Comments by "guydreamr" (@guydreamr) on "VisualEconomik EN"
channel.
-
513
-
39
-
23
-
As far as the US goes, that's changing fast. New green energy, chip, and higher value-added factories are being constructed in Phoenix, Georgia, Ohio, upstate New York, Texas, and other locations as we speak. And the economy overall is rapidly growing partly because the US never did, you know, the austerity thing.
14
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stefanroeder87 France's nuclear power program is in fact quite cost effective compared to other energy sources. The French energy regulator, Commission de Régulation de l'Énergie (CRE), has forecasted the production cost of existing nuclear power to be €60.7/MWh over the period 2026-2030, decreasing to €57.3/MWh over 2036-2040. These costs are relatively low, making nuclear energy a competitive option for France's energy mix. That's from "Nuclear Power in France," World Nuclear Association, as well as "France’s CRE unveils forecast on nuclear power costs over the period 2026-2040," Enerdata. So until you provide at least one independent source to the contrary your statements are rejected.
Also, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that climate change making it increasingly difficult to cool nuclear power plants, certainly not at levels any where near making nuclear power cost ineffective. In any event, building more nuclear plants would be the very thing to do to arrest climate change and prevent rivers from warming any further in the first place.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@weiwei8072 People like you seem to have a short understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. So the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is target the production coming from those countries that have their ultimate source as coming from China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
Your statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is flat-out false. Querying "has every US solar panel firm gone bankrupt?" returned the following: "No, not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from energygov, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." People like you need to stop making statements unsupported by the facts, full-stop.
Your statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what you've left out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to impose tariffs. People like you need to stop comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries) and start comparing apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 People like you seem to have a short understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. So the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is target the production coming from those countries that have their ultimate source as coming from China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
Your statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is flat-out false. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." People like you need to stop making statements unsupported by the facts, full-stop.
Your statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what you've left out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to impose tariffs. People like you need to stop comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries) and start comparing apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 People like you seem to have an inadequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. So the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is target the production coming from those countries that have their ultimate source as coming from China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
Your statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is totally inaccurate. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." People like you need to stop making statements unsupported by the facts.
Your statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what you've left out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to impose tariffs. People like you need to stop comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries) and start comparing apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 People like you seem to have an inadequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. So the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is target the production coming from those countries that have their ultimate source as coming from China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
Your statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is inaccurate. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." People like you need to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
Your statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what you've left out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to impose tariffs. People like you need to stop comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries) and start comparing apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 People like you need to have a more adequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and target the production coming from those countries ultimately coming from China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
Your statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is inaccurate. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." Someone needs to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
Your statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what you've left out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to impose tariffs. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone also needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to have a more adequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and target the production coming from those countries ultimately coming from China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is inaccurate. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." Someone needs to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
Your statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what you've left out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to impose tariffs. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone also needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to have a more adequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is inaccurate. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." Someone needs to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
Your statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what you've left out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to impose tariffs. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone also needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to have a more adequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is incorrect. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." Someone needs to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
Your statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what you've left out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to take action. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to have a more adequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is incorrect. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." Someone needs to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
The statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what the statement leaves out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to take action. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to have a more adequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is incorrect. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." Someone needs to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
The statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what the statement leaves out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US and thus the US is in the single greatest position to wield the most influence and affect China the most should America decide to respond. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to have a more adequate understanding of the data. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is incorrect. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." Someone needs to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
The statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, what the statement leaves out is that ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to review the data a little more carefully. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is incorrect. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S." Someone needs to start making statements that are better supported by the facts.
The statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to review the data a little more carefully. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is incorrect. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S."
The statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to review the data a little more carefully. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is unsupported by the facts. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S."
The statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
1
-
@weiwei8072 Some people need to review the data a little more carefully. The Obama tariffs were actually quite effective in stemming direct solar panels from China, however what China then did was to pivot and start sourcing production to countries like Thailand and Mexico instead. Thus the tariffs were effective, but to restore their effectiveness all the US need do is likewise pivot and place quotas on the production coming from those countries which are controlled by China. That's from Columbia University, "Q&A | Solar Tariffs and the US Energy Transition."
The statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
1
-
@weiwei8072 The statement that "every US solar firm went bankrupt" is unsupported by the facts. "Not every solar panel firm in the United States has gone bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. solar industry has been growing and evolving. There are still many active and thriving solar panel manufacturers in the country." That's from Energy, "The State of the Solar Industry" & "Quarterly Solar Industry Update" respectively, as well as Thomas, "Top Solar Panel Manufacturers in the U.S."
The statement that the total amount of trade that China does with ASEAN exceeds the amount that it does with the US is correct as far as it goes, but not by much and is ultimately a straw man's argument. In 2022 the total amount of trade with ASEAN was 722 billion, whereas trade with the US was 690 billion, which is near parity. However, ASEAN is a bloc of no less than 10 different countries, where the US is a single country. Thus, country for country China does indeed do the most amount of trade with the US. Rather than comparing apples to oranges (entire country blocs to single countries), someone needs to compare apples to apples instead (single country to single country).
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
-
@MarcaoPT Before the war Ukraine was indeed quite corrupt, but now that war has come, Ukraine has launched numerous anti-corruption drives, including the recent sacking of over 75 conscription officials for accepting bribes. In fact, Ukraine initially showed its backbone starting with the Maidan protests of 2014, when the population took to the streets in the face of its thoroughly corrupt President Yanukovych's attempt at bringing Ukraine back under Russia's influence, who ultimately fled to Moscow.
Your statement that Singapore received no foreign aid after world war 2 is flat-out false. Entering "did singapore receive foreign aid after world war 2 to build its economy up" in AI returned the following:
[Quote] Yes, Singapore received foreign aid after World War II to build its economy. The country was in a dire state after the war, with a collapsed infrastructure and a lack of resources. The British government provided some aid to Singapore, but it was not enough to rebuild the country. The United States also provided aid to Singapore as part of the Marshall Plan, which was a program to help rebuild Europe and Asia after the war. Singapore was one of the countries that received aid from the United States, which helped to rebuild the country’s infrastructure and economy. [Unquote, with emphasis added] In fact, Singapore is a regular contributor to the International Monetary Fund for a variety of purposes, showing how much stock it places in foreign aid.
Among the sources cited are "From Rags to Riches: How Singapore Developed Its Economy," The Urban Stuff and "Singapore to contribute $28 million to IMF to help low-income countries tackle Covid-19 pandemic". So until you can provide sources of your own, your statements are rejected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@builder1117 I read the article, very informative, thanks. A couple points. First, as many comments below the article itself points out, while public spending may have gone up in absolute terms, it may still have gone down in real terms, as the population of Britain has grown considerably since the Financial Crisis of 2008, so spending per capita may in fact have actually dropped.
Second, and most important, you previously mentioned % Debt to GNP, but I think the real deal is a different chart altogether which the article also discusses: that of "UK Public Spending % GDP." Reviewing that chart, you can clearly see that public spending peaked right at the year 2010, then dropped sharply year by year all the way until 2020 when it spiked temporarily due to the covid pandemic.
And wouldn't you know, this spending dropped precisely during the period when - surprise! - David Cameron took office and implemented austerity - a term, by the way, which his own government coined, as the comments below the article have pointed out. A policy which was continued by successive Tory governments over a fourteen-year period through the present and which also correlates with a steep drop in productivity, deteriorating prisons, and the other ills which I've previously mentioned.
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