Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "PolyMatter"
channel.
-
30
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
This isn't a question of overall numbers, it's a question of ratios.
The ratios in the PRC are completely screwed and don't look set to improve. At least not without mass murdering the elderly.
As far as automating everything goes, there simply isn't enough money. The PRC isn't rich, it's just big. The ratio of wealth to people is still low.
As far as immigration goes, you've got Two problems.
1. Getting the sheer numbers needed.
2. Getting the sort of people you need.
In each case, you're competing with the West, which has a collective genius at creating the sort of countries people want to move to (don't believe me? Look at migration data) and for 2 in particular, because the PRC really doesn't have that much money per person, it's competing with the West which can offer far, far more.
Also as a westerner who's living in (and about to leave)Hong Kong, I can tell you first hand how many of the people you really need feel about making the PRC its long term home.
No. Hell no. The govt here is a genius at screwing things up.
14
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
It's not the American public, though, it's the public anywhere
Three years ago, people genuinely didn't care about the PRC. Obviously a lot has happened there that has nothing to do with the media (If anything, the media has helped divert attention away from what the PRC has done to us)
It doesn't really help that the same excuses were applied to HK, where the idea that the foreign media presence are greater than the CCP controlled media presence and propaganda efforts is simply laughable. Seriously, we're claiming that anything from a few hundred thousand USD to a few million USD has been, on its own, enough to turn an entire city of seven million against the CCP. An entity to which they have personal exposure to on a very regular basis.
Anyway, your excuses don't matter. What matters is the result.
The result is that in the past three years, the world has gone from not really caring about what's going on in the PRC to considering it a genuine enemy state.
All the excuses and whines in the world about unfairness won't change that.
And the wumao spreading their message is doing wonders to accellarate the process.
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
-
>>This is alarmist. Sounds like you are saying China is facing an impending but slow moving catastrophe. That may be true, but is entirely misleading. Because there are many other countries with even lower birth rates<<
Can you name them and give their GDP per capita vs the PRC's of 10k USD?
For the ones you did name:
South Korea - GDP per Capita 31k USD
Singapore GDP per capita 60k USD
Spain GDP per capita 27k USD
From the Global Times (which I'll rely on to never exaggerate how bad things are)
"China's birth rate in 2020 was recorded as 8.52 per 1,000 people"
Those are 2020 numbers, when there were 12 million births. Last year, there were 1.4 million fewer births (A drop of over 10% that's part of a downward trend that's been going at roughly that speed since the two child policy was introduced in 2015 - Now the births are about 5 million per year fewer than the last year of the one child policy. It's not just the current births per year that are the issue, but the catastrophic rate of decline in such a short period)
And how does the PRC's ability to attract immigrants compare with these other countries?
>>Even if it is true that China's real fertility rate is 1.4 instead of 1.7, what is 1.4 billion ÷ 2 x 1.4? There would still be ONE BILLION babies in the next generation.<<
The issue isn't total population, but ratios of workers to dependents.
If the elderly died as soon as they hit retirement, there'd be no problem.
Instead, they live for decades after retirement and require increasingly expensive medical care while becoming less and less able to contribute anything at all.
>>Even with this "catastrophically" low birth rate, China would still make more babies than any other country on earth except for India. Does this put things in perspective?<<
Is the PRC going to start killing off its elderly?
Even if they're supported by family instead of the state, they're still a drain on resources and productivity.
>>It is premature to worry that China is about to collapse. Spain has a fertility rate of just 1.24, and nobody talks about that. Singapore is at 1.14, and South Korea is at 1.052. Does anybody know about THAT?<<
You just named three countries that are capable of attracting large numbers immigrants if they choose to.
Spain's net migration is about the same as the PRC's birthrate.
Singapore is a wealthy country that can pay immigrants a high amount. As is South Korea. Compared with the PRC, they also don't need to attract as many immigrants to offset the ageing population.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JohnSmith-qk4rm >>Clearly you have no direct interaction with a real Chinese<<
My wife is Chinese. We've been together almost twenty years. I was also living in Hong Kong from the start of the protests until National Security Education Day last April.
And even if I'd never met one, that wouldn't change a single thing I said.
If someone's as ignorant of what they're talking about as you're suggesting I am, it's normally easier to make them look like an idiot. You don't need to flail about looking for something that sticks.
>>No wonder your sources of information are all twisted into strange western ways.<<
You're... Often wrong about stuff, aren't you?
>>PRC is for the Chinese just the country name of CCP.<<
This is why I take care to say PRC instead of China. I'd hate for it to be confused with the independent Republic of China.
>>Hard for western to believe or even imagine. But all CCP members are elected from PRC people, selected by the PRC people, and work for the PRC people. In another word, CCP is like your parent's name in your family and PRC is your family name for all Chinese. With this fact cleared, everything you mentioned becomes clear. Just nothing but western bias. <<
This is simply a complete pack of lies that's unrelated to anything we've been discussing. It also has pretty much zero link to anything that you hadn't gone out of your way to force into this conversation while you were resorting to more whataboutism.
>>And now let me ask just one simple question. If your system works so well, why was 831K innocent human life lost in the last 2 years? More than the combined loss of US soldiers in WW1 and WW2? Why do you constantly refuse to under this question directly? What is your fear? Facing the fact?<<
You've never asked this question before. You've simply stated the number while trying to give reasons to not talk about the PRC's problems.
I don't know if I should put this down to an intentional lie, or you simply being so far out of your depth that you don't even begin to know what you're talking about.
The answer to this question is contained within my previous post, however:
"You're right, the Western world should stop the greed that makes us turn a blind eye to the barbarities of the CCP.
It's not a civilised government, it's high time we stopped letting our desire for money make us pretend that they are."
Or to put it another way: All those millions around the world have died of the CCP virus because we pretended that the CCP had formed a civilised government. Instead of the lying barbarians they really are.
3
-
3
-
@JohnSmith-qk4rm First off, I'd like to thank you for throwing away all pretence at doing anything except pushing the CCP's lies.
To begin with, I'll reiterate that the CCP, who are not synonymous with the Chinese people are a bunch of barbarians who've shown they'll use the resources of the state to preserve their right to "struggle cuddle" (I can't use the R word - youtube deletes it) whoever they like.
These are the brutes you're supporting. The same brutes who've gone out of their way to ensure your future involves bloodshed when they fall (all governments fall, after all)
>>Now I really got it enough educating an idiot.<<
It seems like if you were dealing with an idiot, you'd have done a much better job and wouldn't be jumping from point to indefensible point.
Seriously, if you're doing this badly against an idiot, then we can only be grateful for the one child policy which has hopefully stopped the country from having more like you. It's saved the PRC future unaffordable welfare leeches. (If you're doing this badly against an idiot, you're so far gone you're obviously of no use to any civilised person. I'm amazed that even barbarian organisations like the CCP find a use for you. You're certainly not doing them any favours by speaking for them)
>>Do not even try to separate CCP from its people, because CCP is the people.<<
No it's not. It's an unelected govt introduced by a foreign power that's terrified of the people it rules over.
>>You keep seeing China's inland politics as a replica of the US, that is why you never understand what I am talking about.<<
The problem is I do understand what you're talking about, but your lies don't stand up to close examination. Which is why you've had to resort to whataboutism and keep jumping from point to point.
>>China doesn't have 2 parties <<
Because the CCP is terrified of a choice between it and another viable govt, which is why it's put the PRC into a choice between it and a civil war.
>>and arrogantly separating CCP from the people is also nothing but an act of idiocy. <<
Idiocy is supporting a govt that you can't peacefully transition away from.
>>If you want to really understand what China is doing right now the last thing you want to do is to listen to a banana man because even they might look like Chinese, but in fact, they are not anymore<<
It's funny, isn't it?
The people who 'support' the CCP are those who'll be (literally) murdered if they oppose it. Those who are away from it and able to safely speak their minds are bananas who aren't real Scotsmen (Sorry, I mean aren't real Chinese)
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JohnSmith-qk4rm Well this is a post full of projection :-)
>> You know what, in a civilized world, no one talks so aggressively like you do. <<
The 'gum on your shoe' (to quote the global times) finds this statement interesting.
I'm guessing that you don't think nuclear war happening as a consequence of hurtful (and accurate) words isn't aggressive in your book.
You're a child.
>>We use facts and direct experiences to support our mind<<
Your jump from whataboutism to whataboutism after you couldn't support your initial position shows this to be a lie. Although it does show that by your own criteria, you're not a civilised person.
I have fulfilled this criteria, which is why you jump from topic to topic, but I'm quite happy to stick to the topic at hand (or whatever you bring up)
>>not some biased and racist source of Information.<<
Racism is an overused accusation coming from those who support the barbarian CCP. Even used in such ridiculous situations as explaining the Hong Kong protests. You'll need to find something else. That term has been used to the point it no longer has meaning.
Anyway, if anything I say is wrong, you're free to actually discuss it, rather than jumping from argument to argument to see what sticks. As it is, it looks like there's nothing in your head except a few talking points given to you by your employer (if you're making arguments like this for free, that's somehow even more shameful)
>>And the most important aspect in a civilized world is we have the ability to agree with disagreeing.<<
I'd agree.
This is an ability that's lacking in the PRC. Agreeing to disagree with the barbarian CCP ends badly.
Which is why both of us are able to have this discussion openly on an American service. It seems unlikely that we'd be able to have it on Wechat. We couldn't even discuss tennis there.
>>The last thing we the civilized world will do is externalization. Separating people into smaller groups and labeling them with that very disrespectful term "barbarian", this could only be done among the barbarians<<
If using the resources of a state to protect the party's leadership's right to use Chinese women however they like isn't barbaric, I have to wonder what is.
And that's only the tip of the ice berg.
It looks like your main thing here is that your feelings are hurt by some well supported honesty (again: if I say anything unreasonable, you're free to challenge that. Your jumping from topic to topic shows that you know you're unable to deal with the facts presented)
By your own criteria, you are indeed a barbarian.
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
-
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
-
@shenglongli8387 >>we got a bigger problem? at least were free from covid-19<<
I sure hope you're not relying on that distinction as a long term thing. It's pretty obvious you are, though.
The CCP virus is being dealt with at the moment.
The PRC's collapsing, and more importantly, ageing population will go on for at least another generation. Probably more.
>>not a remotely wealthy country is a lie<<
It isn't. That a poor person such as yourself has a lower standard for wealth doesn't change this. The GDP per capita is a fraction of any Western country and your population is ageing rapidly.
>>although certainly not as wealthy as countries like the US.<<
1/6th per capita in that case.
I'm going to be super clear here:
10k per capita is poor.
