Youtube comments of Bob (@bobs_toys).
-
684
-
275
-
194
-
193
-
166
-
158
-
130
-
130
-
116
-
114
-
109
-
94
-
92
-
91
-
82
-
81
-
78
-
75
-
74
-
68
-
67
-
61
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
49
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
My wife is Chinese.
I met her through my father who'd shattered his ankle before I was born while rock climbing a few hours drive out of Mt. Isa in Queensland, Australia. It fused together badly enough that before he died, doctors looking at his X-ray were amazed he was walking. Incredible pain tolerance. Not military, just a natural martyr.
She was on a high carb diet, we were on a high protein diet. We were in our early 20's
She hated us during that trip. He was walking us both into the ground. I was keeping up because I was used to him. She'd never been with people who didn't stop to eat, drink or rest.
So I can believe him. He's of about the same age. Probably similar background. Being male and probably an only child, almost certainly spoilt and being raised by people who were the generation that gave China the cultural revolution, probably a drooling moron (my wife was very firmly a communist until I got the deprogramming started. It still took over fifteen years before the final dregs were gone)
I'm amazed he can take the cold, though. I had no issue with going out walking all day in minus 30c in Shenyang. To her, this was thoroughly weird. They only go from heated building to heated car to heated building.
Probably because being Australian, I probably didn't know any better.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
>> Robert Bray thats all good the problem is the wealth is not reinvested back and in most cases permanently removed from its origin just like Africa<<
I think you'll find that very few of the ultra rich fail to reinvest their money. They didn't get rich by doing that.
Even if they kept it in a bank account, the bank would be reinvesting their money.
And none will be putting the money under their mattresses.
This should sum that misconception up nicely:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110989/quotes/qt0328991
As for them leaving every year, I don't doubt it. However, if you want to see real capital flight in action, take a look at China.
And they are paying taxes. Whether they're paying 'enough' taxes is a different discussion. However, personally I'm convinced that people who use that rhetoric will never think they're paying 'their share' (whatever that is)
>> yet nobody seems to care 47 + millions living with government assistance and going up <<
Where do you think the money to pay for that government assistance is coming from?
So they're getting government assistance. Yet they still have a quality of life that far exceeds the rest of the world. The US's poor would be the middle class in the vast majority of the non-Western world.
>> capitalism not working very well<<
As opposed to what?
>> you cant run a country stuffing your pockets with borrowed money the usa cant pay the interest charge on the money it borrowed without borrowing money to do so<<
Yep. At some point, the US govt will need to pay back what it owes.
This being said: The interest rates it's effectively paying are very low. Basically because it's believed that the US will pay up when payment becomes due. So it's a risk free investment (even if there's not a huge return on it) - The question then becomes whether the ROI is greater than the interest paid.
>> china and Japan are buying land , homes and big companies like crazy in the usa this can't be good not for the average american anyway.<<
Why not? It's investment coming in. Chinese and Japanese aren't buying it because they're bored, they're buying it because they're got faith that their investment in the American economy will be worth it.
As far as the 'average American' goes. The major problem isn't China or Japan. It's automation and the declining place for people with less than a university level education (in something useful. Gender studies doesn't count)
THe world is becoming high tech. You could say that's a problem with Capitalism's focus on increasing productivity while reducing expenditure, however if you want things to really get bad for the 'average American' (Who earns about 3x the world average) try fighting that and being outcompeted by every country that didn't.
Really though, with a few exceptions, the state of the world has never been better. Poverty is down dramatically. Life expectancy is up. Incomes are up. Education is up. Quality of life is up. Healthy years of life are up.
And the thing that made this possible was Capitalism, for all of its flaws.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@wxj8658 >>the majority of Chinese you see overseas are tourists.<<
No, the majority of Chinese I see actually live in the areas I live in.
I don't hang around tourist spots. I especially don't expect to see tourists in my workplace.
I'm going to cut out the stuff that depends on that incorrect first belief.
>>One child policy was extreme but definitely not all worng.<<
As a short term measure, you're quite right. It also helped the economy by freeing up all those women to be workers.
As a long term measure... Well.... You're about to watch any advantage from it comprehensively disappear.
>>Some Chinese chose to go overseas because of the competitiveness over everything in China makes it hard to enjoy life.<<
That's an Asian thing.
>>Without the one child policy Chinese would have also suffered. <<
You've had two bad options, thanks in large part to Mao encouraging poor people to have large families.
The path chosen was the short term easier path. (Still barbaric) with long term worse results.
>>China is different to the US or Australia.<<
I've noticed.
>>The first white person I've seen in real like is when I was 14. people were much more closed minded back then. It's definitely getting better now, especially in bigger cities.<<
Quite the opposite. It's bigger cities where it's getting worse. In smaller regions, it's too much of a novelty.
>>I'm sorry you were treated that way. But you can't compare China with the developed countries.<<
Can I compare the developed parts of China with developed countries?
Also, it doesn't change that I've never had an issue with anyone from my miscegenation in a Western country Only in China. If you're going to criticise a place for being like something, don't make excuses for the place you're defending being worse on that exact topic. At best, tactfully ignore it.
>>Compare China to China. I now see westerners in my city all the time. Most people are open to marrying people from another country.<<
But people are, overall, becoming more and more xenophobic.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
>>China is socialist. They only have capitalist elements included. Which is exactly my point<<
Yeah, it's the most capitalist country I've ever been to. Think they've got free healthcare? Well, they might, but whenever I accompanied someone to a hospital, they were paying money over every five minutes. Think they've got free education? lol. No. What's common is for the teacher to ignore the lesson plan, then charge massive amounts (my niece is paying enough to send her to university here) for extra tuition. Don't pay for the tuition? Good luck in having your education go any further than some high school.
Corrupt as hell, with a shitload of problems, the foundation for which was generally set before Deng Xiaoping said to get rich is glorious coupled with problems that come from dictatorships.
But seriously, "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a synonym for capitalist. It's nothing more or less than the CCP's attempt to be less than a complete failure at all of its goals (Unifying China is the last one they've got a shot at... After HK, there's no way in hell that Taiwan is going to rejoin the fold. They're also ignoring large swathes of Jilin and Heilonjiang that the Russians simply aren't going to give back)
>>And China's nominal GDP is still $11 trillion, which is a lot.<<
1.4 billion people.
It should be bigger. Much bigger.
There's also both a huge amount of debt building up (their banking systems are really bad. The regulated ones are basically unusable, so many go to shifty lenders) and a demographic timebomb coming in the next decade, courtesy of the one child policy, courtesy of Mao encouraging poor people to breed like rabbits. (Similar to what happened in Romania)
Edit:
"The People's Republic of China (PRC) government maintains that it has not abandoned Marxism but has developed many of the terms and concepts of Marxist theory to accommodate its new economic system."
Or to put it another way:
Which is exactly what they'd say if they had abandoned Marxism, but didn't want to admit it.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ZincFold >>I'm not Chinese although I travel to China and Hong Kong often for business.
I am from Europe.
<<
Sure you are ;-)
>>To be frank, I'm not here to spoon feed you information that can easily be looked up by a 5 year old.
<<
Excuses
>>You brought it up, I merely pointed out it had flaws. Now if you can't be half arsed to look it up yourself I'm glad I didn't wasted my time spoon feeding you.<<
I brought it up. You dismissed it without any justification you felt you could articulare.
You seem to have plenty of energy to add in your own random bollocks :-)
>>the vast majority of Hong Kongers remain loyal to China.<<
From the last free(ish) election results and the subsequent reaction from the govt (rewriting the rules to make it impossible for them to lose, rather than very difficult) this is a blatant lie.
>>The recent protests were the noisy minority.<<
LOL
I watched them go past my office window for hour after hour. Massive, massive amounts of them.
By contrast, the average pro govt crowd could fit into a minivan.
>>Because Hong Kong is just a city on a small island, it is highly reliant on the mainland for its energy, food and water. Even if China allowed Hong Kong independence they wouldn't last a week on their own for lack of basic necessities.<<
That and the CCP's willingness to blockade one of their own cities.
With the exception of water, they managed just fine for over a century. The only reason they'd fail as an independent country is because the CCP would put effort into making sure they failed.
@Lei Fang
>>Human Development index is a pathetic pro American and pro democracy tool with WESTERN standards. It doesn't represent reality. The USA has trash living standards and same goes for tonnes of other democracies.
<<
yawn a bunch of vagueness without any specifics. The closest you've come to an argument is that living standards aren't perfect for everybody.
>>The inferior island province of Taiwan is a classic example of a small overrated island that is easy to control due to its tiny size, so the form of governance doesn't matter too much<<
And yet it remains uncontrolled. Despite the CCP's bluster.
>>But Singapore is the country that's most similar to China,<<
A capitalist country with freedom of speech and some democracy (They're jerks to their opposition. Not murderers)
>>and Singapore is 100x more advanced than Taiwan province and all other democracies<<
It's nice, but it really isn't that much more advanced.
>>And no, Singapore is not a liberal western style democracy<<
The structures are there. It's a very different place to the PRC.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Sure, if you don't care about what you write actually being able to be read, fine.
Can't really imagine why you'd bother in that case.
I don't have much issue with your first paragraph. I'd simply add one more bit.
If something doesn't work, you've got two options.
The first is to abandon the thing that doesn't work.
The second is to double down, try to find other causes for why it doesn't work. If you look hard enough for something, you'll find it, whether it exists or not. (I've had to explain the same thing to my wife on a few subjects. If she thinks something is going badly and looks for evidence of that, she WILL find evidence. Major case in point is my daughter's starting school, she didn't think she was ready, so she looked for evidence it was a disaster.)
In this case, that something was uncooperative people, saboteurs and foreign agents. If you want to crack down on them, you're heading down the path to dictatorship.
If Socialism actually worked, there'd have been no reason for the descent into dictatorship.
As far as I've seen, Social Democracy works well, as long as where the money comes from is treated with respect.(The moment it stops being treated with respect, where the money comes from has the ability and probably the inclination to emigrate. Changing country really isn't as difficult as you'd think. I've done it twice. I'm looking to do it again)
>>I don't really want to advocate anything here. I just want clarity.<<
I wish more people did.
It's why I'm fairly obsessed with definitions. If you're not even agreeing on what a word means, how can you have a discussion about it? I've noticed that the vast majority of people who claim to support Socialism don't actually have a clue of what it means.
