counted it out after its defeat in WW2.
Either way, the 21st century is a bad time to be a Korean.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I’m fairly certain space colonization is unlikely within the century.
The costs, even under the most optimistic estimates (ie. Elon’s Starship ‘aspirational’ launch costs) are too high for any private company to justify or finance- and there’s not enough of a public push to allow it to happen (as seen by NASA’s generally inflation-adjusted stagnant budget.)
For example, even assuming a $2M launch cost for the Starship, just launching 1 Million to Mars (incl. 3 cargo flights/100) costs $60B. Going by F9 costs/kg, and extrapolating it out to Starship, you get something like $9 Trillion.
That’s a completely useless range of costs, but even if we saw current launch prices drop by 10x (even under the most optimistic estimates, SpaceX only ever accomplished 2-3x cost reductions- under pessimistic estimates, within 20%<), that’s still $900B.
Only a handful of companies, even under an extremely bloated capital market, are valued higher than a trillion.
A government could finance it- but that can only happen if there’s near unanimous support or someone with a ton of political clout, popularity, and competence like a HW Bush/LBJ/Reagan, to force it though (HW tried in OTL, but it was fairly half-hearted.)
We’ve been waiting for a century at this point.
There is also little need for the resources of space in any near-term scenario. We’re not even remotely close to being K-1, and over 80% of the Earth’s surface is basically unmined. Just the sunlight falling on the Sahara dwarfs current world energy consumption- let alone that falling on the Pacific. There’s also actually likely overproduction of foodstuffs in the Americas. The human population are more likely to decrease in the medium term before they start increasing again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Incredulous I didn't say there was no concensous, I said we don't KNOW the concencous... geez.
"That does not mean that GHG emissions drive climate change. It's possible that variations in Earth's orbital distance (i.e. Milankovitch cycles) drive the climate ENTIRELY, with GHG emissions having ZERO effect. It's up to scientists to prove which one it is. Why were the temps on Earth in the distant past higher than today, with NO man-made emissions? Natural GHG emissions, orbital variations and (possibly) sun activity."
The fuck is the difference between man and natural GHGs? They are the same gases, CO2, CH4, etc...
You said GHGs don't drive climate change, but you contridicted yourself.
Also, the variations in Earth's Orbital distance are counted in the Sun's heat load... It's still higher than it should be.
And the temperature of Earth being higher in the distant past is soomething completely different, and would not be possible if it was only the Sun's fault, and the Earth was in teh same orbital distance. Look: "Young Sun Paradox".
"
>"it would overturn decades of climate and Earth science"
No. Milankovitch cycles and their influence on climate have been known since 1920s."
Bullshit, those cycles have to do with the interglacial and ice age cycles. WE should be ebbing into an ice age right now because of this- the opposite is actually happening right now.
That fact is also why there was the global cooling panic in the past. Not anymore.
">"Doesn't mean the science behind it is not true."
Child, stop shifting the burden of proof.
It's up to IPCC etc to prove their claims. Political agreement to implement the costly policies proposed by supporters requires a HARD proof. It's yet to be presented. "Doesn't mean it's not true" is not a proof."
except there IS HARD PROOF. IPCC is not the only organisation. For example, NASA. If it was just political, it should have been denying climate change when Bush was in office...
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Climate change being fake and climate change being overestimated are two different things...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnwilson6324 Fought by the US. Should the US, in your view, have spent so much effort to stop the spread of Communism?
I think Reagan said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUQm7UqF-YA
And anyways, sorry for the long wait, I was busy. I'll respond to your previous comment properly now:
"China doesn't want to invade Okinawa. That's fake news. One 2 star General said "Okinawa shouldn't necessarily be Japanese or Chinese"."
It wasn't just the 2 star general. State-run media and Chinese historians (also controlled by the government) ran with it afterwards. The CCP didn't do anything to stop it. And 'questioning' the sovereignty is... being controlled by China. Even if just as a vassal state, which is what is implied in context.
https://www.dw.com/en/japan-angered-by-chinas-claim-to-all-of-okinawa/a-16803117
Imagine if tomorrow, PBS said that Newfoundland shouldn't belong to Canada? That's a land claim, all right.