>>the 1 child policy was actually what saved china my guy, back then<<
And now it's doomed it. Because the idiots in charge, for whatever reason, didn't ask themselves what happens if we keep this going for forty years.
>>china did not have the ability to sustain a population any bigger due to the fact that
-were poor
-we have limited economy
-we just fought a war<<
Kind of seems like the CCP party's moron in charge shouldn't have encouraged the Chinese people to have lots of children.
Imagine the position China would be in today if those three decades weren't wasted under an economic imbecile.
As it is, China became old before it became rich.
Before it became not poor.
>>but now we can sustain a population bigger, so we lifted it, and it's only been 2 years but you already said it's not working<<
Damn you're ignorant. Of your own country.
It became a two child policy for parents who were both only children in 2009. That's 12 years ago.
Then two children if only one parent was an only child in 2014. That's seven years ago.
Then a general thing in 2016. That's five years ago.
And in each year (with the exception of 2016) fewer children than the one before.
When should this change take effect, exactly? Clock's ticking.
From the Global Times:
2016 - 17.86 million
2017 - 17.23 million - Drop of 3.5% from previous year
2018 - 15.23 million - Drop of 11.6% from previous year (15% from 2016)
2019 - 14.65 million - Drop of 4.8% from the previous year (18% from 2016)
"The birth rate on the Chinese mainland dropped to 10.48 per 1,000 people in 2019, the lowest in seven decades, according to the National Bureau of Statistics."
>>your saying shit too quick<<
So should be patient for another decade, I guess.
Hopefully all of those people who are reaching retirement age will magically get an extra decade of life and good health to buy time.
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
-
@ranovich6734 >>It's the CPC, first of all.<<
You're free to call it that if you wish. I won't stop you.
>>Second, that's fine, the productivity of China is bucking even the trend you mention<<
1. Economic growth rates have been slowing down year after year.
2. The big block of retirees is a "near future" thing. Not a thing that's quite happened yet.
3. I don't think children below the age of 7 can be expected to affect current productivity
4. The lack of children can be expected to increase productivity because people who would have otherwise been putting their focus on child rearing can instead focus on work.
>>China is now the richest country on Earth<<
By what metric? Per capita GDP (which shows the amount of resources available to take care of each person?) Total nominal GDP (which is the metric that's important when you rely heavily on international trade) or PPP which is really only useful for stuff for which there isn't an international market?
Is this including liabilities such as, for example, a huge amount of people reaching retirement age?
The economic growth the PRC has had has also in large part relied on the additional workers and resources freed up by the lack of children to care for. Now these children are being replaced by adults with a severe decline in new future workers to replace them.
>>and it shows zero signs of letting up. <<
It's amazing what you won't see if you don't look.
>>I've been hearing the same garbage takes for over 40 years now<<
I highly doubt that.
10 years I could believe.
For the rest of the 40 years, it was a powerhouse going through massive growth.
>>The truth is China is the powerhouse of industry and production of this planet, and it has zero intention of decreasing this.<<
That's nice. Unfortunately the CCP's wants don't define reality.
>>By the way, even if this trend was to keep going (which you have zero long-term evidence to go off of for this assumption)<<
What time period are you after? Five years is a pretty long time when you remember that the births per year were low enough to make scrapping the one child policy a priority five years ago and they've continued to plummet since.
This isn't a one year blip we're talking about. This is six years of continued year-on-year population decline for something that takes about two decades to see the positive results of rectifying. (If there's a sudden massive boom in 2030 that won't be useful until 2050)
It also isn't a gradual decline, it's a catastrophic decline.
>>the country has 1.5 billion people.<<
Do you need to have ratios explained to you?
>>even in your fabricated universe where China perpetually shows decreases in net population, that still means it will essentially control world production for centuries to come.<<
The problem is the ratio of workers to dependents.
If people died the moment they hit retirement, there wouldn't be a problem, but they tend to live up to 20-30 years past retirement age. Those are non-producers who need to be supported (at a pretty expensive part of their lives. Medical care for an adult is more costly than medical care for an infant)
2
-
@ranovich6734 >>You can call a horse a giraffe, it doesn't mean that the animal isn't a horse. The actual name is the "Communist Part of China" not the "Chinese Communist Party." But you're free to call it a pink elephant if you wish. <<
The suggestion that it's just the Chinese branch of the global (mostly failed) communist movement seems to upset you.
If it's more than that, and is about helping China, you should have no problems telling me what will happen when the CCP loses power (as all governments do)
>>Regardless, going off of population data of 5 years to make long term assessments of future productivity and industry for a country is more laughable than what you decide to call a country's ruling government<<
Because the people who aren't being born will somehow magically start contributing in the future? Their absence won't deprive the PRC of their potential contributions for the 40-50 years they could be expected to work?
When last year's 10 million newborns enter the workforce, about 20 million are going to retire.
>>Especially with regards to China, a country whose central government has taken decades of planning and study to turn the country from one of the poorest to one of the richest.<<
You're mistaking being better off than under Mao for actually being in a good position.
>>For any person who actually studies the plans of the CPC (including their five year plans for essentially ever industry) its demonstrably easy to see that they have known about the decline in population much longer than western chauvinists have been talking about them - and they're already implementing new economic and social policies to conform to this challenge. <<
They'd want to hurry up. Every year lost is another 10 million + potential future workers.
Anyway, can you explain how they're going to get the increase in people that will be needed before about 20 million experienced workers per year start to leave.
Also: The solutions require short term pain (it's expensive to raise children) for something the current leadership won't even begin to benefit from until they're almost dead (Xi will be nearly 90 by the time last year's newborns start being useful)
>>Additionally, I've heard literally since the the mid 80s that China's growth is unsustainable and they'll largely fizzle within the next decade (wrong, stupid predictions on the back of sinophobic rhetoric) I<<
Kind of like Evergrande's model provided year after year of massive increase showing it to truly be a company to emulate*
*As long as you ignore the last two years.
Also, again, I highly doubt you've been hearing that since the mid 80's. It really wasn't much of a thing until about ten years ago.
>> think what you should be 100x more concerned about is where this country (US) is headed - the prospects of productivity, wages, and inflation in this country are harrowing compared to China (but for some reason you choose to fixate on the problems of China but not your own country, which is peculiar).<<
Why do you think I'm American? I'm Australian, a country which (unlike the PRC) can actually attract large quantities of immigrants.
And this is a video about the PRC. It seems a pretty appropriate place to talk about the PRC.
>>The fact you call per capita GDP "the amount of resources available to take care of each person" is the most laughable thing I've probably ever seen on the web. You do realize how this metric is calculated, yes? You take a nation's total GDP, and divide it by the total number of individuals within that country. It has next to no association with "resources at the disposal of a single person" <<
I didn't say resources 'at the disposal of' I said resources 'available to take care of'
A country with a high GDP per capita (such as the USA, if you're going to insist on bringing it up) has more resources available per person than the PRC, whose resources available per person are about half what's considered a poverty level
>>Lastly, China IS the richest country on the planet - by pure net worth and assets alone. Not in terms of GDP or GDP per capita - statistics which actually do not have a huge significance for the general population as people like you would deem it. GDP per capita means next to nothing for working people. <<
Gross. By PPP.
Anyway, from this, we see further proof you really don't understand ratios. Absolute numbers aren't the important thing. The important thing is absolute numbers divided by those who need to use it.
The amount of resources in a country per person has a DRAMATIC effect on people - working as well as non-working.
If you have twice as many people, each person can, on average, have about half as many resources allocated to it.
It's why so many hundreds of thousands of PRC citizens emigrate to the Western world each normal year (not counting the years of the CCP virus)
>>An increase in this metric, as it has been happening in America for the past 40 years, has had next to significant increase in real wages for working Americans (which is why I laugh my ass off when someone brings GDP or per capita GDP into a discussion relating to the prosperity of the common people). <<
The amount of people trying to emigrate to the USA (and other Western countries) says otherwise.
I'll trust people who vote with their feet over those who simply mouth off any time.
>>The richer get richer while labor continues to supply the rich with their obscene wealth; and the GDP continuously increases (while workers continuously get a smaller share of such riches).<<
1. The PRC Gini (a measure of wealth inequality) is 0.465
The USA Gini is 0.434
And the USA has 6x the wealth per person than the PRC does.
So not only is there more wealth to go round, but it's more equitably distributed than in the PRC.
2. The average (not median. Average) income in the PRC is lower than the Federal poverty line in the USA.
And just to throw it in:
The CCP is a party that's proud of eliminating poverty using a line (2300rmb per year)that's significantly less than the global extreme poverty line.
A value that's about 6% of the USA's federal poverty line.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JWRame >>they're already doing it in China. The past 30years is evident<<
They're doing some in the PRC, in very specific locations. With some high profile stuff.
>>The ascension in tech will surpass the west. The highest bidder will always win in capitalism.<<
It will. When you consider the overall package.
What do you think can afford to bid more?
The country with a GDP per capita of $10k USD or the one with a GDP per capita of $60K USD?
>>Even with a demographic problem the sheer scale will still leave china with a larger labor pool.<<
A larger labour pool is only useful if the people with the skills it needs:
A. Exist
B. Haven't gone overseas in search of better money and living/working conditions.
>>and I don't understand your assumption that places like Australia and the US are still attractive places to live.<<
Well, here's one bit that's highly relevant to IT professionals.
I don't need to use a VPN to get to Youtube.
Now, that's not the entire issue, but it's a symptom of a massive issue.
In general, though, I gave a good outline of the parts you don't understand the post I made earlier today. If you're really interested in understanding this, you could try reading what I wrote instead of cherry picking things you think you're capable of replying to.
>>And people in the US are already working for Chinese tech companies. <<
And the skills they learn are in the US. And they're being paid US wages. And if they change jobs, the companies that have the easiest access to them are in the US.
>>We're probably going to see that increase over time.<<
And what I said will remain true. That talent will remain in the USA, the money paid for that talent will flow into the USA and the companies that have easiest access to them will be American.
Plus, what happens when the USA makes it difficult for Chinese companies to operate there? That day is coming.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zhouwu yeah, it's pretty special.
I'm a New Zealander on my mother's side. Most of my relationship with my uncle has been making fun of each other's countries.
I'm in Hong Kong and he's been worried about me. He suggested I move to NZ. I countered with North Korea as an equally acceptable alternative.
You kind of get it in the UK as well, but there's an undertone of serious to it.
I'm a Celt, rather than English. (Three citizenships, btw) and I'll happily talk about the invaders when I'm there, but being Australian, except for wanting a few hundred M2 in London as compensation, I'm too far removed to care. Others take it seriously, though.