Or they're clueless on what actually happens in Socialist countries. I married a Chinese Communist Party member. Step 1 was actual history lessons (The single most important thing to cause a crack in her worldview was the battle of LuDing bridge. With Deng Xiaoping explaining that this mostly-destroyed chain bridge wasn't defended by a machine gun post, but by some people with muskets who fired a volley, then ran away)
Step 2 was disassociating the party from the country from the people. (An attack on the CCP is an attack on China, and therefore the Chinese people)
It's difficult to properly combat brainwashing without learning about the thing you're discussing.
>>PragerU is heavily biased and it makes me frustrated, as do all biased media sources<<
I would never use them as a source, but that's very different to them being wrong.
There are some things that are just so bad that it's impossible to be unbiased without appearing biased as hell.
As a case in point: Hitler was estimated to killed (including wars he sparked) about 50 million.
The official estimate on the Great Leap Forward is 18 million during peacetime. That's the official estimate, which is doubtless an extreme best-case number. Reasonable estimates hover around the 50-60 million mark.
This isn't including the huge amounts of damage wrought during the Cultural Revolution.
And it's not even touching the rest of the Socialist world.
The math says the worst thing Hitler did was set the stage for the various Communist parties to gain international clout. You can argue intentions all you like, but in the end, dead is dead.
>>The truth in such a bland state ensites little in an audience however to torque truth in any manner towards an end far from objective is wrong.<<
It really shouldn't. Particularly with how colourful 20th (and 21st) century Socialism has been.
But again. You can't be objective and factual about this without appearing biased as hell. It's just not possible.
>>I've seen PragerU make purely educational, hardly slanted videos, and I would love to see more of that.<<
Same again here.
How can you make a purely objective video on this that isn't slanted as hell? (Or at least doesn't appear to be)
Ultimately, reality is biased for or against ideologies and viewpoints. Don't believe me? Just ask those who the bias is against.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@runswithraptors >>Right but you can't just shut off a nuclear power plant at will...<<
No, but despite this, the deaths per MWH are about the lowest there is.
>>we've also built them in precarious spots like fault lines<<
And have learnt to take this into account.
>>and close to seas that are rising at quicker rates every decade<<
Largely because we're not using nuclear enough.
Anyway, the worst case by 2100 is a two foot rise in sea levels.
That gives us a nice, manageable, predictable thing to plan for.
I seriously don't know why you thought that was worth mentioning. Earthquakes, yeah, definitely. A (very, relative to the speed we do stuff at) gradual increase in sea level? Yeah, no.
>>What about the waste too?<<
Waste can be reused. There's currently enough in the US to provide electricity for the next century.
>>Only takes 10,000 years until it's no longer dangerous<<
Treated, it's a few centuries. Still bad, but technology improves.
As far as I can tell, the rule of thumb is if it can still produce funny looking kids, it can still provide electricity.
Either way, you're not choosing between a good option and a bad option. Until technology improves, you've got two coal or you've got nuclear.
>>Nuclear plants are the nails in the coffin of our species and unfortunately many other species as well<<
I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but coal (which we've been forced to rely on for the past few decades, because of anti-nuclear scaremongering) is a pretty big nail. Far bigger than nuclear.
>>Unless they are all safely decommissioned once they go dark they'll all be spewing ionizing radiation into the atmosphere which will quickly strip away the atmosphere of this planet. Nice knowing ya!<<
So safely decomission. We've got a good incentive to do so. Much easier than removing the excess carbon from our atmosphere.
Really have to emphasise this, though:
We are not comparing nuclear with a hypothetical perfect solution. We are comparing it with coal. Something that kills 100,000 people per PWH per year (In the US, it's 10k). By contrast, globally, nuclear kills 90 for the same amount of energy (in the US, it's 0.1. Not 0.1k, 0.1)
The highest reasonable estimate for Chernobyl is 60k. That's the few dozen in the initial accident, plus everyone who was affected by radiation and long term deaths.
In China alone, there's 300k deaths per year due to coal power usage.
Or to put it another way, you've got five of the worst nuclear disaster happening per year in one country alone. Go to the normal range and you've got about a Chernobyl's worth per week.
This is all ignoring the long term consequences of climate change.
That's your choice. Giving up on electricity isn't an option. Being able to rely on renewables is a long way away. We'll get there, but we still need electricity sources up until then. What do you choose?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mmwosu the pretending he's two different peopleis sad.
Anyway: to spread the source he was given and ran away from far and wide:
@jacksmith6015 9.5 million births last year. 17.8 million in 2017. From the global times, taken from the national bureau of statistics.
"There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I've been coming to China regularly since 2004.
Just came back from a couple of weeks in northern China.
No problem with locals (but I was in a place where I'd see a westerner a day. More or less. We're a complete novelty) but I was amazed at how even a major government hotel, used by visiting politicians and business delegates was falling apart. Facade crumbling. Water leaks that must be obvious but were ignored. Mould.
Everything was either brand spanking new or crumbling.
The Chinese culture has a lot of issues, as all do, but the CCP's model of government has pushed these issues to an extreme.
China has never been friendly to foreigners, but the CCP dialled it up to 11. Expediency has always been a huge temptation, but again, the CCP dialed it up. Respect for people outside of the family has always been an issue, but, well... You get the idea. It seems like every flaw the Chinese culture has is just magnified.
I'm in Hong Kong now. I simply haven't seen these problems. Not counting the obvious. People are polite, they don't shove, laws are respected and so on. I feel safe to walk around with my Chinese wife (in her hometown except for one guy, no problem. Other places do not like it)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
>> yes, and then keep the lion's share of the value of their employee's production to themselves. <<
See, this is what I've never understood about Socialists. They're far more concerned with ensuring no-one does better than someone else than on improving everyone's situation.
My employer profits from me. Otherwise he wouldn't employ me.
I profit from my employer. Otherwise I wouldn't bother going in to work.
It's a symbiotic relationship, we both profit from each other.
I don't keep 100% of what I make, but 50% of something is better for me than 100% of nothing.
That self destructive envy is almost a mental problem. Who cares if someone else profits from your work, as long as you are in a better situation with them than without?
>> if you're an employer. If you're an employee, like the majority of citizens, it's essentially slavery. And don't tell me "slaves aren't paid." Slaves were fed and clothed and housed<<
Slaves didn't have a choice but to work for a particular employer. That was the difference. Like, they were physically prevented from doing it.
Now, sure, you might not like the system. What happens in alternative systems? Can you show examples of anything (real life examples, for recent economies, and something that's larger than a small community. Remember this stuff needs to be able to apply to countries of tens or hundreds of millions of people) that offers a better deal?
>> Many who work today - sometimes in multiple jobs - can barely afford to cover those basic needs<<
Those people aren't capable of producing much of value. It sucks to be them. Stay in school. Study something useful. People who can do something valuable can demand high wages because they can pick and choose their employer (I'm on job number 11... I'm 34) People who can't... Well, it sucks. They're just not that valuable.
Anyway, how are the people of Venezuela going when it comes to covering their basic needs?
>> The almighty "job creators" always cry poverty when anyone suggests they should pay higher wages - when the truth is that they can afford<<
They can afford it, but if they can get a better ROI in another way, they'll do that.
Today, that includes automating jobs. If a machine gives them a better ROI, they'll do that. Those are the facts. That is the reality you don't seem to want to consider.
Then that either gives them a higher reward or more money to invest in their company.
It's good to reward people for higher productivity, BTW. In the end, the economy boils down to things that are created. People who can make more of those for less are a huge asset.
>> In the 1950s, being a working-class American was a pretty good deal, but corporate greed has ruined that nowadays.<<
Compared with whom?
Have you been outside the US and Europe? They've got a pretty bloody fantastic deal in those places.
Anyway, technology has screwed those people, not capitalism. That sucks, but it was coming anyway. You think technology destroying jobs is bad? Try fighting it and being in an economy that's outcompeted by every other country that didn't make such a retarded decision.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yeah.
Hitler was basically the result of a failed economy. The economy had failed in part because, frankly, Germany's enemies wanted revenge and wanted to keep a foot on Germany's neck. (Remember that was the second war France had had with Germany in about a generation)
Which wouldn't have been so bad if they'd kept the boot there. But they didn't, and got the worst of both worlds.
Economies that are doing well don't tend to have those problems. The need for an enemy or for revenge doesn't burn nearly as bright when you're the winner.
This all being said, though. If we're looking at results, the worst thing Hitler did was setting the scene for a powerful USSR.
He did a lot of absolutely terrible things, but over all, his most damaging accomplishment was setting the groundwork for a world in which the USSR had a huge amount of influence.
I'm not saying it would have been better if he'd won. Far from it. Just that on a body count or economic damage count, nothing he'd intended to do was as damaging as that one thing he didn't intend.
Without Hitler (or his equivalent), there'd have been no PRC. The USSR wouldn't have expanded West, because it would have then found a Europe that was united against it from Poland onwards. There'd have been no Pol Pot. No North Korea. You get the idea.
There's nothing that I can think of that was as damaging as all that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@BehdinAzadih-hh7rj China has never been Communist. No country has.
Run by a Communist party, sure, but that's the aspiration rather than the present reality.
And up until very recently, it looked like things were changing. The regression only came into full force when Xi (who was selected as a malleable compromise candidate... That was a misreading of him) had spent a few years in power.
And yes, a blind eye was turned. This has been a major effect of the HK protests. They've been a catalyst for people paying attention to the CCP. It was starting to go that way, but it killed off any sympathy people might have had for the CCP. (We could at least fool ourselves there was an upside. Improving lives, etc)
And the flipside, is.... What? She's done nothing except get indignant. She might have made you what you believe is radical, but while she's made you radical, the HK protests have united Democrats and Republicans on a major issue. Where's the unity behind her?
BTW, if you can be taken from being a moderate to a radical by a 16 year old rich kid taking a boat to berate people about her 'lost childhood' you're making emotional decisions. HK protests gave evidence of what the party was like to people we identify with.
Again, nothing new added to the table from Greta. Plenty added from HK.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Mr2tails quote on that bit?
And in answer to your question: by being free from outside control.
Which Taiwan is.
If it wasn't, you wouldn't have bothered to fling that latest lump to see if it stuck. You'd have given me the definition of independent and pointed out how it failed to qualify.
If no one external gives orders to the Taiwanese govt, it and Taiwan are independent. By definition. If no one external has control over Taiwan, it is independent. By definition.
Incidentally, I did a search of the Taiwan constitution for the word depend
That text comes up three times.
Article 80
Judges shall be impartial. They shall try cases independenly, in accordance with law, and be free from any
interference.
Article 88
Members of the Examination Yuan shall be nonpartisan and shall exercise their functions independently, in
accordance with law.