There's more claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR7WgKnBTIE
That link details the links between genetics and IQ passed down over *family*, which is different than 'IQ differential between races is caused by genetics'.
Argentina IS white. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Latin_America#Genetic_studies
"A 2009 autosomal DNA study found that of the total Argentine population, 78.5 percent of the national genepool was European, 17.3 percent Native American, and 4.2 percent African.[62]"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Percentage_of_major_Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_Europe.png
Greeks are comparably white. If they're 'white', so are the Argentines.
No, if it's a white genocide, it's also a genocide of those minorities.
Also, not sure if you know, but people have been mixing races for as long as trade and war has existed. It's not new. We can see the traces in the gene pool of different peoples.
And history has shown you can have stable societies with multiple distinct ethnic and genetic identities (Switzerland, China, Iran) if you integrate them properly into your greater national identity and don't treat them like shit. The US, despite all the shit over police racism and BLM protests, honestly has its disparate peoples get along pretty well overall in the grand scheme of things.
"Africa has WAY better infrastructure than China."
[Citation needed]
I can't even read that imgur link properly.
See, here's the problem. Immigration is not an 'invasion'.
There is a reason waterboarding is considered torture and drinking water from a water bottle is not. What matters is the people or society in control of the situation, and the voluntarism of the people immigrating.
And invasion is forceful. Immigration isn't.
And the thing is, not even Trumpists are as anti-immigration/ethno-nationalist as you are (who generally want less immigration and higher 'quality' immigration). White Nationalists are a tiny minority in American society. You don't get to dictate policy for the rest of the country.
1
-
1
-
@johnwilson6324 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-claiming-okinawa-japan-claiming-hawaii-15996
https://www.dw.com/en/japan-angered-by-chinas-claim-to-all-of-okinawa/a-16803117
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arunachal_Pradesh
Both have about 1.4 million.
You could literally have done a Google Search.
When was the last time the US used a military base as a platform to annex land?
I’ll tell you why you should care. The first move China would make against India in a war is to close off their water supply. Millions begin to starve, beginning a mass exodus to the West. The first move China would make against Japan or Taiwan is to attack their shipping. If they can’t hold off the attacks, millions starve, and those who can start moving to the West.
Then what happens when they arrive? You send them back to starve in a war zone? Do you send them into ghettos until the war ends, and they have to move back under a hostile foreign power, or to a home that’s rubble and cobblestone?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/08/14/statistics-show-iq-disparities-between-races-heres-what-that-really-means/
The idea that races solely determine economic success is ridiculous. Especially considering the relative economic success of Hispanic Americans over their counterparts still in Latin America.
I guess we need to send back all the Blacks too? Asians? Indians? Maybe the Jews and Italians while you’re at it? You DO realize that’s ethnic cleansing, right?
And when those happened, *millions died*. I wish that the Germans could have been let to stay in Silesia and the Greeks could have been let to stay in Constantinople, areas they had been living in for over a millennia. Especially the latter. ‘Istanbul’ my ass.
They by no means were inevitable. The Germans were let to stay in Alsace after being ceded to France. If the Allies made it to Berlin, they would have saved the Silesian Germans. If a ethnonationalism never took hold in Turkey, the Armenians and Greeks would still be there.
EVERY Chinese leader since Mao has publicly stated they want to annex Taiwan, if force if necessary. You don’t say that if you don’t take your territorial claims seriously.
Russia has invaded Crimea and is in the process of ousting the current dictator of Belarus so he can get a more compliant person willing to ‘reunite’ it with Russia (look up Union State).
The GINI coefficient of CA, a measure of inequality, is 0.49. Literally US average. What?
Argentina is basically white and has an IQ of 93, and it is... well... Argentina is the only nation to have ever gone backwards from developed to developing status. Not even Greece did that.