Which is why I'm a Cornishman in Scotland, Cornwall, Ireland or Wales, simply British or Australian in England (unless I want to rib the German invaders), and in Europe, always Australian.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JohnSmith-qk4rm Firstly, I'm just going to highlight here that you've completely given up on anything to do with the PRC or CCP. You've instead made a conscious effort to divert attention away from these uncomfortable subjects and focus on talking about the USA with an Australian.
I'll also explicitly point out that you, like so, so, so many others, have refused to answer anything about any peaceful means to get rid of the CCP. That you feel the need to evade this should terrify you.
Anyway...
>>Voted out peacefully? <<
Yep.
>>So then tell me, why is Jie Biden still sitting in his chair as nothing happened<<
There was an election a year ago. The incumbent lost.
>>The total death caused by COVID in USA is right now 831K, more than the combined lose of US soldiers in WW1 and WW2. You know what, rather than worrying about china, who may or more possibly may not have any issue, why don't you do something to save yourself?<<
It takes a pretty special kind of delusion to think it's a good idea to suggest worrying about things other than China in the same paragraph as you talk about the deaths caused by the CCP virus.
>>America is so screwed right now at this very moment we talk. For the last 20 years, the entire world economy was kidnapped by your immoderate desire for more money. <<
This desire is the same thing that pulled the PRC out of the abject poverty Mao sentenced the Chinese people to for another generation.
It is a massive problem. You're right, the Western world should stop the greed that makes us turn a blind eye to the barbarities of the CCP.
It's not a civilised government, it's high time we stopped letting our desire for money make us pretend that they are.
>>Every single conflict since WW2 can be traced back to the USA.<<
It's interesting that you believe this.
>>If your system really has that self-correction which you always try to point out. The world should never come to this point, not even close.<<
Well, there almost was peace with the fall of that corrupter of nations known as the Soviet Union. Unfortunately the barbarians in the CCP have kept it going that little bit longer.
>>So why is it so hard for you people to face the fact that your system is just nothing but a dream? <<
Firstly, do you see the irony in you (the person who's decided to abandon any attempt whatsoever to say things are just peachy in the PRC) asking why people can't face.... Anything?
Secondly, democracy is well known to be the worst system of government.... Except for all the other systems that have been tried.
>>In reality, it failed badly<<
Failed so badly your senior officials and your rich have put a massive amount of effort into getting their money into the USA.
Failed so badly that they don't need capital controls (unlike the PRC)
>>It is time to face it and make a change now. <<
You'd do a better job of making an argument for this change if you could actually defend the system you think is a good one instead of resorting to whataboutism.
>>CCP must have done something right throughout its history<<
Yes. The Chinese Communist Party temporarily stopped trying to achieve Communism. After the epic disaster that was Mao.
>>No matter what CCP saved their people both from COVID<<
The continued lockdowns after the CCP's success at "containing" the virus when it first came outr say otherwise.
>>and made sure no one got homeless<<
Do you realise you're posting this on a video about people putting their (and their family's) life savings into buying houses from a company that's gone bankrupt?
>>It is nothing to be ashamed of to learn from people you might don't like. And this is something people like you should really try to undestand.<<
I agree. The CCP has given the world a master class on what not to do over the last few years. (Actually the past 70. About the only time the CCP hasn't given the world a wonderful lesson on what not to do was when the Communist party was allowing in some capitalism)
Lesson 1 (while you're bringing up the CCP virus) is don't lie about and cover up a new virus.
Lesson 2 is don't have an economy that's so untrusted that the only place for people to put their spare cash into is housing.
Lesson 3 is don't let people get the belief that X investment opportunity will never be allowed to fail.
And that's without going into a wonderful variety of other lessons.
I could try your tactic of just slinging random whataboutisms do see what sticks, but I don't need to. Replying to what you've said gives me all the opportunity I could ever ask for.
It should tell you everything you could ever need to know about the state of the PRC that you can't do the same.
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
-
@deri1942 >>Just making bold assumptions is probably the most American thing ever to dismiss someone's opinion<<
So you're assuming I'm American as a way to dismiss what I say? Something something hypocrisy something something.
>>IDGAF if you believe me or not I was born and raised in Vienna and I have a lot of friends with an immigration background and racism is a thing if you want to see it or not<<
That's a nice claim.
None of my counterarguments rely on you making stuff up. They rely on facts that are true whatever story you come up with. If you disagree, please quote examples.
>>If you go to certain districts (15,12,11,..) you can clearly see parallel societies<<
What part of my argument is this meant to change?
>>Just because refugees try to get into the "Anglosphere" XD (you mean Europe?), these problems don't disappear.<<
1. I've been talking about skilled migrants. Not refugees (Although they're also voting with their feet) - Basically in this scenario, however you spin it, China gets the West's leavings.
This is something you yourself have responded to. That you've decided to pretend that we're talking about refugees doesn't do much for your honesty.
2. You're literally the first "European" I've come across who's attempted to mix these terms.
3. If you look back to my original post, you've done nothing to discredit that. You've attempted to shift the discussion away (as well as giving praise for the CCP's five year plan. Totally a normal thing for the sort of "European" who's confused on the difference between Europe and the Anglosphere to do. I did say 'join the Anglosphere practice' after all.
Maybe you are Austrian, but...
1. For my argument, it doesn't matter if you are.
2. Sure you are, buddy ;-) Sure you are.
1
-
1
-
@deri1942 Edit: Because I realise that this is a long post, and I'd reasonably expect a bit of antagonism, I'm going to repeat what I'd written last first.
Look, I'll believe you're Austrian and apologise for doubting you (In my defence, this whole "I'm from anywhere but the PRC" thing is a trope amongst the Wumao.) and if there's anything you're curious about, ask specific questions and I'm glad to get you info on it.
Anyway, original post:
>>You are right, when talking about Austria I know that immigration (mainly from the middle east, plus turkey and the Balkans) is making up for the declining population. But I also know that this isn't the case for countries like Germany, where the population is still declining despite a lot of immigration.
"However, long-term projections still forecast Germany’s population to decline"<<
'1. With smaller populations, they don't need to attract as many immigrants to make up for it.'
So the population declines. That's OK.
The issue the PRC has is the crash. Not to mention the per capita poverty which directly affects its ability to deal with the crash.
>>And even if immigrations make up for a decline in population, most of them are still not skilled workers.<<
'2. With more wealth, they can offer these immigrants better conditions.'
They need to attract fewer people to make up for it (or help make up for it)
they get the best available.
Austria is a country of under 9 million with a per capita GDP 50k that is number 18 on the Human Development index.
How do you think that's going to fare when compared with a country of 1400 million with a per capita GDP of $10k that's number 85 on the HDI?
Also, if you'll recall, your objection at first was Austrians don't want it. Can't != don't
Now != the future. Fundamentally in this area, Austria is in a far better situation than the PRC could ever hope to be.
>>According to the official gv site, there is a lack of at least 162.000 skilled workers in Austria. <<
There's a lack of skilled workers everywhere. Particularly in the technical/engineering fields.
See previous comments about the size of the PRC's problem and the amount it can pay to overcome it.
As a skilled worker who's currently living in his fourth city (Hong Kong... For the next two weeks after two very interesting years here) in his third country, I can say from experience a skilled worker is able to follow the money. Very few follow poverty.
>>Plus racism and populism are a big problem too like I already said the formation of parallel societies, lack of integration, and so on<<
See my previous comments about learning from the Anglosphere, which has been doing this for generations.
Now more directly, racism and populism are problems.... But for talking about the PRC, dial it up to 11.
This goes for pretty much any problem you see in a Western country, yeah, it can be bad, there's always room for improvement, but for talking about the PRC, just dial it all the way up to 11 in almost any category.
To give an example (while we're on the racism subject) those Africans who were evicted en masse in Guanzhou?
Well, that's from one of the wealthiest, most advanced, best educated and most international parts of the PRC. Whatever happens here is what you'd expect to be better than elsewhere.
Actually, when I was in Shenyang a few years ago (probably the biggest city you've never heard of. Relatively close to Beijing... At least, to an Australian it is. A tier 1 city), we went to my wife's old school. An African American teacher came out with us. My wife's friends weren't just unsure, they were freaked out. Right down to the whispered questions to me on what they're meant to do.
Not to mention the horror at seeing a yang guizi walking around with a Chinese girl. It's not open from everyone, but I'll see more opposition to our miscenegation in a week of there than I have in over fifteen years back home.
Hong Kong is far better than any mainland place I've been to in almost every way (at least, before the central govt ruined things. If you want to see how well they're doing, check out the changes to electoral laws that have just gone in), but I still had the person renting me a place ask (on the phone) if I was Indian. To be asked that question where I'm from is pretty unthinkable.
These isn't the worst acts, this is the casual acceptance. In a dictatorship, the worst acts can be, well.... Worse. But why am I telling an Austrian this?
Long story short, your most famous citizen has far more in common with Xi, the CCP and what it's created than should be acceptable 80 to 90 years later.
>>Of course, we are wealthy enough to give immigrants good conditions, but are we willing to?<<
Don't want to != Can't
>>What I meant in my original post was, yes China has a problem with its population decline, but we have one too<<
Not remotely on the same level.
Austria could potentially do something about it. If the Austrian people decide to face reality.
The PRC.... Can't. The problem is too big and it's too undesirable a place if you've got other options.
Austria is a net immigration country. The PRC is a net emigration country. Not by a small number, either. It's history's largest brain drain and it's still going on.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/net-migration
Take a look here:
Then when you see what looks like a low number per 1000, remember that the emigrants aren't random people from some Western village. They're not even random people from Shanghai or whatever. They're the best (or at least the best connected) the country has to offer.
Look, I'll believe you're Austrian and apologise for doubting you (In my defence, this whole "I'm from anywhere but the PRC" thing is a trope amongst the Wumao.) and if there's anything you're curious about, ask specific questions and I'm glad to get you info on it.
I've been going around this country for the last seventeen years and quite frankly, it's one of those places that seems great fun until you get to know it. The more you know it, the worse it gets.
I'll miss Hong Kong dearly. More to the point, I'll miss what Hong Kong was.
Except for the yangrochuar, and except for that I like my in laws, I'd be glad to never see the PRC again. I've met a lot of wonderful individuals there, but the country as a whole is sick in pretty much every conceivable way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HFrevive >>you’re right, but think deeper, if you know, he knows everyone knows, why doesn’t the ccp do something, at least put out some encouraging policies, nothing<<
Because anything that could be done involves short to medium term pain for benefits that wouldn't come until after the current senior leadership has died of old age.
>>Another data i saw is that 16-24 unemployment rate ( excluding students) is 14%. That means there’s still a huge over supply in man power<<
Not unusual, and more an indication that the really young are generally useless until they've had that bit of experience and maturity.