Article 141
The foreign policy of the Republic of China shall be conceived in a spirit of independence and self-reliance
and based on the principles of equality and reciprocity to promote friendly relations with other nations and
abide by treaties and the Charter of the United Nations so as to protect the rights and interests of Chinese
citizens residing abroad, foster international cooperation, advance international justice, and insure world
peace.
Section 3 The National Economy
So... Quote please. From here it looks like you're making stuff up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@justbeyourself8515 >>if you like to respond to my question by posing another question, this is typical sidetracking tactics.<<
When you make a ridiculous comparison, it's good to clarify it.
>>To address your first point, my example is an analogy. And yes, they are the same to the extent that according to your twisted logic, one can resort to violence and illegal means to achieve his objective once peaceful means have been exhausted.
As long as we ignore that in your analogy it's the robber that's changing the status quo (attempting to take something that doesn't belong to him) whereas in HK it was the govt that was changing the status quo (Enacting laws that would allow HK citizens to be tried before CCP controlled courts)
>>We are talking about the riot in Hong Kong. Not China.<<
This is where we pretend that the extradition law wasn't something the CCP was trying to enact via its proxies?
>>rioters breached the law and should be prosecuted. Period.<<
Laws enacted by a govt they hadn't selected and had had no say in.
>>Once there is a law and you break it, you should be held responsible. <<
In a democracy, where the people have a peaceful means of selecting who's in power, I'd agree.
That doesn't describe Hong Kong.
>>Rule of law or rule by law does not change the fact that there is a law and the citizens should abide by it. <<
Including when a law is a barbaric one enforced by an appointed govt?
>>If you disagree with the law, use legal means to change it in your legislative branch instead of using violence to declare non-compliance. This is no different from barbarians. That's why those people are rioters.<<
What means were there for doing this?
Keeping in mind that massive peaceful protests had been ignored.
Keeping in mind that the CE is appointed by Beijing (Yes, through Beijing controlled proxies. The result is the same)
Keeping in mind that the next election was about a year away, and the legislation would have gone through long before that.
What part of the massive peaceful marches done at the beginning were insufficient to get the message across that it wasn't wanted?
Also, in addition to everything else,
>>As I said, tough luck and accept the reality or leave the place. Join the legislature, choose a career in politics or join the government etc<<
LOL @ thinking a career in politics with a CCP controlled govt will change anything.
>>the bottom line is, you must comply with the law. <<
Which goes back to that the HK govt (not the opposition, the govt) was setup in a way that made it almost impossible for pro CCPers to lose.
>>Otherwise what's the point of having a set of legislation to govern the society? Everybody could just renounce the government and insist on their own beliefs. <<
Sounds like there should have been some sort of organised system for selecting ALL members of govt from whatever candidates chose to put themselves forward (as opposed to candidates the CCP said were allowed to run)
>>And if their demands are not met, everybody simply go nuts and fight their way through? <<
This is where we pretend that joining politics to make real changes isn't laughably naive in a system controlled by the CCP's puppets?
>>The consequences will be dead simple then. Whoever has a bigger fist wins. And now obviously, the rioters lost and are defeated. A bunch are in jail and some fled the country. Pointless.<<
Which puts us in the same situation where HK was going to arrive anyway if the govt wasn't resisted.
There's nothing the CCP can do to Hong Kong that's worse than what it was going to do anyway.
>>Remaining peaceful is of course vital because that's your own city. And what the rioters have done have made the people in Hong Kong suffer. <<
Funny how the suffering people of HK backed the protesters so solidly the CCP was forced to change the election rules.
Are you going to pretend that the 'silent majority' supported the govt?
>>Not sure how destroying your own home would bring prosperity or advance your political system. Simply sad to watch this meaningless mess in Hong Kong.<<
How much do you think giving the CCP a pretext to allow political opponents to be sent from HK to their controlled courts would advance HK's political system?
Yes, they've done it anyway, but at a massive cost.
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
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williamsastard8830 Calm your anger.
Obviously if you look at their actions, they weren't aiming for anything good, because only a raging lunatic thinks that attempting Socialism will lead anywhere.
But as for the intentions of their leaders. They thought they were right. They thought others were wrong. They thought they were the only ones who could manage that. When you have people without restraints believing that, bad things can happen.
Anyway: When you can give me proof that they knew they'd fail at their goal, but did their actions anyway, let me know. As it is, from your anger, I'm seeing no reason to believe that, even with the best of intentions, you'd do any better
Edit: Also, I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question. Anger is a poor substitute for answers.
"How do you expect a true believer to implement a bad idea? When he decides everything except the idea is the problem.
"
Well? You can give up and walk away, or you can double down. What do you think happens when you double down and decide everything except the idea is the problem?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@akhunsuryanto First off:
You say that there's not going to be poverty in China next year (by what definition?) yet you yourself can't even afford to use the enter key.
Or maybe it's broken and you can't afford to replace it, I don't know.
Anyway:
>>Oh sorry I will say that you are totally wrong, because you don't understand China at all<<
An overused line. Basically the precursor for an unexplained handwaving "China is special because it's special" line. Used for everything from politics to medicine.
>>the Chinese culture since thousand years ago had been governed by the empire, a dynasty or kingdoms<<
Not unusual at all.
>>They had never known about democracy and freedom of speech until CCP took place<<
Also not unusual. Pretty much every modern democracy has been an autocracy with no knowledge of democracy at some point. Even the Greeks were.
>>so its people are used to that condition until nowadays<<
As long as things go well.
What happens when things don't go well? All governments fall. What happens when the CCP falls?
I can tell you what happens when the government in my home country falls: The people who were complaining about how things were done and they could do better are put in charge. They get an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. Those who were in charge start pointing out the flaws of the new mob and holding them to account.
And life goes on. My government almost fell a few months ago, and has a good chance of falling in a couple of years. It'll be completely peaceful.
But what about the CCP?
>>the CCP rules just like the ancient empire did at least similar one another right now, <<
You mean like the ancient empires that crumbled?
>>that's not a serious problem for the mainland Chinese<<
As long as prosperity improves.
And when it doesn't, the govt will fall. And then as I asked previously in this post... What next?
>>I think that's no matter whatever system of government China applied as long as the government do the right things to deliver wealth in order to create prosperity of its people, that's a good government.<<
If it's a good government that's wanted by the people, then the people will vote it back in, and there's no reason to suppress information and choice.
After all, the Chinese people aren't children. At least not those above 18 years old. They're intelligent adults who should be able to make their own decisions. Right?
>>China has lifted more than 800 million of its people out of poverty <<
That the CCP helped keep them in.
The CCP 'lifted' 800 million of its people out of poverty by temporarily giving up on trying to be Socialist.
>>and by next year 2020, there will no poverty exist in China as Mr. Xi targeted before<<
Well, repeating my first question. How are you defining poverty? I was there last week. There's a lot of poverty.
The international extreme poverty rate is $1.90 USD per day. That's a really low bar. 0.7% of the Chinese people are still below that.
>>the CCP also has brought and lead China to the second largest economy of the the world<<
As would be expected from the country with the largest population in the world.
One which has 4x the population of the largest economy, yet is still #2
>>This huge achievement should be appreciated by all of you even by the world<<
This huge achievement was the result of the CCP giving up on its one goal.
The CCP is one of the 20th century's great failures. All those people dead, only to get to the type of government the Nationals had 70 years earlier.
What was the point?
>>Futuremore, democracy, free speech or freedom is mean nothing as long as its people are still living in poverty and suffer hardship to earn a living<<
It means a lot because there's a safety valve.
What happens when the CCP falls?
Which, like all governments, it will. The only question is how and how costly?
>>Without CCP, China Will be broken into pieces and maybe disappeared in the world map then you will find republic of Quangzhou, republic of Helongjiang, republic of Hongkong etc instead on the world map.<<
Where's the problem?
I know that the people of the Republic of Hong Kong would be ecstatic.
>>One of the utmost thing I hope is that the western people and its administration do not make a mess China's society by interfering its internal affairs, let China go on her way to achieve her national's goals, it will harm no one<<
That last is a complete lie. Ask any of China's neighbours.
Can you list China's Asian allies?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mistergeopolitics4456 >>WOW someone is triggered huh<<
How do you figure I am?
>>Funny how you've been so brainwashed by fox news & Zionist controlled media that you can't open your eyes & think for yourself and as soon as you hear an opposing perspective your brain goes haywire<<
Based on....?
>>You can't consider for a second that perhaps the other side may be right & perhaps you are the one who has been fed lies & propaganda. Remember before the war on Iraq in 2003 how the US media was feeding everyone the BS about Saddam's WMD ? What happened ? Or what about Assad & the gas attacks ? A BBC journalist recently came out & admitted that the video which Trump used as justification to bomb Syria last year WAS FAKE.
<<
That's a very longwinded way of saying "Look! Distraction!"
And I can, but I've seen no evidence that I have been.
>>Venezuela has problems, lots of countries do, however the US is amplifying the issues by preventing Venezuela from accessing foreign currency reserves. Right now they can't even access their own savings in foreign accounts. You may somehow manipulate that number to equate it to a nintendo switch & casually try to dismiss it, but in a poor country that is struggling where food is relatively cheap even 1 billion dollars is the difference between millions of people eating or not, receiving vital medicine / supplies or not. It can mean farms not receiving pesticides & fertilizers which leads to a domino effect.<<
It's a country of 30 million people. The only thing this affects is the timeline. Barely.
The problems are simply bigger than the figures you're talking about. This is ignoring how much the govt members are taking for themselves.
>>According to Venezuela's foreign minister<<
Awesome source there. I'm sure he's completely unbiased.
How about I source someone in the Trump administration? Will you take the word from someone like that as uncritically?
>>The truth is that if the US really cared about Venezuela's people, they would lift the sanctions instead of trying to smuggle weapons in with supposed aid. <<
Oh, now we're adding weapons smuggling in. Right.
Or the Venezuelan govt could search what's there and let it in.
But that would necessitate admitting that there's a problem.
>>The US is after Venezuela's oil & that's it. Even Bolton has admitted this in an interview. If Venezuela had no oil or natural resources, like many poor African countries who are ruled by dictators, then the US wouldn't care and that's just the truth.
<<
>>Even Bolton has admitted this in an interview. If Venezuela had no oil or natural resources, like many poor African countries who are ruled by dictators, then the US wouldn't care and that's just the truth.
