Comments by "DasBubba" (@dasbubba841) on "Asianometry" channel.

@peterfireflylund Especially since drawing such conclusions (blame others, rightly or not, for failures instead of innovating) stifles Indian potential.
57
Yes, the Nationalists at the time, were the legal government of China, the whole of China. However, they lost the civil war. They didn't totally lose, since they still survive on Taiwan, but they lost control of the mainland. Thus, the CCP has become the legal government of Mainland China. The ROC lost control through internal war, and thus the CCP has "earned" the right or mandate to rule China. However, they never finished the job. They couldn't conquer Taiwan through war, so they have no right over it. They have no right to prevent Taiwan from become it's own country since the war is over. Taiwan and China are two different countries. Bottom line, the ROC has no right to claim all of China since it lost it through war, and the PRC has no right to claim Taiwan and prevent it from being a country on the international stage since it failed to conquer it.
15
QUAD is a security alliance against a common enemy, China. Not an economic alliance like the EU. Also, India's government does a good job at stifling innovation itself. No wonder why many Indians with talent and the means leave for "Anglo" countries and often stay there (better QoL, pay, opportunities, less corruption, etc.)
10
@thursoberwick1948 Because those workers have to be paid by the government through taxes, or debt.
9
The ROC didn't cease to exist, but they lost control of the mainland, and thus the legitimacy to call themselves "China". Thus, going by that logic, the ROC lost the title of "China" and became a mere separatist group resisting the "legitimate" government in Beijing. However, the CCP couldn't finish off the ROC and eventually the Americans came to guard them. Thus, we have this odd status quo. Neither can make a move on the other one.
7
@rafaellisboa8493 Revisionism. Disregarded.
6
Muh colonialism blah blah blah.
6
@kimobrien. Actually, the American working class benefits a lot from the "American Empire". The world's largest navy ensures cheap products from China and Vietnam to be shipped in without risk. Wide adoption of the dollar means that the dollar is a very stable currency that won't suddenly depreciate in value. You're a hundred years behind the times man. No one builds physical "empires". They build trade blocs, military alliances, technology exchanges.
5
A reoccurring problem with centrally planned economies. Objectives that were seen as priorities were focused on to the detriment of other sectors. The USSR, for example, built highly advanced weaponry but could not manufacture decent bras.
4
@rafaellisboa8493 You are thinking of land re-distribution, which took place after the revolution during the NEP years of Lenin. Peasants were given lands and were allowed to keep excess grain or resell it after having fulfilled state quotas. Collectivization was undertaken under Stalin and was immensely damaging. Productivity dropped significantly and famine occurred in large areas of the country (the Holodomor).
4
@iiiiicp Because A isn't working how we think it is, B must obviously work!
3
Everyone lost land as they were collectivized. And food productivity DID NOT skyrocket, but often plummeted. This was because of a lack of enthusiasm from workers (not much compensation from the government, as they were forced to sell their grain to the government at artificially low prices).
3
lolwat?
3
@@crying-croc They build components and assemble them. R&D is powered by the US.
3
Indeed. Though, much of their victories can be attributed to how by that point, the Nationalists were heavily corrupt, suffering from hyper-inflation, and their troops had terrible morale. The PLA was able to force the KMT off the Mainland, but as seen by the Battle of Kinmen, they couldn't finish them off. There was also a Muslim insurgency that proved damaging even into the early 60s.
2
Because they did. Microsoft and Apple are American, not Chinese or British. The US was in the right spot at the right time to leverage its advantages to blaze ahead of its competition. Other countries were at the wrong spot at the wrong time, or failed to leverage their advantages.
2
@timschulz9563 And yet shot people who tried to leave for West Germany.
1
@kimobrien. I agree, to an extent. Globalism has eroded the value of the American worker, by having them compete with low-cost Asian and African labor. The US economy has become increasingly a financial-dominated system, with the Wall Street stock markets being seen as an indicator of economic health, rather than employment, real-wage growth, or household debt.
1
Chiang was able to do better on Taiwan, but he suffered on the Mainland because a lot of the populace had become seduced by Mao's promises of land reform and better governance. The Nationalists had also become worn-down by heavy fighting with the Japanese, while Mao had consolidated his position with the peasants. Chiang's tactics were also pretty shitty as he sent large formations into the mountains to destroy the communists. Mao simply retreated and cut off the KMT and destroyed them. When the time was right, he attacked en mass and routed the KMT. When Chiang got to Taiwan, the water meant that he could consolidate he position and use the poor naval capabilities of the PLA to his advantage. The battle of Kinmen is evident of this.
1