>> maybe they will do something around 2025 but not now<<
This isn't something you can just turn a tap on and off on.
Really, that 25 year lag means something should have been done even earlier than now. Let alone another five years time.
>> Honestly think about long term, china is all about long term<<
If you think that, then you should be able to tell me what happens when the CCP loses power and how another party will gain it.
For China's long term stability, it's a pretty basic question.
From my end, though, this is a government of very short term thinkers doing whatever they think will buy them another few months or years in power, at the expense of China's long term prospects.
Only the CCP matters.
>>We are 1st for 70% of human history and we are still around<<
The Cultural Revolution did a first class job of severing that connection to the past.
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
-
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
-
@unifieddynasty >>South China Sea has always been like this. Petty posturing by all claimants, drowned out by overwhelmingly positive diplomacy and trade relationships multilaterally in the region.<<
You think the surrounding countries are happy with the theft of their legal EEZs?
>>Hong Kong's protest started out peacefully and the criminal bill was withdrawn.<<
The extradition bill was never withdrawn. That statement is a simple lie.
Lam declared it 'dead' (a meaningless term) but refused to actually withdraw it.
>>Secessionists and foreign agents were everywhere<<
Foreign agents weren't needed. Lam's refusal to withdraw the bill plus the mockery she made of peaceful protests was all that was needed.
>>Despite this, the PLA was never involved, and zero people died from any police action. That is the context of the National Security legislation. It was clearly the anti-China western sphere that incited these actions, and the reverse would never be tolerated by the west.<<
Again, foreign influence wasn't needed.
I was there from start to finish. It was purely the govt making a manageable situation worse.
>>The global pandemic is overwhelmingly not the fault of China. You can blame China for being authoritarian and secretive for the first two weeks, but then they got their shit together. <<
Too little, too late. This was something that could only be properly contained before it spread. My own country had gone to zero multiple times, but because it was global, it kept coming back.
Kind of like it's continually returning to the PRC.
I never did find out where it was contained to, though. There was lots of self congratulation from the CCP about how well they'd contained i.
Long story short: It's a global issue today because the CCP lied, covered it up and allowed it to spread. Another manageable situation made worse by the incompetents running the PRC.
1
-
@unifieddynasty >>Don't strawman. It reflects poorly on you. I specifically stated, quote: 'South China Sea has always been like this. Petty posturing by all claimants, drowned out by overwhelmingly positive diplomacy and trade relationships multilaterally in the region.' You are incapable of rebutting this fact.<<
That doesn't answer my questions.
>>Literally quoting Wikipedia, which is by far edited by anti-China users: "On 15 June, Lam announced she would 'suspend' the proposed bill.[6] Ongoing protests called for a complete withdrawal of the bill and subsequently the implementation of universal suffrage, which is promised in the Basic Law. On 4 September, after 13 weeks of protests, Lam officially promised to withdraw the bill upon the resumption of the legislative session from its summer recess.[7][8] On 23 October, Secretary for Security John Lee announced the government's formal withdrawal of the bill.[9][10]". <<
'Suspend' meant nothing.
The promise meant nothing
And the 23rd of October was after six months of this. The protests stopped being peaceful long before the bill was wirthdrawn.
>>So what is it called when you accuse someone else of lying but you yourself are the liar?<<
Ah, so you didn't intend to make it appear as if the bill was withdrawn before the protests became violent?
Silly me ;-)
>>Your opinion doesn't change the fact that foreign agents were heavily involved in said protests and riots. This, by the way, includes Steve Bannon, among many other Trumpist agents, who famously instigated yet another riot somewhere else in the world. Care to guess where?<<
It doesn't change that this was claimed.
Frankly, foreign support wasn't needed. People there were furious.
>>I don't give a damn about the CCP or Lam's government. I am simply stating the fact that your protests and riots were heavily influenced and funded by foreign agents, which I will remind you yet again would NEVER be tolerated by anti-China western countries. If you are incapable of refuting this fact, then I suggest you move on and stop belabouring worthless opinions.<<
You're stating a belief that's been spread by a party that's generally incapable of taking ownership of its mistakers.
>>You have a nasty habit of running away from my actual stated points. I reiterate, quote: 'The global pandemic is overwhelmingly not the fault of China. You can blame China for being authoritarian and secretive for the first two weeks, but then they got their shit together. Your country probably didn't get its shit together for two months despite plenty of forewarning from scientists and the WHO and even China itself once they got their shit together. How about you take some personal responsibility instead of blaming China? Also, the Pivot to Asia started in the early 2010s, a full decade before this pandemic. Your gishgallop here is worthless.'
You have said nothing to refute any of my points. Try harder.<<
What part of my response is that meant to change? The CCP's actrions were too little too late. Then it became global (not just my country. Global)
Then it was really out of control.
>>Wrong and utterly misleading. Comprehend that there are different levels of government. The Wuhan municipal government didn't take it seriously for two weeks. Then the national government took control and locked down 60 million people in the span of mere days. The people who downplayed the severity were duly and lawfully punished and stripped of their positions. The same cannot be said for the numerous fools and bogans running your various levels of government who didn't bother to properly respond after seeing with their own eyes China's "draconic" lockdowns, after China's leadership repeatedly told the world to take it seriously, after the WHO declared it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, which explicitly urges all countries to prepare to contain the outbreak, and even after *months and months and years*, so many of your anti-science politicians in power still don't take it seriously.
Stop being a coward.. Accept responsibility for your own failures, which are abysmally magnitudinous in comparison to China's delay of just two weeks.<<
These weren't CCP officials working within the system the CCP enthusiastically created?
Also, from the looks of things, that wasn't a delay of two weeks.
1
-
1
-
@unifieddynasty >>They promised to suspend the bill. They promised to withdraw the bill. They suspended the bill. They withdrew the bill. They kept their promises and you are a liar for claiming that the bill is not withdrawn.<<
My sincerest apologies for not considering the withdrawal (soon to be replaced by the barbaric national security law) after five months of protests and word games
I'd read your initial post as you claiming that the bill was withdrawn, then the protests became violent, but I see now that that was nothing more than you attempting to be intentionally misleading. As we see below.
>>When I first said "Hong Kong's protest started out peacefully", that was me trying to be charitable towards the peaceful Hong Kong protestors whom I initially supported. In reality, there was always violence during those protests. But since you want to stoop down to deceptive quote-mining, you should acknowledge what I stated in full, quote: 'Hong Kong's protest started out peacefully and the criminal bill was withdrawn. Then the violent rioters continued rioting and even trashed their Legislative building much like the Jan 6th rioters.' Do you understand English? Of course you do. You know exactly what you're doing. You enjoy the underhanded tactic of quote-mining. If you weren't so underhanded, you would not have accused me of claiming that "the bill was withdrawn before the protests became violent".<<
So in your chronology:
1. There are peaceful protests. ("Hong Kong's protest started out peacefully")
2. The bill is withdrawn ("and the criminal bill was withdrawn")
3. The protests become violent ("Then the violent rioters continued rioting and even trashed their Legislative building much like the Jan 6th rioters.'")
To put dates on these:
1. Was in April 2019
2. Was in October 2019
3. The incident you mentioned was in July 2019.
What I'm doing here is going by your words. If your chronology doesn't work as well when dates are applied, that's your problem.
Or does the calendar now go April > October > July?
>>I reiterate: Your opinion doesn't change the fact that foreign agents were heavily involved in said protests and riots. This, by the way, includes Steve Bannon, among many other Trumpist agents, who famously instigated yet another riot somewhere else in the world. Care to guess where?<<
A handshake and a few overseas laws that give moral support is all it takes to put an entire city into six months of mass protest in your books?
>>You tried and failed to blame the pandemic on China. I put China's response in proportion to the response of all western countries including yours. You shift the goalposts by saying that China still failed in the first two weeks, even though this is not the primary reason why your country failed. How pathetic.<<
The pandemic started in the PRC after CCP officials lied and covered up what was going on.
Warnings given after the problem becomes too big to hide don't qualify as doing the right thing.
>>Let me remind you that when China locked down 60 million people, Australia only had 4 cases of Covid and America only had 5 cases. China is responsible for those 4 or 5 cases. The tens of thousands to millions more after that are the fault of your government. Your government failed to take the doctors and scientists including The Lancet seriously. Your government failed to take China's lockdown seriously. Your government failed to take China's warnings seriously. Your government failed to take the WHO's Public Health Emergency declaration seriously. Stop being a coward and take responsibility for your own magnitudinous failures<<
You have genuine problems understanding that there's a whole world out there, don't you?
And that once it's out, it'll keep coming back.
This is why there's still lockdowns happening there. Because it keeps coming back.
Once upon a time, this virus was in a small, manageable area. At that time, the CCP officials were covering it up and lying through their teeth.
>>Are you aware of something called 'corruption'?<<
Something that's rife in the PRC that the CCP created.
>>How about 'decentralization'?<<
Something that's not ride in the PRC the CCP created.
>>Are you aware that you are so politically illiterate that you are attempting the equivalent of blaming Mayor Bob Filner's actions on President Barack Obama?<<
Is this where we pretend that the governments at all levels aren't CCP appointees?
When you're dictator, the buck stops with ytou.
>>Wrong. China began full investigations on Jan 18. This is exactly two calendar weeks from the time Covid was first sequenced.<<
First sequenced.
Not first appeared. (When they knew something was happening and were lying about it)
>>Your question is a strawman. You insidiously try to shift the goalposts. You continue to fail to rebut what I actually said.<<
How is it a straw man?
>>I will reiterate what I actually said again, just for you: 'South China Sea has always been like this. Petty posturing by all claimants, drowned out by overwhelmingly positive diplomacy and trade relationships multilaterally in the region.'
You have failed to refute the fact that there is petty posturing by all claimants, not just China. You have failed to refute the fact that these petty posturings by all claimants is drowned out by overwhelmingly positive diplomacy and trade relationships with China. Your baseless opinions and allegations are worthless when one simply examines the reality. China overwhelmingly has good diplomatic and trade relations with ASEAN countries, no matter how much you want to provoke them.<<
So good that you label (without any justification) any questioning of the effect of the theft of their resources a straw man.
There is absolutely petty posturing by all claimants.
Then there's organised theft backed up by force of the entire region by the PRC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reeti5958 >>birthrate is declining in all developed countries.<<
The developed countries you're referring to can all attract and integrate large numbers of immigrants. This isn't true for the PRC.
Also, you say this as if they're declining at similar rates. According to official numbers, in 2015 there were 15 million births. In 2016 there were 17 million (the effect of the abolition of the one child policy). Last year there were 10 million births.
That decline wasn't caused by the pandemic. It's part of a trend that predates it.
Adjusted for population sizes, the US births are about 50% higher than the PRC's official numbers and increasing.