<<
Caring != Being actively involved in what's going on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christophmahler >>The US NAvy has no business to patrol outside territorial waters - regardless of international law, the US never abides to, anyway, looking back to 30 years of destabilization. <<
Sure it does.
And nice bit of whataboutism.
>>It's a provocation and in the end, carriers will be sunk by anti-ship missiles or sub surface nuclear detonations. <<
If it's a provocation to exercise the right of free passage covered under the UNCLOS, which the PRC voluntarily signed, then the problem isn't with the US.
>>This is not about the CCP, but the drive for total supremacy by the West - of which all of us have had enough.<<
This is very much about the CCP's illegal attempts to achieve 'total supremacy' over territory it doesn't own, and by the agreements it voluntarily signed, has no legal right to beyond those rights enjoyed by any random nation, including the USA.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
China's big thing, which it hasn't moved away from relying on, is cheap labour.
It doesn't have the money to address the scale of the issue.
Automation is basically really, really difficult and needs people who are highly trained and experienced to do it in a useful, sustainable way.
The people who can do this (I'm a Linux engineer. Automation is 90 percent of my job) are going to follow the money and the places that can offer their children the best opportunities.
This isn't the PRC. Which we can see from the continued emigration and the collapse (which pre-dates the virus) of births over a short time period (over 40 percent in five years, according to official numbers)
For contrast, the gdp per capita is about 12.5k usd in the PRC vs 70k in the USA. Yes, cost of living is lower in the PRC, but it's not that much lower. There's also a pretty firm maximum it can add to your pay.
If my day to day living expenses were 100 percent paid for in the PRC (as they were in Hong Kong with the taxation difference) financial reasons alone say I still wouldn't move there.
So not only is it not going to fix China's problems, but by giving alternative methods of getting cheap labour, it's going to make them worse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zetta1200 then we get to defining strength.
I wouldn't say the PRC is weak because of a lack of sewerage.
I've got far better reasons. Sewerage wouldn't come on my list.
For instance, is a country without a peaceful way to change who's in power a strong country?
Is a country in which children are vanishing a strong country?
As for checking the rankings, maybe you had. However, when you're talking about something like literacy, you make a point of being precise. You weren't, and I'm going to doubt you'd looked any deeper into it than what was needed to make it sound bad.
What its state is is irrelevant to the discussion, but it's still worth highlighting inaccuracies like that. Otherwise people start to take them seriously.
First world was US, Western European, etc aligned.
Second was Soviet aligned. The PRC before the Sino Soviet split.
Third was unaligned. Arguably the PRC after the split.
That these became associated with economic development really showed what was a good idea and what wasn't.
As far as putting all the blame on immigrants go, pointing out that they're a factor isn't putting all the blame on them. It's highlighting one of the factors at play.
Kind of like how sixth grade reading sounds bad.
Harry Potter is sixth grade reading. It's sad that people don't have a reason to progress beyond that, but it's still a decent level. It just sounds bad because it's lower than high school.
It's like we had people claiming that Australia's requirement to have an IELTS score of 6.5 to get permanent residency was unreasonable because requiring immigrants to have university level English, which most Australians don't have.
Technically true, because that was the level required to get into uni.
But very, very different to the image it was trying to convey of saying that was the language level of a native speaker at university.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blackmantis3130 >>you are refusing to understand. Taiwan isn't recognized as an independent country.<<
There's two theories of statehood. Constitutive and Declarative.
Under the one that uses recognition by established states, only one country is required. The Vatican alone fulfills this requirement.
Under the other, no recognition is needed. It only needs to act like an independent country. Taiwan/the ROC easily fulfills the criteria.
Neither theory mentions the USA (Or the United Nations, for that matter)
>> Can't you read international law. <<
I can.
That's why I know you won't be able to point to any law that says Taiwan isn't a country.
You'll point to UN membership, but UN membership has never been a prerequisite for being a country.
>>There's a reason the Taiwan wants to declare independence but it can't.<<
“We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state,” Tsai told the BBC. “We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.”
>>Only a few countries recognize Taiwan's independence<<
"Taiwan isn't recognized as an independent country"
>>Even the UN doesn't.<<
Please give me the date on which UN recognition became a part of the requirements for being an independent country.
>>When Taiwan competes in international sports , it isn't called Taiwan . It's called Chinese Taipei. <<
Are you really so desperate you're mentioning sporting organisations?
>>International bodies don't consider it an independent country. Do you understand now. I use America because America is it's most powerful ally and even they don't recognize taiwan as a country. There you learned something.<<
You haven't given me anything I didn't already know.
You also haven't given me anything relevant. You've given me the same tired, overused talking points put forth by every brainless wumao I've discussed this with.
The US doesn't have the power to say that a place isn't a country. It never did. Hopefully it never will.
It's not that I'm refusing to understand, it's that unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nicolaus: Adding onto this is the rise in child prostitution seen when factories are shut down in India.
And the simple fact that the world isn't an ideal place. You've simply got a lot of options that have varying levels of success. Frankly, the sweatshop isn't such a bad thing.
The way I normally put it (and keeping in mind this is very rough. Lots of exceptions)
White collar job is better than a Blue collar.
Blue collar is better than a job in a sweatshop.
A job in a sweatshop is better than subsistence farming.
Being a subsistence farmer is better than being a prostitute (or selling your children as prostitutes)
Being a prostitute is better than starvation.
That's the reality of it. If you remove one of these options, people will go down (if up was an option, they'd have likely taken it. Again, with lots of exceptions)
Those shitty jobs put there for first world profit do literally improve lives. They allow parents to educate their children. They provide jobs that are actually in demand. (You'd have heard about the Foxconn suicides. Do the math on that sometime. Foxconn is a big company and its employees have a tendency to live in their complexes. It's at worst similar to the suicide rate in China as a whole, although from memory it's much, much better)They bring money into communities that would have none and so on.
Sure, we can talk about how profiting from the poor is bad. But that is a major incentive to do something that actually does help them (I'm not going to count corruption in this. Nor will I count slave labour. Actual slave labour. Like... Involuntary. And I don't mean involuntary when the alternative is starvation, I mean sold/kidnapped and forced to work involuntary) remove profit and you remove the incentive. Remove the incentive and things get much, much worse.
People who are against sweatshops aren't helping these people, they're hurting them. Encourage companies to pay more by all means (Although remember that the question of replacing these people with robots comes down to simple math in the end. If they're paid more, replacing them with machines is more economically feasible. Having a workforce made up of robots is going to be seen as a lot more ethical than giving (what, to a Westerner, looks like) bad jobs to people who could otherwise only get worse) but actions that lead to them being shut down literally lead to children being sold for sex. Or simply dying of starvation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/22/opinion/reckonings-hearts-and-heads.html
"The direct result was that Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children. But did the children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? Not according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced child workers ended up in even worse jobs, or on the streets -- and that a significant number were forced into prostitution."
2
-
>>It's not a true monopoly if you simply have the lowest prices. The very MOMENT your prices go back up, other competitors jump right back in the market place. <<
That depends on the product, including things such as the infrastructure required to produce that product.
Also, people will only jump into an area they think they'll profit from. If the message being sent out is "I will do whatever it takes you destroy your investment" they'll simply not bother.
>>There's no magically driving people out short term<<
If an investment fails, then yes, that does drive them out.
>>and long term, people get used to low prices.<<
That's nice for them.
>>When they jump back up, demand takes a dive as other competitors try to figure out how to make their product cheaper too so they can compete. <<
Again, depends on the product. Anything that requires a significant initial investment is highly vulnerable to this.
>>What your talking about is not realistic<<
You can claim that, fine. But if you claim it, try to take other costs into account. This isn't a game where the only cost you have is the product itself.
>>If you spend capital to lower your prices to the point where i compete, that means it's cheaper for me to buy your product than sell mine. <<
In the meantime, you've got staff who need to be paid, or they'll go elsewhere. You've got repayments, including interest, to pay on whatever loan you might have taken to start your business (This sort of thing would also prevent banks from lending, BTW. They tend to like getting their money back) you've got rent on whatever premises you're using, you've got your own equipment ageing and declining in value.
What you say there is only true if we live in a computer-game style vacuum where you have no costs associated with buying and keeping X product.
>>If i know that you're trying to push me out of a market, I'll just buy up your products and when you think I'm out,<<
Sure. If you manage to keep your staff (skills are painful to replace) stave off your creditors, pay for storage, pay the cost of actually buying that product, don't get screwed by any changes in product requirements, don't deal with something that has any form of expiration date, and so on and so forth, are confident that the price will go up before you go broke, etc.
The cost of doing this is something like CostOfProduct + (StaffCosts x time) + (storagecosts x time) + (loanrepayments x time)
And if CostOfDoingThat ever becomes > YourAvailableCapital you're going to fail. Your staff will walk because they haven't been paid, your landlord will kick you out because you haven't paid, your bank will start repossessing assets to try and get whatever it can back out of this bad investment.
>>I'll come back I reselling your product when you've run out of capital trying to do it. <<
Again, as always, it depends on the product. Depends on the extra costs associated with your idea and depends on the depth of my pockets vs the depth of yours.
I watched this happen in Australia for years in the telecommunications sector. Investment in cable basically stopped because the dominant telco made it clear that they'd make any investment unprofitable. After that, the only thing that anyone bothered investing in was the odd wireless network here or there. Nothing major. (Not counting dark fibre for connecting business sites. That's a different ballgame and, in a city, easier than you'd think)
>>The purpose of an economy is not jobs (they are a nice by product) . The purpose is to produce products and services as efficiently as possible.<<
I'd agree, but that's irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Edit: I should probably be clear here.
I'm not a socialist or anything approaching that. I'm simply someone who's been working in an industry full of this shit since I turned 18. I cut my teeth in ISPs when this behaviour was at its height. I watched our main Telco cut all rivals out of the market, only allowing them in when forced to by law. I watched them this every step of the way, only losing because laws and massive fines were threatened.
Taking your example: How does it apply to a telecommunications network?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To stop this thread from being one sided propaganda, here's the other side of the coin.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>>I love this one. 'Get a better job'. Hilarious.<<
Yes, the idea of someone who's been an adult for 40 years taking control of her own life is pretty hilarious.
Oh, wait... No, it's to be expected.
>>Instead of making companies - with more wealth than ever, that don't pay taxes<<
Yeah, Disney's paying taxes.
Probably not as much as you'd like, but 100% is a bit unreasonable to anyone else.
>>that lobby the government, that ban unions<<
She's.... In a union. Pretty difficult to be in a union if they're banned.
>>up the wage a bit - to match the economy<<
It is matching the economy. She's getting paid market rates. If she wasn't, they wouldn't be able to find anyone.