Africa never had much infrastructure. Note that infrastructure is more than just roads and bridges, but schools and hospitals as well. Plus, Africa’s geography is terrible, and requires more infrastructure to get anything done (it’s mostly plateaus that go all the way to the coast and no navigable rivers, with a few exceptions (West Africa comes to mind).
Look, I consider myself a right-winger. I’m not for free borders. But what do you think would have happened if America let the Soviets do what they pleased during the last Cold War?
1
-
StrategicFooyoo The scale of construction in China is unprecedented compared to the rest of the world. The issue isn’t that they stop constructing, the issue is that they have to slow down because eventually there’s not enough demand. And sure, I guess if the quality is shitty enough they might have to do the job twice, but that’s basically the Parable of the Broken window, and not an actual net benefit.
Therefore, investment driven growth must end.
Also, this isn’t a video game where you can just dump tech points and money into certain sectors and expect results- especially when corruption is endemic in the system. The Soviet Union had a cult of technology and failed to use it to gain a general technological edge over the US (they did in some sectors, like military, but not *overall*). You have to be able to use it.
Oh sure, China’s not going to run out of things they can do, but they’re going to run out of things that generate returns and growth, especially in a reasonable time frame. Arguably they already have. Debt defaults in SOEs are rising due to failed investment projects and the coronavirus.
1
-
StrategicFooyoo
I asked why one country has to specialize in one high value added sector. You haven't answered that.
Well, no, they won't, but construction has to slow down *at some point*. The problem with both financial assets and infrastructure development is that in both cases, you eventually run out of things that provide a positive return. That's more obvious in the stock market with QE, but if you've seen a Chinese ghost city, you'll know it also applies to China's housing market.
You're right, their problem IS overproduction. If they can't find consumers, GDP starts to fall because eventually the factories have to shut down. That leaves them vulnerable to the outside world. China does not have the ability to ensure its own economic growth. They will never have enough consumers in their own system to keep growing and cut themselves off from the rest of the world. It's a gordian knot.
Again, China doesn't need to collapse to lose. They only need to stop growing, and demographics takes care of the rest.
1
-
1
-
StrategicFooyoo Except if we compare it to other export-dominated Asian economies (Taiwan and South Korea), they kept growing their exports at the same pace as they did previously long after they passed the point where China has now roughly stagnated. Export values will increase as countries go into higher-end manufacturing. Either China is failing to go into higher-end exports, or China is losing factories at a rate that counteracts higher-end exports. Or both.
Japan was never a massive exporting nation, despite populist rhetoric at the time.
Here is a pretty good graph showing the composition of GDP per nation. Note that China’s GDP and GDP growth is dominated by investment, which is not sustainable, because it relies either on mass savings (stops once the boomers hit retirement), FDI (also slowing down since 2016), or debt.
Exports also make an abnormally large % of GDP (Germany is comparable, but it has free trade and common laws to the rest of the EU).
https://youtu.be/g4DFRPa36T0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets
Consumption as a % of GDP in China is 39%. Abnormally low, even for developing nations. Actually, abnormally low for all nations. It’s only outcompeted by tax havens and oil monarchies.
They’ve been trying to get that number up to normal levels forever. They’re not going to succeed now.
Chinese GDP is unsustainable and vulnerable.
1
-
StrategicFooyoo Most companies have already been moving supply chains out of China for South Asia and Latin America due to labour costs now reaching parity with the US, adjusted for productivity.
The Made in China 2025 plan was a plan to mitigate that, but it was basically dead on arrival. They really should have kept something like that more secret.
The Chinese Internal Market is not that big: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets) and is highly protected and skewed towards domestic companies, making keeping factories there to service the Chinese Market pretty iffy.
If I want to put my conspiratorial hat on, it's part of the reason MSM and Soros has no problem pissing on the Chinese now. Everyone has sucked most of the Gold out of the China mine, and now everyone's fine with shutting the mine down.
It's likely actually closer to $400 mil: http://www.worldstopexports.com/chinas-top-10-imports/
And as I said earlier, Made in China 2025 was dead on arrival.