>>Wealth inequality between costal and internal regions are the problem that the government is trying to tackle by connecting those places with these routes. The routes that are mostly in loss are built to connect those places with large cities.
<<
If you're a migrant worker from one of those cities, you're not taking the high speed rail as a daily commute.
And if it's not a daily commute, your focus isn't on the speed and luxury, but the ticket cost.
>>Also wealth inequality between those places is also because most of their population do live in that part. It's obvious that where most people live and where most large cities are, would be the place with more wealthy people.<<
True, but not really an argument for linking anywhere and everywhere with high speed rail as fast as possible. More of an argument for being much more discriminatory about how you do it and taking your time about planning and doing it properly.
Edit: Also, if you haven't built something unproductive, you're not putting your finite resources into maintaining it. If you're not putting your finite resources into maintaining that unproductive thing, those resources can go elsewhere. Also, when you actually do build it, you're going to be building something newer and better, vs dealing with something that's already ten or twenty years old before it even started to be useful.
>>GDP per capita using PPP of China is much larger. Australia don't even have population to compare it to anything. China has 3 times population of USA.<<
And a working age population that's about to head into a rapid decline.
Also, PPP is only relevant for things that are domestic.
Australia isn't selling you iron ore at PPP prices, after all.
>>. And a total different economy which is in development state rather than already developed where most people use cars.<<
I'm guessing you've never tried commuting using car.
If you're talking about car ownership as if it's relevant, you're not talking about distances or scenarios that warrant high speed rail.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SpyFromMarsZeus >>The world', you mean, the 'west influenced' world? <<
Them plus every one of the PRC's neighbours with the possible exception of North Korea (Russia knows you want the land handed over in 1860 back. To say nothing of whatever else you grab while you're there)
>>Maybe you should ask people from Laos or Afghanistan about how they love the bombs from the US?<<
I could talk to these mighty global powers. These awesome juggernaughts of military and economic clout.
Or I could talk to Vietnam, the Philipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India, you get the idea (at least... You should get the idea) about how they view the prospect of an unrestrained CCP.
I could even talk to Hong Kong.
To say nothing of every country which has been badly affected by the CCP virus, which basically covers all of them.
How many friends do you think the PRC has that would stand by it when the cash flow to their various governments dried up?
1
-
@SpyFromMarsZeus >>All of those places you mentioned, must befriended with America coz 'soft powers', not because the might Wallstreet or aircraft carriers I'm sure about that.<<
And?
That you've only been able to respond to even Vietnam with sarcasm tells me that they're aligned with the US.
Edit: In all fairness, the reason they're aligned with the US doesn't need to be because of American soft power, so much as that they're neighbours to a massive nation run by expansionist sociopaths.
Xi has done wonders for uniting the world against the PRC. He almost deserves a nobel peace prize.
>>Plus, South Korea, while being the nation with American military bases, specifically said they would not choose side between the US or China is telling enough.<<
LOL.
You believe that if push came to shove, if war broke out, South Korea wouldn't join in?
They know what happens when the CCP wins. They can look a little bit North to see it.
Long story short, if you believe that, you're extremely gullible.
>>You guys have no power, without those military oppressions and economic sanctions, you are nothing.<<
It looks like you're talking about the CCP here. Remove the threat of invasion and threat of economic sanctions and what do they have?
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
-
@shenglongli8387 >>ummm.......it's been lifted over 2 years ago are you dumb<<
And yet, births per year (including prior to last year) continue to decline substantially, according to Global Times.
Also, it started to be lifted about ten years ago. Not two. No improvement, though.
So methinks you've got a bigger problem.
>>We must keep in mind that AI will replace most of today's workers in China, U.S. and other countries! Thus we do NOT need people: In any given country, there are far more jobseekers/low-skilled workers and job creators and highly productive individuals! More people also mean more polluters and drivers needing all sorts of social services!
<<
You need to keep a certain ratio. AI and automation help, but:
1. Even in wealthy countries, they're not a silver bullet.
2. The PRC isn't a remotely wealthy country. It's just big.
>>There are some truths in what you claiming, but if one child policy wasn't implemented, the population would likely be in excess of 2 billion, a problem far more acute than the aging population problem. Social engineering is never easy.<<
Kind of sounds like what the PRC didn't need was a moron in charge who encouraged the people to have lots of children.
It also sounds like it would have been a wonderful idea to NOT keep this going for two entire generations.
>>China has 1.4 billion people. When you have such a large population base, even a very low birth rate can still produce a huge number of people. The annual net addition to the total population is still in the tens of millions. As a comparison, the USA adds about one million people annually. But last year is an exception. The USA experienced a decrease in population.
<<
It can, but a huge population needs a huge amount of people to replace a huge number of retiring workers.
This is a question of ratios. The only thing a bigger population means is that it's more difficult to correct the ratio from external sources.
The PRC's homogenous culture doesn't help.
Nor does its poverty relative to the Western world.
1
-
1
-
@shenglongli8387 >>on the automation part, you have no right to judge china because you clearly haven't been to china<<
I've been going over it for the past seventeen years. Normally in the North East, but all over and most recently in the South.
That old "You don't know China" is a pretty tired old standby. Even by the standards of the fifty centers.
>>in fact, the child problem is being fixed as a top priority and is already, in some way, working, with improved basic infrastructure, and a special department on each town for lifting people out of poverty, I have seen those with my very own eyes<<
Global Times data says otherwise.
As does the PRC's definition of poverty as (adjusted for inflation) $1.70 USD a day - The global extreme poverty line is $2.20 USD
>>so maybe, just maybe, judge china 10 years later<<
When the births per year are continuing to decline and it's even more obvious that there's no time to reverse the trend?
>>the place in the video flopped cause idiots keep frying the price of houses up<<
If your level of accuracy is consistent, whatever the reason for failure is, it isn't that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rafimuhammadzakaria482 >>Well look at it this way, less people means better GDP per capita which in turn fuels consumption and investment<<
The problem is there aren't fewer people, just fewer workers.
If someone died on retirement, this wouldn't begin to be a problem. But they live somewhere between one and three decades after that.
Taking someone who completed high school without further education as an example:
The first 18 years are spent being a drain.
The next 42 years are spent contributing (Retirement age in China is 60)
And then on average, the next 16 years are spent being a drain. This number is increasing (So will the retirement age, but this age will probably increase faster)
Giving 34 drain years to 42 useful years. Assuming zero years are spent unemployed.
That's the normal minimum someone who hasn't been especially useful to society. (That education matters)
Calling either of those drain categories drains might be harsh, but it's true.
For university, bump that up to about the first 25 years on education, with retirement age being the same (although a lot more optional. Jobs that don't require an education require physical ability making retirement less feasible. For an educated one, the big challenge is mental decline)
So for someone useful, that's:
25 years being a drain
35 years being useful
And 16 + years being a drain.
So 35 useful years to 41 drain years.
It's not much.
And a very large part of the PRC's success over the last few decades has been maximising the worker:dependent ratio by reducing children. That's about to change with a vengeance in a society that's simply not prepared for it. To put it another way, the price for that short term decision is just starting to be paid and it's going to be a big one.
Any worthwhile increase in the birthrate will just means you've got the same problem now rather than later. So, given the CCP isn't the most forward thinking of governments, I'm going to have a bit of a giggle at that. Xi's ability to care about things that will take effect when he's six feet under is as limited as his desire for the Chinese people to be able to speak freely and have access to information.
You can see that by the sheer amount of denial that so many posters here have gone into. There have been so many basic things that have needed to be explained over and over again as they try to find a way to say it's not so bad. Lee's last post is a classic example.
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
-
@JWRame The demand for people who can understand, implement, maintain, improve, etc this tech is also extreme. The tech is getting more powerful every day, but every bit of extra power adds complexity (there's some simplification going on, but that's counteracted by the rate of change and need to constantly learn new things)
Which means there's a global market paying real money.
Which means everyone who can do it can pick and choose their country or city.
Which then brings the question: Why go to the PRC? Lower pay, worse working conditions, more restrictions, a painfully difficult language (This is where English speaking nations have a huge advantage) and so on.
And that ignores the sheer scale of the problem. In the PRC, it's massive.
And this massive problem is expected to be resolved by the people capable of doing this that the rest of the world didn't want. (My current manager is a former Chinese citizen the rest of the world did want. He's very, very good and would have been a massive boon to the PRC. Instead, he's a massive boon to Australia)
Up until last year, I was working in Hong Kong, which I'd regard as the best part of the PRC.
Now I'm not. Because the situation there became untenable. It's still better than the rest of the PRC though.
If Hong Kong can't attract me, nowhere in the PRC can attract me.
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
-
Actually, on re-reading that post, will go through it properly. There's far less I agree with than first glance.
>> guess you haven't read local Chinese propaganda like Apple daily that was started by US funding as they actively organized the protests themselves by directly funding the activists, or how they managed to report alternative facts just to whip up hatred against the police. it would be a bit like Fox news directly funding activists to organize riots in the Congress. Sure CL doesn't have the political acumen, but if you can't read Chinese, you would have no idea how far the propaganda had gone to discredit her and the police. The amount of fake news and misinformation on social media and newspapers were mind boggling. <<
I could see, from her own mouth, in English, how much she was going out of her way to make the problem worse. I didn't need other sources, her words were enough.
>>The sad thing about HK was that it was actually legal to commit treason before the latest national security law. So many thought it was legitimate to ask US politicians for more trade sanctions against China and Hong Kong because the police were chasing after the violent mob for throwing petrol bombs for vandalising banks, shops, universities etc. <<
And whose fault was it that in 23 years since handover, with a Beijing dominated government, they'd been unable to figure out acceptable anti-treason laws?
>>There are also other Chinese newspapers like oriental daily that is BOTH critical of the Hong Kong Government and the violent rioters. Millions including chiefly those new immigrants from China were terrorized by the violent mobs because they have Mandarin accents, and the thugs were openly demanding for HK independence while police were treated like punching bags.<<
As I said in my last post, it really is funny that between my wife and mainland coworkers, no-one had had any experience of this widespread anti-mainlander terrorisation against anyone with a mainland accent.
Apparently we'd had the same thing happening in Australia when my wife went back there because of the pandemic. Her family had called her asking if she was OK. She had no idea what they were talking about.
>>The five demands not one less demanded EVERY single rioter to be released even if they had beaten up unarmed innocents or attacked police. Apparently freedom fighters should be above the law and should be treated like Nobles in antiquity because only those who agree with their politics are allowed to exercise free speech. All are equal, but some other are more equal than others. <<
I don't agree with attacking innocent bystanders. Police were a fair target. The only time I'd personally seen bystanders be attacked, though, was an Indian family caught in the teargas let off by police in Tsim Tsa Tsui.