>>in which we should be getting slightly richer<<
Overall, we are.
>>Just let it be. How bloody useless. Wage inequality increases every day, which is bad for the welfare of workers and economic growth in the long term,<<
People who talk about inequality seem to be doing it because it's difficult to talk about how things are actually getting worse for everyone.
Y'know... Because they're not.
We can be unequally wealthy or equally poor.
Incidentally, globally she'd be in the top 3%
And.... She stayed in that job by choice. Can't stress that enough. She chose her circumstances.
>>and you give the classic strawman crony neoliberal answer. It's all pooling up, like that 'trickle down' bullshit.<<
It's simply not trickling down as much as you'd like. Check the rest of the world sometime. She's one of the wealthy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zendesigner >>Jesus Christ, Robert, I already showed u the facts in the links, seems u r in denial of China’s economical growth<<
When did I do that?
>>and what CCP has accomplished over the past decades.<<
Would these accomplishments of the Chinese Communist Party be the ones that it achieved by:
1. Temporarily ditching the attempt at making Socialism work
2. Changing the definition of poverty to be below the global extreme poverty level
?
I've heard many people tout the achievements. I haven't had many give examples of achievements that weren't achieved by one of those two actions.
>>- An exit plan, u know those commies gonna get u, right? U better have a plan!<<
For when we get an answer to the question:
What happens when the CCP falls?
All governments fall. The only question is how and when. I know what'll happen when the govt in the US falls. It happened two days ago. I know what'll happen when my own govt falls. I participate in a potential fall of one level of govt or another about once a year via the ballot box (that thing the CCP is terrified of)
But it's nice to see that you can get out, so that's good enough. Who really cares about the billion plus who can't? They're not you, after all. Frankly, that they're stuck with whatever ghastly consequences arise when the CCP falls (as a result of the CCP very, very, very aggressively ensuring there's no peaceful way to transfer power) is their fault for being poor. Amirite?
As we've seen from the police who were happy to watch people drown, that's a very common attitude from the CCP's creation. It's one that's a matter of course in the mainland, but never seen in places the CCP had no positive hand in creating like Hong Kong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GamerShowdown-h8j In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So the median income in the PRC is 4k USD.
The PPP multiplier is about 2x. So the median spending power is 8k.
4% of 8k is 320
For reference, the US median income is about 40k USD.
Last year, the US economy grew by 2.9 percent.
2.9 percent of 40k is 1160. Or about 3.5x the spending power increase.
Assuming it stays at the rate of growth (from the last decade, it won't) it would take 11 years for the median income to reach the current US federal poverty line.
But then we get to that because of demographics, exacerbated by the incredible success of the one child policy, they're in a race to get rich before they get old.
At the moment, there's a worker to dependent ratio of about 2:1 - down from about 3:1 in 2011.
So to maintain that, every dependent needs two workers.
Last year, the working age population dropped by 10.75 million. This is according to official data.
So that's 10.75 million workers who directly need to be replaced.
There was an increase in the retirement age population of 16.93 million. So that's 34 million workers needed, in addition to that 10.75 million.
"fortunately" the under 18 population declined by about 7 million. So a net increase of about 10 million dependents.
Meaning that last year alone, there was a 30 million worker shortfall.
We're at the start of a roughly ten year bubble of retiring workers, so each year of the next decade looks to be at least as bad. That gives us a roughly 300m worker shortfall over that decade.
At the moment, they have about 980 million working age people. Over that decade, this will drop down to the high 800's. Say 870m.
So they'll only have about 75 percent of what they need to stay at their current ratio. Approaching 3 workers to every two dependents.
This is without getting into the collapsing birthrate.
So yes. Different.
There are no countries of a remotely similar level of development that are going through any remotely similar demographic shift.
Even for developed countries, the ones they compare themselves with (Japan and south Korea) are two countries that are both in a far better situation (Japan is in every way. South Korea is at least much more developed) and are two countries with which you never want to compare yourself with in this area.
Especially unfavourably.
It's like being proud of having a crime rate better than Somalia.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
@shundi4264 you mean you're being this publicly "simple" for free?
That's not an improvement.
Anyway, as is tradition, on the long list of facts you can only whine about.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well...
Extrapolate this out fifty years.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@灯星-g8e In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?).
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children, and there were 6.77 births per thousand (official data).
So in less than a decade, the number of births has dropped to less than half of what it was, and the number of people deciding they can become parents has collapsed by two-thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, to maintain the 2:1 worker-to-dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011), the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking even worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about $4,250 USD.
The purchasing power parity (PPP) multiplier is about 2x.
So the median Chinese citizen has a spending power equivalent to about $8.5k — still well below the U.S. poverty line, even after adjusting for local prices.
And yes, I know things are cheaper.
That's exactly why I used the PPP modifier — to take that into account.
That's why 5 percent GDP growth simply isn't good enough.
They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested $1,000 into the CSI 300 back in mid-2009, you'd have about $1.2k now.
If you had instead put it into the S&P 500, you’d have about $6.3k.
If you invested five years ago, you'd have about $950 today in the CSI 300.
Versus about $2k in the S&P 500.
And over the past year, the CSI 300 is up about 7.75%.
The S&P 500? Up about 11% — even after the losses from the latest tariff war and with two rounds of stimulus being pumped out by the CCP.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dave_Sisson it would, probably one of the differences is monarchies.
Like... A third of Australia is named after Queen Victoria, and that's just taking Victoria and Queensland.
There's also plenty named after early politicians (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland if we include NZ), not to mention explorers (Cooktown) and of course, Darwin, which on fact checking I see was named after lord Palmerston for a while.
I'm in Hong Kong now, plenty named after royalty and political figures. Southorn was particularly confusing until I found it was a name, not a misspelled geographic direction.
Granted, nothing new that I can think of, but you need a few decades to get a clearer perspective.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sheep8102 Before I continue, I'm going to highlight that not a single one of my questions was answered.
>>First, Taiwan's legal status as a part of Chinese territory is already clear in both domestic and international law, <<
By which domestic laws is the ROC (Known at Taiwan for short) part of the PRC?
ROC laws, obviously. Not PRC laws.
And what international laws?
To save time: The name given in UN membership has nothing to do with whether they're an independent nation.
>>and there is no precondition for self-determination to be decided by referendum.<<
They already have self determination. What aspect of it are they missing? (Basically a rephrasing of one of my former questions, which you didn't answer)
>>Secondly, "sovereignty of the people" means that sovereignty belongs to all the people of a country, not to a certain part or region of the people<<
Yep. All the people of the Republic of China. Which isn't, and has never been part of the PRC.
>>Sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people, including the Taiwan compatriots, not to some people in Taiwan.<<
This goes back to my former question asking what PRC laws, agencies, etc are active in Taiwan. If you can't answer it, that shows they are sovereign. By definition.
>>Third, Taiwan has never been a country in history.<<
Sure it is. Right now.
What aspect of being a country is it lacking? To save time, again, UN membership doesn't define who's a country. If it does, please link the international agreement.
Only countries can be members of the UN, but not being a member doesn't mean you're not a country.
The normal recognised legal theories are the declarative and constitutive theories of statehood.
>>After 1945, Taiwan was neither a foreign colony nor under foreign occupation, and there was no question of exercising the right to national self-determination.<<
They exercise national self determination at the moment. If they didn't, you'd have had no problems answering the questions in my last post.
>>In short, there has been no question of holding a referendum on changing Taiwan's status as part of China since China recovered Taiwan in 1945.<<
They're part of the Republic of China. The ROC is not, and has never been part of the seccessionist PRC.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'd have thought that universal healthcare was more of a hedgehog.
I mean, if we're redefining words, then why can't it be one?
If we're not redefining words, then we need to remember it's not.
It doesn't produce, it's a place the money is spent. (The exception being the pharmaceutical industry)
It's also interesting that you felt the need to limit it to laissez-faire capitalism. No, we don't have that. contract laws alone prevent it from being that. Still capitalism, though.
Also, particularly interested:
>> injury and disablement benefits, maternity leave<<
What do these produce, exactly? Safety nets, sure. But socialism is about ownership of the means of production
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Lol. Says the person who deleted our last thread because he still can't respond to this.
---------
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>>If we look at the economy part of both USSR and North Korea, they both have a model that are in relation to planned economy which is communism<<
No it's not.
>>The ideology that the Soviet Union followed was Marxism-Leninism, which was the development towards a communist society.<<
It was. If you're moving towards something, it's implied that you're not there. Because if you're at your destination, why would you go towards that?
>>It sounds like you ask me what the difference between socialism and communism<<
I asked what you think they are.
>> and that's not possible since socialism is a wide term for a wide range of ideologies.<<
It's an umbrella term for a range (not particularly wide) that has common ownership of the means of production at its core.
There's a lot of variations of that, but that's the basic defining feature.
>>That would be the same to ask what the difference between liberalism and facism is since both are operated on liberalism.<<
They're pretty different. Liberalism is about the freedom of the individual to the extent the freedoms don't harm others (IE: Your freedom to swing your fist ends with my face)
Fascism is an authoritarian system based on making the society work as one thing.
>>Just to give two different ideas of socialism; The Marxism-Leninism (USSR) ideology wants to have a common ownership of the means of production while social democracy (Nordic Model; Denmark, Sweden and Norway) wants to limit the capitalism to bring social justice. Both of those ideologies are socialists.<<
No they're not. Social democracy (it's not called socialist democracy for a reason) has common roots with socialism, but it's not socialism.
I don't like to be rude, but it really sounds like you don't know what words mean. You've heard people who are also clueless going on about them, and have taken your meanings from those vague ramblings. Which is really how most people seem to get their ideas of these words.
Really, there's no magic to these words. Nothing that makes them unusual.
But lots and lots and lots of people who want to change the meanings based on their own ideology.
In the case of socialism, people have tried to change it because it was such a monumental fuckup it had to be redefined to be rehabilitated by its proponents, and had to be redefined to be used against other things by people who dislike those other things.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
StrategicFooyoo if people are going to tell me that China would have been a impoverished as Taiwan, I'm going to use their numbers. If they don't like that, they shouldn't use such a ridiculous argument.
India has a host of other issues. Chief among them the caste system.
They might have voted socialist. Or a capitalist dictatorship might have been in power 30 years early, with the growth from that we've seen in the post mao era.
Or it might have split apart, with each state going its own way. Which would have led to more flexibility, more lessons, and even if there was another war involved, almost certainly less death and destruction than occurred in unified maoist China.