Also, how does China maintain its high-tech manufacturing base without imports of integrated circuits?
China really hurts badly economically if it has to ration out its FOREX, even if it can keep the lights on.
And without exports, no money is coming in, either. China is an export nation, meaning the net is a loss in FOREX. Remember that China doesn't have to collapse entirely to stop being a threat. A Lost Decade or 2 is sufficient, due to demographics.
Note that Japan was able to mitigate the problems with demographics by tapping the global investment and consumer marketplace, and increasing the level of outsourcing to minimize labour use while maximizing corporate profits and GDP. China likely lacks that luxury.
Being on the neutral/good side of most nations that matter has its perks.
Depends on why there is a slowdown in trade. If it's the economy, then sure. If it's the fact people aren't able to trade much anymore for whatever reason (say, a Iran-Saudi War), the result is a mass INFLATION of the cost of Oil, not deflation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ivan the Great 2.0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun
“Acceleration:
For a space gun with a gun barrel of length (
l
l), and the needed velocity (
v
e
v_{e}), the acceleration (
a
a) is provided by the following formula:[citation needed]
a
=
v
e
2
2
l
a={\frac {v_{e}^{2}}{2l}}
For instance, with a space gun with a vertical "gun barrel" through both the Earth's crust and the troposphere, totalling ~60 km (37 miles) of length (
l
l), and a velocity (
v
e
v_{e}) enough to escape the Earth's gravity (escape velocity, which is 11.2 km/s or 25,000 mph on Earth), the acceleration (
a
a) would theoretically be more than 1,000 m/s2 (3,300 ft/s2), which is more than 100 g-forces, which is about 3 times the human tolerance to g-forces of maximum 20 to 35 g[5] during the ~10 seconds such a firing would take.”
Aka: To say it’d need to be big is an understatement . Doesn’t matter either way, you still need rockets to circularize an orbit, and liquid fuel rockets had yet to exist. Even the Apollo astronauts used computers most of the time to help with or pilot spacecraft and rockets as well. So good freaking luck . Same thing with building rockets on the Moon to get back.
Doesn’t matter, the British still got a serious bloody nose from the Boers- who actually won on the long term anyways since they ended up taking over South Africa. It was still going on at the turn of the century.
Point is that the European powers were, frankly, busy, even at the turn of the century. You have to at least butterfly away WW1, and keep Germany (and possibly Italy and France) focused on overseas colonies. And even then, there was still the Middle East and East Asia left to partition up. The Americas if the USA or Britain can’t be bothered to stop an invasion there.
AltHistHub made a video on the habitable Moon though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TapOnX https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25766/what-would-happen-if-the-polar-ice-caps-of-mars-melted
Mars lacks enough water stored to form more than Titan-Style seas, assuming enough CO2 could even be sublimated to make it moderately stable, and that a singular asteroid impact would be sufficient.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
“More than 21 million km3 of ice have been detected at or near the surface of Mars, enough to cover the whole planet to a depth of 35 meters (115 ft).[13] Even more ice is likely to be locked away in the deep subsurface.[14]”
For comparison, the average depth of Earth’s oceans is 3.2 km. Either way, you get a desert that can’t be breathed in properly with barely any water. That is also likely toxic due to perchlorate.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Estimated_extent_of_the_Solar_Systems_habitable_zone.png
This is basically the problem. Mars is outside the ‘normal’ habitable zone most of the time, but is in the ‘extended’ habitable zone, where you can have super-earths, desert planets, or extreme Venus-like cloud planets be habitable (how you get all that atmosphere on Mars being a mystery). But not Earth-like planets. Basically you need either a very low albedo or an extreme amount of GHGs.
Maybe you could merge Venus and Mars into one entity, but that’s still only 93% of Earth’s mass. Maybe we can move Jupiter a bit further back to get more mass.
The V3 cannon existed in WW2. It couldn’t be aimed at new targets, so it was pretty bad as a weapon overall.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1