>>Finally, Not a SINGLE pro democracy activist or politician came out to condemn the violence. Even after a man was set on fire and another murdered by a brick from rioters. What a joke. How would democracy ever function if you justify using violence on others just because they don't agree with your politics? Only respect free speech and human rights if they are on your side? Does adopting facism make sense just because rioters oppose Beijing's communism?<<
This gets back to my question of: If something unacceptable is being done and there are no peaceful means to prevent it, what do you do?
Because of the abuse it would allow, the extradition law was completely unacceptable.
And it was the govt that ensured peaceful measures were met with contempt. The protests started out peacefully. Then Lam started to do things like saying the bill "was dead" as if that was a meaningful term, rather than having it formally withdrawn.
1
-
@jackychick Just highlighting two things here:
1. Throughout all of this, you haven't given a way this unacceptable bill could have been resolved peacefully. You also haven't said what you'd do if something you found completely unacceptable couldn't be resolved without violence.
2. Since the district council elections and subsequent rewriting of the election rules, this claim that the 'silent majority' supported the govt is a simple lie. If the 'silent majority' believed as you say, then that would have come out then and the rule changes wouldn't have been required.
>>Your wife could speak English<<
She could.
But she kept on speaking Mandarin. Same with my coworkers.
>>but most new immigrants are at the bottom social class and would never be able to fake themselves to be another national<<
You think that there's no difference between the accents of people who speak English as a second language?
>>Haven't you watched the JP investment banker being punched in the face on live TV in central within seconds after he had the guts to say I am Chinese national? One western journalist blocked his exit route on purpose after he tried to flee from the attacker. <<
I'm going to skip over the much of the stuff that's the result of a lack of peaceful ways to resolve this. If violence is the only way to get what you want, what do you expect to happen?
>>Does not having universal suffrage justify vandalism and violence? <<
If there's no peaceful means of stopping something unacceptable, this is what happens. Again, what do you expect?
>>If you truly believe in democracy, then surely you would respect the rule of law?<<
This was rule by law. This was creating a law that would give the mainland govt a pretext to have people who spoke against it in HK sent to the PRC and its controlled legal system.
>>Rioters were like kids throwing a tantrum, too accustomed to the instant gratification they get from social media. CL might be incompetent, but the violence were far over the top<<
Again, what do you expect when there are no peaceful means of stopping something?
>>Kids don't seem to understand CL needed to wait for Beijimg response.<<
So the fault was Beijing's for being slow to make a decision? From their point of view, peaceful protests were only met with govt violence and contempt. (Even to the extent of using triad thugs to attack people) It can't have been because communication took too much time to get from point A to point B, so it can only have been Beijing's slow decision making. You think they were unaware of what was happening or put it as a low priority that could be dealt with in a couple of months time?
>>You are on a very slippery slope btw. Either you have the rule of law, or you don't. People in HK hated the CCP because the lack of rule of law applying equally to everyone<<
So.... They should accept the lack of rule of law that's standard on the mainland being applied to Hong Kong?
Also, the PRC doesn't have rule of law. What they were attempting to impose on Hong Kong would have destroyed rule of law, just as the NSL has since.
Rule by law and rule of law are very, very different things.
>> If you insist freedom fighters should be above the law, how are they any different from their hated enemy? Why not start robbing banks since they have already vandalised many of them and allowed many to steal cash and merchandise of shops and restaurants? <<
Yet another result of the govt's removal of peaceful means of resolving this.
Also, what looting?
>>The key issue is the ridiculous home prices in Hong Kong, yet no one among the rioters and the activists seemed to care. They think getting a western democratic system would magically and instantly solved the social ills in Hong Kong like there would be a sudden increase in land supply, which required decades of planning. Most have been indoctrinated to think universal suffrage would be the silver bullet. <<
No it wasn't. The key issue was a law that would have allowed Beijing to have people it didn't like sent over the border on trumped up charges.
>>But the pro Democrats had these twisted logic of rejecting every single proposal for increasing land supply, as if the worse Hong Kong does, the more political capital they could gain from the mess. Oh yes. security law was not introduced because of apple daily propaganda in organising protest in 2003, and the pro democracy poltiicans would block the proposals every single time. <<
If the govt couldn't think of an acceptable law, that was its problem.
>>Anyway, they had lost the respect among the silent majority because they had refused to negotiate with the government when violence didn't go out of control. Instead they were too greedy and wanted to get more popular votes for the upcoming elections. Every so called human rights activists or protest organizers were going on TV were all running for office. The truth was that generating hatred and moral panic had enabled them to garner radical voters, all at the expense of the silent majority.<<
The election results and subsequent rewriting of the rules to make it impossible (instead of simply extremely difficult) for the govt to lose future elections shows that this is a simple lie.
The election results showed that the silent majority was very much in the minority. (Which I could see simply my looking out the office window, vs the bus full of pro govt people you'd see paraded about on CCP controlled news sources)
>>Finally, the rioters and protestors started chanting slogan "Reclaim Hong Kong" (from oppressor I.e China)" Era for Revolution" every single night at 8 to 10pm in every neighborhood. Basically they were demanding for Hong Kong independence, and a few deadly bomb plots were hatched but got caught by the police. Many deluded rioters thought independence was politically feasible. <<
I always thought it was funny that so many bombs were found, yet none were ever detonated in a place that caused serious harm. It was completely unlike the 60's that had bombs going off all the time.
Anyway, this was the result of the govt's (Lam was appointed by Beijing. That they chose someone incompetent was their failure) incompetence. It started out as a small thing (the extradition bill) that could have been over and done with after a single peaceful march. It took serious effort on the part of Beijing's hand picked appointee to make things as bad as they became.
>>Many wanted to disband the police, like HK becoming an independent country wouldnt need police. The bill had nothing to do with the violence esp when it continued despite the bill was formally withdrawn.<<
After the police had shown them to be forces working for a foreign oppressor (which is what the CCP is) what else do you expect?
There's a lot of childish expectations in your post that the govt's bad policies or actions shouldn't have bad results. Including that inflammation of the a badly handled situation would make the demands for peace change. At the beginning, if the bill had been withdrawn, instead of having those insulting word games played, it would have been over and done with. But so, so, so much happened afterwards.
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
-
@canemcave >>there is always easy to do stuff, as technology improves, more tools that makes things easier becomes available.<<
And these tools become ever more complex, and require an understanding of what they're actaully doing.
There's a focus on power and flexibility, rather than simplicity. Using these without an understanding of how to properly use them and what they're actually doing simply makes disasters happen faster.
>>There is an immense scope for automation in every aspect of life and not just industry even in the West, imagine how much more scope there is in developing countries. We have, in fact, just started to tap the potential every day technologies like IT are providing us.<<
This is true, but that doesn't mean it's the magic plug-and-play wand you think it is.
>>"These tools aren't one-size-fits-all", there are 1.4 billion brains in China, I am sure they can figure out more than one tool.<<
That this is your response says you've got no clue of what you're talking about.
I didn't say there were lots of tools. I said they're not one-size-fits-all. Each situation requires a thorough understanding of what you're doing, what you're trying to accomplish and what the tools are actually doing.
>>Every university for the last 30 years have specialized people in advanced technology including AI, I know because I was one of those people. The point is not the amount of tools the point is the amount of applications of these tools.<<
It's you who's going on about the number of tools, while not understanding that it's the variety of situations they're used in that's the issue. That makes me doubt your statement.
Your belief that you can simply throw a large amount of untrained people at the problem also makes me heavily doubt this statement.
>>Probably, that's why the USA invests in secret experiments in China rather than in its own territory and in fact the latest news you can find is that China has made a number of significant advances in that field.<<
A number of high profile advances used for political purposes rather than economical.
While this is going on, Xi is targetting IT companies that are too successful.
>>25-30 or even 50 years is a time span well within the control of Chinese planning so I would not be surprised if they would start making suitable arrangements<<
The PRC doesn't have that much time. The short-sighted one child policy has guaranteed this.
Really, I've got to laugh at the idea that the political party that was blindsided by the incredibly predictable effect of the one child policy is a long term planner.
1
-
@canemcave >>Wrong the tools encapsulate the complexity<<
They prevent people from needing to re-invent the wheel over and over again. That doesn't mean you don't need to understand what's going on underneath.
>>it's only by encapsulating the complexity that we can make real progress.<<
To avoid re-inventing the wheel, yes. To manage and create complex systems, not so much.
>>I don't need to know how an engine or how a car is built to use them, and yet they are made up of hundred of thousands of parts. <<
Cars have a very limited set of use cases. You don't know how to make the car you're driving fly. You don't know how to make it go underwater. You know how to use it in a very specific environment.
>>This is an example you can extrapolate and apply to just about anything.<<
If you don't have a system you understand, you have a system that's heading for disaster.
>>This is an example you can extrapolate and apply to just about anything.<<
Yes, when you don't understand something, it does seem simple.
Skipping your next paragraph, as it has nothing to do with automation, or the massive scale of the problem that is China.
>>So you are clearly talking nonsense and trying to punch well about your weight.<<
And the person who's incapable of understanding the ramifications of a very large number of use cases says this!
>>meaning I am sure they can figure out what tool better fits the job or how to apply one technology to a specific purpose.<<
Oh yeah, absolutely, heaps can. I've worked with heaps of them.
Do you know why I've worked with them?
Because the good ones have a strong tendency to follow the money and leave the PRC.
>>I am sure there are more than one tool in China and more than one way to adapt a technology to a purpose. Since they managed to reverse engineer practically everything and come up with their own solutions after that. I am pretty sure they can figure out what to use and when to use a tool or a technology.<<
IF all you can do is reverse engineer something, you're guaranteed to lack an understanding of what you're actually trying to achieve. You're comparing a script kiddie with a developer.
>>Or do you assume they are somehow mentally challenged?<<
I assume (which you should as well) that the vast majority of those 1.4 billion people don't have an IT degree, or knowledge that comes remotely close to what you'd need to even begin to look at this stuff.
>>And to make the point clear, here I am talking in general terms, as the fields this discussion can apply is extremely large, and well beyond a single example of automation, use of AI or medical application<<
Oh, so here you're capable of understanding just how big the problem is. Well congratulations :-D I didn't think you were capable.
>>While you, for some reason, appear to limit the discussion to some undisclosed but very specific subset of applications.<<
It's kind of the opposite. I'm pointing out just how varied the problems are and how much more complex it is to automate something than just do it.
>>My friend, this is what industrial scale assembly lines manufacturing actually does!<<
Automation isn't assembly line stuff. It's critical thinking and problem solving that requires a huge amount of theoretical knowledge.