Unless the CCP allows a path for them to lose power, this civil war will almost certainly happen. The difference is it will be at a time when the people of China have something to lose, and after any goodwill China has had has been comprehensively squandered by the CCP.
Anyway, if you don't like the comparisons with Taiwan (and I actually agree with you. I think China would be more prosperous, but not on Taiwan's level) talk to the idiots here who think that China would have turned out like Taiwan (as if that was a bad thing)
Silent watcher is obviously the best start. When I repeated that statement, it was a copy of my reply to him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First off, what I particularly liked was how you linked a poorly defined term like efficiency to the people actually wanting it.
Because, again, the youngest people who've ever been given a choice are 90.
Autocratic governments are more efficient, though, that's true. Efficiency isn't necessarily a good thing. Mao was efficient. It would have been better for all those dead and impoverished if he wasn't.
Secondly, I also like how little of your post actually addressed what I said. The only thing was you attempting to come up with a new way in which the people have been asked, even though they really haven't. I'm still not sure why you brought up the US. You completely ignored the bit where I had to explain that a govt was more than its leader. You've dropped your rule of law line so quickly I could swear you must be Zhou Qiang.
And before the rest of the post, I'd like to know:
When the CCP falls (all governments fall. The only question is how and when. The idea that it'll simply go on and on forever is simply delusional). What happens next?
I know what happens in my own country.
I know what will happen to Taiwan.
I know what'll happen in the US, UK, Canada, etc.
Because we see governments fall every few years.
Peacefully.
But what will happen to the PRC?
Anyway:
>>At least so far, the government of the Communist Party of China is the most efficient government in the world<<
By what metric?
So far, the parts of China where people are wealthiest are the parts that the CCP has the least control over.
As of 2018, the highest GDP per capita in the mainland is Beijing. With 20k USD. Hong Kong has a GDP per capita of $48k USD. Taiwan has a GDP per capita of $25K USD
And as for the country as a whole, well, Li Keqiang himself said that 600 million were living on less than 140 USD a month. $1,680
That doesn't sound very efficient compared with every place they haven't controlled.
Unless you simply mean the ability to enact bad ideas faster.
>>This shows that the people have chosen the Communist Party in the past few decades<<
Why does this show that?
>>It is hard to say whether the Communist Party will be the most efficient in the future<<
It's hard to say how it's the most efficient now.
>>But which government is good? <<
Plenty. Just look at the countries that have high net immigration. People vote with their feet.
>>In fact, at the beginning of each big country's regime, it is good. Slowly, each country will embark on a road of contradiction between the ruling class and the ruled class<<
Mao was good when he was efficiently enacting policies that starved tens of millions to death?
>>No other country can let the instant interest group take its own life<<
What does this mean?
>>This was the case in the Qing Dynasty<<
Corrupt, insular, stagnant, autocratic.
Sounding pretty similar to the directiont they're currently going in.
>>in Britain<<
This would be the Britain that the CCP is furious at because it offered HK people the ability to freely choose to live there, rather than under them?
If you're going to list a country as a failure, try to make sure it's not a country that large amounts of people choose in preference to living under what you're trying to claim is a success.
>>and in the United States<<
Same thing here.
>>Big countries die in their own hands<<
Xi does seem to be doing a very efficient job of guiding the PRC to suicide.
>>while small countries die in the hands of others<<
Some do, some do very well.
>>Therefore, Western powers try every means to cut China into small countries<<
We've actually done a shameful job of ignoring the atrocities that go on inside the PRC's borders, and an even more shameful job of what the CCP does outside of them. Far from trying to cut it up, we've spent most of the last few decades doing actions that would help it stay together.
>>Taiwan is the knife cut by the United States<<
Taiwan is an independent country made up of people who didn't want to live under the CCP.
And any remote chance of peaceful reunification has been very efficiently destroyed by the CCP's own actions in Hong Kong (making a joke of 1C2S).
>>We are unified into a country. Our language, culture and ideology are the same<<
laughs in Cantonese
But really, no they're not.
If you were unified, you wouldn't be so paranoid about the West trying to carve you up. You can only be carved up if the people actually want to be carved up.
>>There is no contradiction at all<<
There's contradictions within your very words. That's ignoring the extra weight reality gives it.
>>Now the contradictions among the people are just created by the authorities and rulers<<
On this, we can agree.
>>What has the Communist Party done to the people of Taiwan? <<
You mean besides constantly threaten to invade and take over over the last seventy years? Besides pressure every country that would want relations with them into breaking off those relations? Besides being a constant threat of autocracy hanging over their heads?
>>What did you hurt?<<
I'm in HK and have been watching the CCP puppet's lies and failures first hand.
Also, it's pretty easy to ask any random person around the world how the CCP has hurt them at the moment. I know you don't believe the current epidemic is the CCP's fault. I know you don't believe that the CCP lied and covered up when this virus was still a very small problem. You probably don't even believe that the CCP govt was calling travel bans from China racist during the early stages of this fiasco, but a fairly large majority of the rest of the world disagrees with you.
>>Where does the hatred come from?<<
Experience and consequent distrust.
Seeing what's been done to a city that deserves a far better govt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Outside of demographics, the issue comes up if you look at a map.
So first off, they can't get the supplies they need overland from Russia. The capacity isn't there.
Their fuel stocks also aren't great. We saw the effect of this when they banned Australian coal. The power shortages in their industrial heartland were real.
Anyway, taking the south China Sea as an example. Every single country there, including Vietnam (which isn't an ally.) knows that only bad things happen to it if the CCP is uncontested.
Now we're at the point they don't mind the USA. But the PRC is another matter.
Self interest alone means they will be a western ally.
So for land, that's their south covered. By a country whose terrain is very defensible and also offers no impediment to attack.
North Korea to south Korea is going to end with Seoul being severely damaged, but that's about it. After that, the gap is simply too large in every way. We're also talking about the most defended border in the world.
When North Korea collapses, China's problem becomes a flood of refugees.
That's the north east.
Then there's India. After their recent issues on the line of actual control, there's no doubting that the north west is covered.
Even then, if these three places stay purely defensive, that's not an issue.
If they control the entire south China Sea and Taiwan, that's not an issue.
The issue is that they need to get supplies from Africa, Europe, Australia and the Americas. Over water they simply don't control.
Assuming these countries are simply told to choose who to trade with, they won't choose the PRC. Because medium to long term, there's not where the money is. The PRC is simply a small, highly protectionist market compared with the Western bloc.
Australia, Canada and the USA definitely won't. That deals with so many of the things they need.
Europe is a long way away, and push comes to shove, they've already been primed by Putin's failure.
And for anything left, a blockade that starts at the shores of Africa and south America will cut them off from enough of what they need as surely as a blockade from Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore.
And that's assuming all these countries fall.
Even if these countries do choose to cooperate, they simply can't supply enough.
They'd also really like to be paid in a currency that has and will have international value. They won't trust the RMB. The PRC's currency reserves aren't big enough to supply 1.4 billion people at inflated prices for long.
Which leaves the nuclear option, and that won't save them. It just brings everyone else down with them. Including the countries the leadership would really like to escape to.
The only value nukes have is ensuring no one else uses theirs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because there's more to the story than today.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fugueguy1929 that's superficial in many ways. It's also an image given to an outsider. Face is everything. I've spent the best part of two decades viewing this country from the inside and the outside.
My best way of describing it is layers of circles. Culturally on the mainland, this goes from national, right down to personal family and friends.
Anyone inside your circle is to be defended and supported. Anyone outside of it is an enemy to be profited from or treated as a threat. The inner circle is most important, the outer circle is least. So when given a choice, they'll tend to preference the inner circle at the expense of the outer.
This is a collectivist culture thing to begin with (look up high and low context cultures. Also look up geert hofstede's cultural dimensions) but it's made so much worse by the CCP, particularly with the long term scarring from the cultural revolution which was very much a "succeed by any means to survive" event.
For contrast, broadly speaking, we're (I'm guessing you're western) come from low context cultures, which are individualistic. This both means we're not as supportive of each other, but it also means that we view outsiders as individuals, just like ourselves.
But in general, ignore the words and look at the actions. They paint a very different picture.
And for what the leadership is afraid of, look at their actions. Also remember that the party is more important than the country. They're simply terrified of anything that unites the people against the centre and they'd rather see China burn in a civil war than to give up power any sooner than they need to.
Hong Kong is proof of that. They could have used Hong Kong as a base to experiment with preparing China for a post CCP life. They didn't.
All this ignores the trust issues, btw. This thing where we trust strangers is not normal. In the PRC it's taken to an extreme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's not decline.
This is decline.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>>there are plenty of socialist governments in the world<<
There really aren't.
If I ask you for examples, it's a safe bet you'll mention Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Places like that.
Not a single one of which is Socialist.
>>and there are two types of socialism, democratic & communism<<
For Socialism, you're probably thinking of Social Democracy (which isn't socialism) and for Communism, you're probably thinking of Socialism. Which is frequently attempted by parties that call themselves Communist, but has never been attempted on anything more than a tiny scale.
>>America even has a bit of socialism if you look at it from the public services of police & firemen as well as the roads constructed. <<
Sure. If you redefine the word, it has it.
Socialism isn't the govt doing taxpayer-funded stuff. It's about public ownership of the means of production. It's about the economy, not what the money is spent on.
>>Socialism has its flaws the same way capitalism has its flaws.<<
If you completely and utterly ignore the scale of those flaws, yeah.
But this being said, you really do seem to be someone who simply doesn't know what Socialism is. Very few Socialists seem to have the slightest clue of what they're advocating.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>>bigivel nope, social programs is socialism mate, it just sounds nicer. most social programs would do better without the government.<<
Maybe. Up for debate.
Whether it could be done more efficiently isn't (or at least isn't up for as much debate) I'll definitely give you that.
For, but example, essentials that can easily become monopolies are a classic example of where government intervention/control is a good thing (for the consumer, at least)
Cases in point: Water and electricity. You aren't going to have multiple water or electrical networks and you aren't going to be able to do without them.
I'll also add internet (at least at the infrastructure level to this)
Roads, police, health (I've really never met someone from a country with socialised healthcare who wants to get rid of it. Improve, by all means, but never get rid of) defence, blah blah blah.
Probably be better if there's some specific examples you're thinking of.
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
-
Then leave.
Anyway: If this was about someone who was trying really hard to find a job that paid a decent wage, but couldn't find one, that would be one thing. Nothing but sympathy for someone who's really trying to improve her life, but can't.
But this is about someone who explicitly asks why she should even change employers, let alone location.
Also, if things are so bad in California, then why is she being used as an argument? I can't imagine why a sane person would choose this person as an argument for how bad things are. When things are that bad, you don't ask why it should be you that changes. You just ask what you need to do.
If she's genuinely the worst case they can find, then California must be a utopian place. Personally, I don't doubt for a moment that there are tens of thousands, probably even hundreds, a million wouldn't surprise me, who are worse off in that state than she is.
And yet they use her.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@name-k7t Taking doctors vs Nurses as an example:
You probably came across it, there was a look at scrabble championships recently.
Women normally play it socially, but men excel at it competitively.
Largely because men are competitive. When you're competitive, you're likely to go father and higher at a higher cost. (The effort)
It's harder to be a doctor than to be a nurse. The work might not be harder, but actually becoming one is more difficult.
If you put a competitive person next to an uncompetitive person, the competitive one can be expected to come out ahead nearly all of the time.
Anyway, I think stuff that gets women back in the workforce is a net benefit. (Although they they forget why they put the programs in. My wife is a teacher. I manage computer networks. After school care was initially prioritised towards kids with two working parents. They recently changed the rules to give students a higher priority. Long story short, in the shakeup that happened, we no longer get before and after school care. We'd had it over the last year)
Basically, someone who's on $80k a year who's not working is a greater loss to the economy as a whole than someone who's worth about $30k doing the same thing. Particularly for multiple kids.
And, yeah, in the end. Choices.
I will not voluntarily take time off. I'm dragged into holidays kicking and screaming. My goal is to do whatever it takes to make sure my family, which includes my wife and my daughter. It isn't just me, has what it needs for the future.
I'm a provider. I take it seriously. I do caring stuff, but it's my secondary purpose. My wife is a carer before she's a provider, moving back into the secondary provider role as the caring requirements decline.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hans In China, in the 19th century.
45 million of those starved in a series of events between 1800 and 1845. As you say, it was an undeveloped agrarian society.
30 million starved during a period that included the Taiping rebellion. This was a huge war. Like.... Utterly huge. It's amazing that more isn't known about it. It also went on for about fifteen years.
In China: 15-45 million starved between 1959 and 1961. Not due to natural disaster, but due to policies enacted.
>>However in the end both China and the USSR were better off year after year. <<
Something pretty common all over the world. The difference was in how sustainable it was.
And my mother is a new Zealander. I've heard zero stories of her or any member of her side of the family queuing for basic groceries.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but NZ didn't economically collapse.
>>There was no more famine since 1947<<
Just lots and lots of queuing for basic goods. Something else my mother never told me is having hard/soft currency stores, or about what it took to escape NZ (after it was turned into a prison)
Again: Western Europe also had no famines. It wasn't something unique to the USSR.
>>Some socialist states in Eastern Europe never experienced any famines. But when the USSR was dissolved there was a calorie intake in the Russian Federation in the 90's<<
Yeah. They had a revolution that included the former govt basically giving up and walking away.
The early years of the Russian Federation were a direct result of the state the country was in thanks to the USSR. There was no magical cutoff line. One led to the other.
If you really want to do a comparison, I'd invite you to look at east/west of the Iron Curtain.
>>Fact is Cuba and North Korea which survived the downfall of the USSR and suffered from that in the 90's have slowly recovered and are doing better than ever before now<<
It's truly sad that NK was doing better than it is now. (Although for a while it was doing better than SK. As we can see, that didn't last) - That's an incredibly low bar you've got there, though. They're still starving, but it's not mass starvation. Just enough that malnutrition is widespread and the average NK citizen is 3-8cm shorter than the average SK citizen.
And it was Raul Castro who said that unless Cuba changes course, they're sunk. That's not something that tells you things were peachy.
>>Cuba has one of the highest life expectancies in the world<<
By "Highest" you mean #32 according to the WHO in 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_World_Health_Organization_(2015)
Basically, it's the best of the former Socialist states, but behind pretty much all the Western capitalist states.
>>North Korea seems to become a smaller version of China<<
I had no idea that China was that bad.
Unless you're talking about becoming a smaller version of 1960's China, which I'd agree with. It was pretty bad then. My wife has uncles who still have health problems due to the malnutrition they had then. She also had employers who were sleeping seven to a bed in Northern China in a place without heat after they were sent to the countryside to learn from the peasants.
>>In former socialist Eastern Europe people had decent lives<<
So decent they needed to turn the place into a prison. With walls, guards, traps, etc.
>>There was a highly advanced industry in East Germany<<
Socialism is so bad it managed to make Germans build crap cars. (Yeah, the Trabant was immortal, but it needed to be. You weren't getting another one. If you had one, you took care of it. Used cars often had a higher value than new cars, because you could have one now, rather than in ten years)
>>Things aren't black and white<<
No, they're not.
They're also not as rosy as the picture you just tried to paint.
>>Many factors play into why many socialist countries failed<<
And a common root cause.
We've got plenty of borders that show that system is the only difference. We've also got China's abandonment of Socialism when Deng Xiaoping took over to show what happens when a country goes from one system to the other without the govt giving up and walking away. Of course, China has other problems now, but it's a land of milk and honey compared with what it was a few decades ago.
>>The problem is that the global economic system is capitalist and if you play after their rules you win and if you want to move away from it, they are punishing you and if you are largely underdeveloped already you have zero chances. You will be sanctioned, cut off from global economy and forced into starvation.
<<
The problem is that Capitalism works. Socialism is so bad that the USSR was a prison.
And after that, see my previous thing about differences between countries that try one and the other, or countries that convert.
Also: Seriously, a third of the world was Socialist. Plenty of trading partners right there.
2
-
@Hans >>You completely missed my point. Capitalism is a global system. It is an established system. It is not better than socialism, on the contrary, but it has control over almost all the economic resources in this world. If New Zealand would be cut off from that - a highly depend country<<
Or in other words: If NZ was treated in a way that the majority of Socialist countries weren't, it would go back to the stone age.
I'm going to include NK in this. China has been happily trading with it.
>>and capitalism would make it worse. It's all relative. The reason why countries like South Korea are so good off is mainly because of their partaking in the global economic system protected by the US military.
<<
You realise that Socialist countries, including India when it gave it a try, were quite free to trade with the rest of the world, right?
And any non-US country is quite free to trade with Cuba.
>>Fact is that despite these harsh conditions many socialist countries reached remarkable you are downplaying<<
You might like to rethink that sentence.
>>Cuba has about the same life expectancy as the US. How is that far behind<<
Behind the US? On that one specific metric? It isn't far behind?
But you said it has one of the highest. It's behind every Western capitalist nation.
When your one specific metric that you kinda-sorta do well on is actually pretty bad (The US life expectancy is pretty bad.) by the standards of the competition, it's time to rethink.
>>It even has higher life expectancy than first world country Poland which is capitalist for more than two decades now. Just remind you that we are speaking of a third world country that outperforms or is on par with first world country!!! But i guess you won't apply the same standards to many of the poor capitalist shitholes.<<
Yes. It's doing marginally better than the former Socialist state. What happened from the allied Nazi/USSR invasion of Poland to the 1990's still has an effect. It's still recovering.
And I'm quite happy to say when Capitalism has failed. See above. I've got lots of successes I can point to. I don't need to search desperately for one kinda-sorta success and say "Socialism isn't a complete failure in every possible way, therefore it works"
>>It's easy to say that Trabant was crap car <<
Did East Germany have a good industry or didn't it?
>>while you can buy Japanese made cars in New Zealand or other parts of the capitalist world. East Germany was a state of just 16 million people and yet they produced almost everything on their own from clothes, cars, machinery up to even an airplane that was canceled by the USSR.<<
They had many trading partners.
>>The USSR has exploited East Germany. After the war it was dismantled and had to pay war reparations to the USSR<<
Such a great neighbour. Socialist states are such a positive influence on their subjects.
>>Still it managed to have higher average productivity growth than the West until the end.<<
Both Germanies were very smacked down. If it had higher average productivity growth than West Germany until the end, it would have a better economy.
Instead, it was turned into a prison.
>>The GDR achieved large scale self-sufficiency. What capitalist country of just 16 million people has ever achieved something similar? <<
Why is self sufficiency a goal? A third of the world was socialist.
And it was so self sufficient it collapsed the moment the prison doors were opened.
>>East Germany also developed microchips and machinery sold around the world and even West Germany. But this something mostly just people know who lived there. I know people who worked on socialist agriculture machinery that were far ahead of John Deere and co<<
Was it able to trade with the rest of the world or wasn't it?
Either it was unable to trade with the rest of the world, which shows that argument is bollocks, or it was able to trade with the rest of the world, which shows previous arguments you've made are bollocks.
And again: There's a fixation on trying to find something that Socialist states did better. Country's economies aren't single areas, they're packages. The Socialist world managed to excel in specific areas, but was never the full package.
Also: You go on about Socialist countries being cut off from world trade.
It wasn't the West that was turned into a prison.
The Iron Curtain was a literal, physical cutting off of the Socialist world from the West, and it was installed by the Socialists.
The West was against it.
I'm going to repeat this:
The Socialist world chose to cut itself off from the West. It wasn't the other way around.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>>Robert Bray You are right, The GLP was a poor idea, an there were many other better alternatives<<
Like... Simply not doing it. Need to remember that the economy was coming along quite nicely before it.
In many ways, a certain level of economic development is inevitable if the technology exists. Letting people start businesses, work the jobs we don't want (Sweatshops are wonderful things over all. Seriously. They're wonderful at bringing countries out of poverty and providing new opportunities to impoverished people. Sure, the work is horrible, but these are people whose only marketable asset is that their labour is cheap. The income and economic development from sweatshops allows them to go beyond that) produces real results.
>>but when it comes to an experimental government like Communism, and I believe it still is an experiment<<
At what point has the experiment failed? How many more dead?
>> I think that breeds radical ideas and government programs that are poorly thought out, because there is no template to work off<<
The problem is that your standard Socialist is a pretty bad economist. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be a Socialist. In the same way as a good medical doctor doesn't try to balance your humours using leaches.
If you purge people who aren't also Socialists, you're also purging people who can run an economy. (Deng Xiaoping did well, but he didn't exactly need to do much to be an improvement. His big idea was basically summed up as "We should stop actively preventing people from trying to improve their lives and build our economy")
In many ways, Mao was a cargo cultist. If you haven't heard of them, they're worth reading up on. But long story short, he saw that the strongest economies produced the most steel, so he decided that producing steel created a strong economy. So steel he would create. Whatever the cost.