This comment was yet another example of you not having a clue of the subject we're discussing.
>>Do you see the emphasis on one simple operation? That's not a statement placed at random, and who says the Chinese are unskilled workers? <<
Which is, again, completely irrelevant to the creation of automated systems.
>>“China now produces twice as many graduates a year as the US”, https://www.statista.com/chart/7913/the-countries-with-the-most-stem-graduates/<<
See what I said earlier about the good ones following the money.
As for the ones who stay.... I'd dealt with a lot of them while working for IBM. They're pretty bad at what they do.
>>For me, you have a clear bias and misconception of how educated the Chinese population actually is.<<
Not at all. What I've got that you don't, however, is an appreciation for how big a problem it is and how difficult a problem it is.
>>High profile, political?? Another nonsense, most of Chinese operations are secretive and never heard of unless things go wrong. Again, I consider yours quite simply just misinformation bias.<<
Ah, so the CCP being paranoid and secretive is your next magic wand. If we don't know what they're doing, it must be wonderful!
>>The PCR has as much time as it wants since a single entity can dictate policies to the whole of the population and has been doing that for the last 100 years<<
They'd want to hurry up. The births in 2016 were over 17 million. Last year they were around ten million. It's getting worse.
Your belief that the CCP is able to ignore the ageing of its population for as long as you like is pretty consistent with the rest of the delusions you've been spouting here.
>>Something no country in the west is in the position of doing.<<
From the extent of its failure to get people to have babies since the abolition of the one child policy, it looks like the CCP is also not in a position to do this.
>>This is exactly the difference between the capitalist and a party planned economy. It might have failed in Russia but it did not fail in China. Even though to make it working they had to open up to market demands, who controls China is still the CCP and the CCP can make any plans they like and as so far they have worked.
I would think who has no clue of what is talking about is not me.<<
And so says the person who thinks the CCP can miraculously create babies!
Romania actually tried this (Getting people to have lots of children). It ended pretty horribly. You should check out the Romanian orphanages sometime.
1
-
@canemcave >>The point that you clearly don't understand is that the population that is required to understand how a system works is much smaller than the population that can use the system<<
And the point that you clearly don't understand is that most things are different. They might have similar solutions, but the solutions are generally different and require their own customisations.
>>and the system can have a huge amount of applications. In fact the whole transport or rather engineering and scientific fields have this exact characteristic. I don't have to be a chemist of a pharmacist to know how to use some tablets.<<
You do to be able to know which tablet is useful (and while you can just take a guess, it's a bad idea)
>>Seriously?? dLOL<<
>>As I work in the field and I am actually a specialist of the I can quite comfortably tell you that in spite of your pretentiousness you really have no clue of what you are talking about and I can find entire libraries to support my claim!
So rather than wasting our time, please define the type of automation you have in mind LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL<<
All three, obviously. Depending on the situation.
I can't begin to imagine what point you think favours you when you list one type that has a high initial investment and two that require knowledge of programming to maintain and upgrade.
How many people within the PRC do you think are competent developers, vs how many unique solutions do you think need to be created?
You claim to be an expert, but you're basically relying on a "Do what I mean" while thinking that a system requiring flexibility or a lack of downtime somehow makes it easy to understand and use. Which is pretty much on a par for your belief that babies will be able to be created from machines in the next few years and that the CCP has all the time in the world to fix the results of the one child policy.
Really, though, I've got to stare in wonder at the sort of person who claims to be an expert in this area while comparing setting up a machine learning system to taking a pill.
Here's what would really happen in your wonderland, BTW:
A couple of massive companies (the ones who had the resources required to actually create this magic one-size-fits-all solution) would roll in, make the entire population redundant and give the PRC both massive unemployment AND a rapidly ageing population.
Because no company would be fool enough to provide others with this wonderful tech at an affordable price when it could simply point its magic wand towards something that could be producing and take over itself.
1
-
@canemcave Oh, hey, that's a lot of empty posts I missed.
Anyway, just so you can't think that you might have had a point in your remarks :-)
>>I don't think anybody knows how big the problem is because no one has actually gone through this type of problem before, particularly not with the technological resources we have right now. So no, you don't know, you just think you know and that is something different.<<
Or with a population that's ageing this rapidly.
And these technological resources we have right now are resources that are a good idea even without the current ageing of the PRC's population. Yet they remain in your imagination.
>>What is quite clear is that you think you know quite a lot, again you think and between thinking and reality there is a big difference.<<
And this from the person who thinks that the CCP has all the time in the world to deal with.... The effects of time!
>>I never said it's paranoid, you should not put words in other's people mouth. The CCP is as secretive as or perhaps slightly more than any average government, I don't find that particularly strange, why do you?<<
That was your important takeaway from this?
Remove paranoid and the real point (which someone of your own self-assessed intelligence should have seen) is utterly unanswered.
>>maybe, human behavior takes time to influence and change, but as far I have seen from the history of China, they are expert at population control, so I would not be surprised if that changed in the future<<
In the past, it's been able to stop people having children.
Destroying something is very different to creating something.
>>As opposed to the biblical truth you are spouting instead, right? LOL<<
You're seriously claiming that the passage of time and its role in making people age is something to be doubted?
>>Romania tried encouraging population growth by penalizing childless people in the 60 and 70, that's a totally different thing and we are not in the 60 or 70 now.<<
And we're still dealing with a poor country with a massive problem on its hands and a population that's showing, by their very actions, that they don't actually want children.
And again: Despite your belief that the CCP rules time itself, the clock is, in fact, ticking. IF they want to do something, they really want to hurry up about it.
>>Really, I work every day in field of automation and every day creating a different customization and yet I don't understand that things are different?<<
You claim you do.
That's different to you actually do. Your arguments up to this point have said you don't. They rely on a one-size-fits-all solution (or one that's close enough that it can be modified by laymen)
>>Sure sure I believe you LOL
That sounds to me more like you are one of those people that love to create a mystic around their work, obfuscation to hide the fact that they are probably doing nothing of much use :)<<
No, just an appreciation for the difficulties of reality. Something you seem to think can be swept away in a giant wave of "The CCP is all powerful!"
You're coming across as someone who likes to pretend he does something, and that this something he pretends he does is easy enough for any random layman to pick up. (like taking a pill, to use the metaphor you thought was relevant)
1
-
@canemcave >>and yet, I am the only one coming up with articles and references to support my arguments, you on the other hand act as the authority in just about any field.<<
Your article didn't support you. Which would be why you skipped over everything said and asked in response to it.
>>I am not worried about lack of downtime because I can always find a pay a mechanic when I need it<<
When you're in the realm of machine learning and automation, you're beyond the realm of a mechanic when something goes wrong. Mechanics are more for when things go mechanically wrong.
It's difficult to understand why someone who claims to work in this area would think there was an overlap.
>>population age one year at the time, no more no less<<
Not as an average they don't.
It's concerning that you need to have it explained that it's the average age (and more to the point, age distribution) that's important. Not simply how long a population has existed.
>>aging population is common to all highly developed countries, so I am not sure why China should be a special case.<<
The highly developed countries can attract sufficient numbers of immigrants to counteract the problem.
>>We have been dealing with the effect of time since life began, in the last century we have managed to increase life span to between 30 to 50%, there is no reason to believe that we won't be able to deal with the effect of time in the future.<<
This increase in lifespans has actually contribued to the problem. If people died before reaching retirement age, everything would be fine. But that's not the case.
>>what gives you that idea?<<
Your belief that there was plenty of time for planners to deal with this problem.
>>As far as I have seen in order to create something you generally go through a "destruction" phase, so nothing unusual there either<<
Did that sound a lot better in your head? What's the 'destructive phase' in getting people to have more children?
>>I am not claiming anything or that sort, that's all your inference<<
In that case, you might like to try being specific. As it is, you're going out of your way to be vague.
>>well you claimed to be some sort of genius working for IBM (as a minimum working on some advanced AI system well above the average Chinese IT professional), I offered a more modest counter claim for something that can probably be true.<<
I claimed to have worked for IBM. The rest is your imagination. I'm a Linux DevOps engineer, which is a position that gave me plenty of opportunity to gauge the skills of those remote workers I dealt with. The skillset you're talking about as if it's easy is above what you'd normally expect in DevOps. (I deal with solutions that have manually had at least all successful outcomes taken into account which are told to simply stop when something unsuccessful happens. This is nothing compared with designing a solution that dynamically figures out for itself what it's meant to be doing)
>>this is YOUR claim that it's what I rely on because I really don't see how you can move from my arguments to your one-size-fits-all argument.
But hey, I am not a genius, so you will have to excuse me and be a little more specific because your argument makes 0 sense :)<<
Your comparison of using these systems to driving a car or taking a pill are prime examples.
At best, you've got a wide range of solutions that need to be validated, implemented, configured and customised for each specific scenario. With an understanding of both how to use each and how to make each moving part fit in with the other range of moving parts you've deemed best for your requirements.
Whereas there isn't even a decent chat, ticketing or monitoring system that's good out of the box.
>>Sure, contrary to you, I have no pretense that what I do, however complex, is above the capabilities of a normal Chinese IT professional if given the change.<<
I don't believe that what you do is above the abilities of a normal Chinese IT professional.
But then, I don't believe that you do what you claim you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@canemcave >>which means that is not what has been used in automation till now. Whether it will be a key element for the future industry is completely another thing
both as things I am claiming are going to be key for the Chinese industry as in the recent past they have been making use of a cheap labor force rather than highly automated systems.<<
Things that they need to be there, rather than are there.
And that cheap labour force is rapidly ageing into retirement while the PRC is still too poor to be able to implement the massive changes that are required for the future.
Especially while Xi is persecuting IT companies that become too successful.
>>if that makes you feel better, surely it's not you that is paying my salary, so I have no obligation whatsover in presenting my cv to you :)<<
You don't need to :-) But it's fun to see that you couldn't even come up with a realistic title.
>>The references I provided you mention over 4.7 million graduate a year. It's not my fault if you can't read<<
Why do I need to explain to you that programming is a subset of STEM and that not all STEM graduates are developers?
>>I don't know what you think programming knowledge is, perhaps you think to be something that gives you god like powers :)<<
Just a fundamental requirement of building an automated system.
>>development is one aspect of automation<<
It's interesting how you say this as if it's a minor aspect that can be dispensed with.
>>and CICD is a methodology that in time going to become obsolete just as anything else.
What CI/CD really means is that you, in fact, are never able to actually deliver a final product and what you deliver is a continuous pile of untested garbage.
Playing with some buzzwords does not make you more intelligent<<
Why do I need to explain to you that very few big things are ever finished, but go through a constant stream of improvements? A decent pipeline also involves testing (at a minimum, automated smoke testing) with multiple certification environments, the ability to deploy in slices and the ability to either quickly roll back a particularly bad change or quickly push out a fix for something that's unexpected.
Dismissing things you don't understand doesn't make it look like you understand them.
Assuming you do actually do what you say you do, however, your posts speak volumes about the quality of work you produce.
>> I was bored of c, c++ and even java development 15 years ago, I was bored with Linux 20 years ago and in fact, I never liked it, it's a piece of convoluted excrement.<<
I can easily imagine someone like yourself finding it too complex. :-)
>>Ok it's the most widespread system around, because it is "free" and thus used extensively in universities and a left over of the 60s<<
The cost of licensing a paid OS is pretty minor vs the cost of the people who can actually use them.
>>In 2015, there were about 15 million births per year. There was an increase for the next two years, before a plummet that's now at about 10 million births."
my argument from the beginning was that they might not need extra child births, since AI, automation and other technologies might fix their problem regardless<<
"might"
But probably won't. Not when you remember the enormity of the problem.
Actually, they'll probably make things worse. Because as you say:
"both as things I am claiming are going to be key for the Chinese industry as in the recent past they have been making use of a cheap labor force rather than highly automated systems."
The cheap labour force was China's sales pitch. When the labour force is out of the equation, why bother going there? Especially when Western wages are high enough to attracted those talented people the PRC produces.
1
-
@canemcave >>China, just any other country will adapt. To think that China would be unable to adapt and just collapse is completely unrealistic. But some people need these unrealistic delusions to feel better about themselves. This guy needed to attack me personally, without knowing anything about me to feel better.
According to him, I don't understands, know or capable of anything. That's fine, I still haven't asked anything from him and have been living my life more or less happily as everyone else.<<
If you're going to bring your own abilities up as an argument in your favour, then expect to be 'personally' attacked when your claims about your own abilities don't match up with your statements.
Basically, my conclusion based on your words is that you're lying about your knowledge and experience.
If the best response you're capable of bringing to that is hurt feelings, that's your problem.
>>And China will do just the same, it will find its way. No country is perfect. Are there some criticisms to raise about China, absolutely! Will it collapse? No more no less than the west will. Demographic is not an issue impacting China alone, Europe and the USA have been below replacement levels for decades.
The USA only offset by immigration, something which is not a real solution in the long term.
Almost 100% of the US's population is from immigrants. How long term a solution do you need?
And all it needs to do is buy time. Time the USA and Europe have, but the PRC doesn't.
>>Technology did and will diminishing the impact of these issues for the West and for China too, it has so far and will in the future too. Never mind what the "full of himself genius" thinks.<<
Sure, if China had all the time in the world in which to deal with it.
It doesn't. You might imagine it does, but really, it doesn't. For a wide variety of reasons you were unable to do more than "yawn" at and whine about to a third party :-)
1
-
1
-
@J_X999 >>High youth unemployment is a major issue but its not likely to be as long term as the shrinking workforce.<<
Every person lost to either emigration or simply not using its skills before they're forgotten or become obsolete is someone lost for the long term, at a time when the country needs every brain it can get.
Every person who doesn't make use of its skills is a loss to the Chinese economy for the coming decades.
What happens in the next two years doesn't only affect the next two years, it affects the next seventy.
Realistically, the clock isn't ticking, the alarm bell went off at least ten or twenty years ago. Now it's all about mitigating the damage done.
>>In terms of the emigration problem, china needs to continue assuring that they are able to continue development of new technologies and jobs, otherwise the emigration will halt china's advancements.<<
And the ones who are really good at developing new technologies and good at creating jobs (remember that under Xi, the Communist party is targetting these technology companies as well) are going overseas.
Not all of them are going overseas, and not all of the best are going overseas, but those who do are both moving in massive numbers and are far above average.
>>That being said, a shrinking workforce is only an issue when productivity can't keep up. <<
It's not just keeping productivity at the current levels, though, it's also about dealing with the increasing needs of an ageing population.
It's not enough to stand still, advancement is needed to deal with those hundreds of millions who will be an increasing drain on the Chinese economy over the next few decades.
>>Education and technology like AI boost productivity. The future of work is interesting, time will tell I guess<<
They absolutely do, but they're not the magic wand that they need to be for the arguments in this thread to have merit.
As far as the future of work goes, agreed. The current landscape is shifting absurdly rapidly with a massive increase in the power and complexity of these tools. As well as a massive increase in the amount of money that the world can throw at the relatively few people who can actually use them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yuan5154 edit: ohhh, you think I'm talking about the ratio of PRC citizens to Americans.
No. That's an insanely pointless argument to make. I'm talking about workers to dependents.
I can't imagine why that wasn't obvious, yet here we are.
Anyway, you're not the USA. This isn't a competition with them.
Even if it was, adjusted for population, America's births per year are 50% higher than what the PRC's are now. At a time when year on year, the PRC's births are plummeting.
Plus the USA can attract massive numbers of immigrants.
You've chosen an argument that's both irrelevant, and even if relevant, doesn't work out in your favour.
So I'm going to ask again, do you know why I brought up ratios?
That you keep on rambling on about total numbers says you either don't understand this very simple concept, or it's not your job to understand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yuan5154 >>nah, the way I see it it's that you guys are making a problem out of nothing, how much food do old people even eat, man u guys are delusional<<
And the way I see it is you're incapable of understanding a simple thing like the importance of the ratio of workers to dependents.
You're even attempting to suggest that the only thing the elderly need is food.
>>I just mentioned raw baby numbers and u just conveniently ignore it, clearly u dunno the Chinese people lol, old people among them are the most conservative when it comes to money, they basically eat 2 meals a day and spend next to no money 😂, couple with china s booming digital economy and world exports and you guys are "worried about china" 😂<<
Why do I need to point out that people need more than just food.
China isn't North Korea.
>>How bout worry about united States rising number of homeless, rising prices on property and goods<<
Well the first reason would be that this isn't a video about America.
There's other reasons, such as I'm not American, but they're pretty irrelevant compared with the first.
>>Don't worry about china, I'm sure our " little small brain"will figure out this "big problem" 😂<<
Clock's ticking.
If your brain is anything to go by, China's pretty screwed. The relevant stuff in this video is extremely simple, yet it's still gone right over your head in a dramatic fashion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yuan5154 >>every country has had bad times, i'll admit that. but to say that china is that way right now is kinda ignorant of you. and i never gotten why u lots always think that china's measures of birth control as murderous or inhumane<<
You don't understand why forcing parents who want a child to abort is murderous or inhumane?
In the West, there's two stances. Pro life and pro choice. There's a lot of merit to each of them.
The CCP's policies are anti life AND anti choice. It's the worst of both worlds.
All to deal with a situation that the CCP's chosen created.
>>just as you guys label lifting the birth limit now as too late<<
And too little.
We can see from the collapse in births per year SINCE then that it was both.
In 2015, 15 million births.
A brief spike that accounted for the pent up demand for a second child.
Now we're at 10 million births per year and falling.
The damage was already done. It was far too little, far too late and any benefit from real action will take about 20-25 years to show dividends (children take time to grow up, you know)
>>maybe what you really wanted was no one child policy and a china that resembled india or africa now, since they cant handle the numbers they would've been pumping out back then<<
This ignores that the births per year were already declining, and that the fix has gone on far, far too long.
>>that limit was always there as an intent to limit mouths to feed for a while, with not enough going around, now that they do, they can start feeding your so called "overpopulated retirees" but it seems like my answer isnt good enough for you <<
How happy do you think your parents would be to basically have their existence become getting barely enough food and not much else?
>>and i have since last year stated, it still isnt as big as a problem you guys make it out to be, people wont be dying of hunger in 2022 " as much as you guys want them to" to prove your point<<
You think that this should gone from being OK to a catastrophe in a single year?
>>and if they do die of hunger from overpopulated retirees and not enough young future workers, you can laugh at my statement lol<<
This attitude you have where all you need is food is what I'd expect from North Korea.
Has the CCP set your standards so low that as long as you're getting what a North Korean would want, you're happy?
God that's failure.
Glad I'm not going to grow old in your country. :-D
Which I guess is something I've got in common with your country's leadership.
You're shilling for the people who are robbing you blind and abandoning you.
So I will be laughing at you.
1
-
@yuan5154 >>and yet china isn't north Korea, and countries who have freedom on child birth with alot of cases within child abandonment and children neglect just as well as china<<
And yet here you are, suggesting having food to eat as if it's enough. Which is an attitude I'd expect from North Korea, not from a country that's actually progressed over the last century.
>>Heck with the mention of north Korea, the county with no children limitation? Their reckoning is stagnating, at least in my country where child birth is rampant, news about child abandonment is also quite bad cases<<
There's a bit more to NK's stagnation than the lack of a one child policy.
>>And now to topic, since the implementation of the one child policy in 1980, the average birth per year was what do u know!? 20 million, and now 3 decades in, it's 10 million today? Wow, it's almost as if it did what it set out to do! And notice how it took 3 decades to even do by half? Maybe the fact is things take time 😂 and you guys are just "good good china in trouble good good 🙈"<<
You're having genuine problems with the concept of going too far, aren't you?
Just like you're having problems understanding what happens next.
20 million would be about a healthy amount at the moment.
>>Honestly the anti Asian sentiment in recent times just baffles me to no end, and the justification on these kinds of slander knows no end<<
yawn @ the racism card.
If I was anti asian, I'd be supporting the one child policy and suggesting only half of couples be allowed to have one child (You seem to think 10 million births per year is good. How about five million? Or one million?)
>>Maybe your retirees need mega burgers to feel satisfied, but I can assure u, ours don't have that kind of greed to them<<
LOL
Try telling them that (or telling yourself that) when you're cold, sick and living on subsistence rations.
If enough food to not die of starvation is your goal (a goal acceptable in the third world) then that's your future with that goal.
>>And honestly, I dunno what u keep saying there's not enough food to go around, I'm pretty sure the truth is there's enough food to feed the world, but wealth and distribution of it is just whack
But maybe it's just that, you people want this kind of video to feel important, and to make yourselves feel better about yourselves<<
You're pretty incapable of understanding anything that's not food, aren't you?
"Oh we won't starve to death" has been pretty much your entire argument (and not an argument that the Communist party really has a good record of achieving)
>>Maybe you are well off, maybe you don't see the blatant farce new reporting from the west, nothing with context of nuances<<
I don't think the person who's incapable of understanding worker to dependent ratios and that there's more to life than not starving to death can really talk about nuance.
Overall, if the CCP was capable of shame, it should be thoroughly ashamed that its advocates standards have been lowered so far that they're simply happy to not be starving to death.
That's failure.
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