Not even usable steel. Just.... Crap that technically qualified.
He also thought gross output was more important than efficiency.
>>But overall I can agree with what you said in your previous comments, China is a difficult country to coin, ideologically, due to its odd composure of policy, but overall it is socialist<<
Was Socialist.
Then let Capitalism spread.
Now looks like it's going back in the other direction a bit. That's a recent thing, though. Generally speaking, the major use of those huge state-owned firms was political stability (I need this general to support me. This general might like to run - and profit from - a state-owned factory. That sort of thing) and ignoring the cost to the state. They're generally fantastically inefficient.
>>Also thank you for maintaining civility in debate as it seems in today's age both on left and right, that is not something that is assumed.<<
And same to you.
Yesterday in half an hour was two people who seemed to be incapable of thinking further than 'TrumpTrumpTrump!'
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hans >>Guess where the money of the rich is coming from? Exactly from the working class<<
You find very few rich who aren't workers.
>>They produce the wealth of a country and the rich parasites take it.<<
Yeah. The current wealthy are generally people who saw an opportunity, put their money where their mouth is, took the risk and made something big.
In Australia:
The bottom 60% are net tax recipients
The next 20% are break even
The top 20% are paying for the bottom 60%
So, yeah. Screw your parasites idea.
>>And now you want to tell me that having them to pay taxes so the working class can get some decent infrastructure and services is a bad thing<<
They do. The top 20% are paying for everything except the 60-80%
>>Yeah those are really leeches and we should be so thankful for the rich.<<
Want to see what happens when the rich leave?
This is a difficult thing for many to understand, but:
The wealthy can leave. They're wanted everywhere, largely because they've got skills that are useful everywhere.
The poor can't. They're stuck with whatever mess gets created.
And when the wealthy leave, economies collapse. Because they're the people that drive an economy. People who need help can't run an economy. If they could, they wouldn't need help.
>>Your comment on dependency on America is ignorant. It was the US that has created this dependency throughout its history throughout the whole world<<
Utter bullshit. The US wants trading partners. That's all. The US helped China rise up. Assisting every step of the way. (I think it'll be a long time before the US trusts the CCP again, though)
>>Venezuela is a third world country not since yesterday<<
No, a few years ago. Once the mistakes that Chavez and Maduro made started to unravel.
It wasn't that long ago that people were praising Venezuela. Then the bills came due.
>>Venezuela would be better off if it had stronger allies<<
Venezuela would be better if it wasn't run by economic imbeciles who didn't even take care of their one source of income.
>>China and Russia are struggling to protect themselves from US Imperialism<<
LOL
Oh LOL
Sorry, the bullshit is incredible.
Try telling Ukraine and the countries whose waters have been invaded by China's South China Sea claims that it's the US that's being imperialist.
>>Who knows how the world would look like if Nazi Germany had won in Europe and Japanese Empire in Asia. The US would be the starving nation probably. With the technology of Germany and Japan, the resources and manpower of the rest of the world the capitalist US would have had no chance. But that is just what one man can dream of.
<<
So to be clear, you think it would have been better if Germany and Japan won?
Also: Germany was better in flashier things. It was far, far behind in others. Computers being a major one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There was a move towards socialism. Towards != arriving.
They didn't move towards social democracy, they moved toward socialism.
And personal property in this case includes businesses, which were being taken. The things people had built up themselves.
As far as the rich people and money leaving. Yes. These were the competent people. Competent people have more bargaining power than incompetent people. They have bargaining power because they have something to offer.
People who are competent and in demand don't specifically need you. You do need them. Yep, it's unfair. Sucks for those who are useless.
>> I think the Valenzuela tried to do something noble but their efforts were destroyed by ego centric capitalists who were losing their control over the commanding heights of the economy<<
They tried to do something that appears noble which has cocked up time and time again.
As far as 'ego centric capitalists' goes - They made the best decision for them and voted with their feet. The alternative? Turn your country into a prison like the USSR did.
>>They wanted a more 'social' economy like many European countries, but they did go near to socialism. So you're right somewhat, the transition from capitalism to 'social democracy' did mess some things up<<
What do you thikn a social democracy is?
>>But I see that as a negative of capitalism, that these extremely wealthy and powerful individuals can just blackmail the state to focus on their interests instead of the interests of the collective.<<
See previous comments about people who have something to offer having more bargaining power than those who don't. I can speak from personal experience on how easy it is to change country if you've got something to offer, BTW. Other countries bend over backwards to have you.
>>Still, if oil prices were higher, they may have made it through, but now oil prices are low, they have no other way to make money back, so I feel sorry for them<<
Oh please. Face reality. Their problems were well underway when oil was at its peak. Just check historical news reports from January 2014, when oil was at $100 per barrel. They had massive debt then. They had massive problems then. Their problem wasn't the decline in the price of oil (That did hurt, but it was more of an extra kick on their way down) it was their incompetent leadership not having sufficient braincells to rub together to realise that if they don't protect the thing that literally financed their economy, they won't have an economy anymore. They stripped away funding that should have been reinvested to fund social programs and they put incompetents in charge for political reasons.
To say nothing of the sheer incompetence that made them decide to build up massive amounts of debt instead of saving for a rainy day. I mean, it's not like oil has never dropped in price before.
And why do they have no other way to make money back?
Well. Because they chased away the people who they needed to run an economy. But it's OK, right? Because those people had unfair amounts of bargaining power. So who cares is chasing them off screwed the economy up and has literally led to mass starvation? At least they won't be able to 'blackmail' (You have no idea of what blackmail is. Blackmail isn't refusing to perform a service, it's demanding something of value in exchange for not releasing compromising information.) the country anymore.
Because they've already done the most damaging thing they could. And left.
Because Chavez and Maduro were economic incompetents.
But please, continue to twist and find excuses for yet another failure triggered by trying to implement Socialism. At least you've had massive dollops of practice.
Edit: If I seem annoyed here, it's because people like you, who are more concerned with theory than results, and so will bend over backwards to excuse failures like this are the reason it keeps happening.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/venezuelas-economy-is-so-bad-parents-are-leaving-their-children-at-orphanages/2018/02/12/8021d180-0545-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?utm_term=.2e4da00b767c
This is because of people like you. People who managed to blindly refuse to learn from the consistent run of failure that's been run into every single time.
The experiment has failed. Face the facts. Move on. Stop ruining people's lives to try and make an unworkable idea a reality. So there's some unfairness in the world. There are worse things and people like you are responsible for them.
2
-
>> France has a higher percentage of public sector workers than Venezuela. How can you call that anything like socialism<<
I'm not calling it socialism.
If you're talking about calling it anything but socialism.
It depends on what they're doing.
>> around 70% of Venezuela's employment is for the private sector, so either you don't know about Venzuela, or you have a twisted view on socialism<<
You don't know what a "move to" something is, do you?
I didn't say they'd achieved it. I explicitly said they hadn't. I said they were attempting to.
>>I called their system 'social democratic' because much like social democracy, the current Venezuelan system seeks to reform the capitalist system to become more social instead of actually implementing socialism.<<
No, they were very much trying to implement socialism.
Social democracy is using a capitalist economy to improve equality.
That's not what they were doing.
Except for the improving equality bit... I guess everyone's equally screwed now.
I like how you ignored things like price controls, though. Which basically had the effect of destroying investment in those areas. If I'm forced to sell something at less than it costs to produce, why would I sell it? Why would I bother getting into that market?
>> Mostly the commanding heights of the economy such as oil, transport, energy etc. While they did some strange things like seizing the GM factory, mostly they have nationalized things that should be nationalized and are often nationalized in many European countries.
<<
Heh, lol. They only nationalised things they should have, except for the other times. Where it was just a strange thing.
>>Why should the nation's oil that is part of the land belong to a few people who have probably inherited their ownership, considering that a lot of oil was discovered a while ago in Valenzuela. Should that not belong to the people of the country, considering it's their land.<<
That had absolutely no relevance to what you quoted. At no point did I focus on the oil in that statement.
This being said: Yeah, the oil belongs to them. Here, the state govt is paid a royalty on what's taken out of the ground. But without the investment put in by those companies to remove it from the ground, in the ground it shall say. An environmentally good decision, but it removes any advantage to having that oil.
>>They were losing their power. As they put their masses of wealth before the nation and the people there, they left. I call that ego centric. If they supported a more fair ownership of major money making natural resources at their own loss, I'd call that considerate and collectivist and I would say that would be the 'christian' thing to do.<<
I like how this paragraph also had no real relationship to what I'd said. You can call it what you like, my question stands. Why should they stay when they can get a better deal somewhere else?
Comment on their morality all you like, the question stands.
>> I said they may have made it though, not definite<<
They weren't making it when oil prices were at their peak. Go to Google news, set the date for the start of 2014 and search for Venezuela.
>>. I know incompetent leadership existed there too, but I think the idea was noble.<<
The idea is noble in the same way as heaven is a noble idea. It's not much good being noble if it's simply wrong.
>>even if it's done by idiots and hindered by resistant from wealthy people. Venezuela should have tried to make a system more like the Nordic countries.<<
I like how you blame the wealthy people for their resistance here, while not seeming to understand why an economy needs those who are capable of becoming wealthy.
And yeah, it should have tried for social democracy backed up a stable capitalist economy. But it didn't.
>>Venezuela is not starving<<
As long as you ignore the starving people. Have a look for examples of people putting their children into orphanages because they can't feed them. That's a new thing.
Also as long as you ignore the Maduro diet.
>>food still exists in shops. <<
It did in China during the Great Leap Forward as well... Some shops, at least. Mao didn't look skinny, but then, neither does Maduro.
So yeah, there's food there, but you don't need a total absence of food to have starvation.
>>but not holodmor levels<<
That's your criteria for failure?
>>Also there have been examples of private shops stockpiling food instead of selling <<
Of course there have been. The food has more value than the money. If they sell the food today, they won't be able to buy the same amount of food tomorrow.
That's what happens when you screw your economy.
>>Anyway, my main point, was that any arguments against socialism, with Valenzuela as the real life example, is mostly wrong<<
I know you'd like to believe this. I mean, it's not like it's part of a pattern that came close to defining the last century. Maybe next time it'll work!
>>Like I said Venezuelan is not socialism and just seized some parts of the economy that mostly should belong to the collective<<
Plus the other "strange things"
>>Why should Valenzuela stick to the outdated American free market system instead of going for a system more like Finland or Norway<<
It did neither. Finland and Norway have free market economies. They're both Capitalist countries.
>>Because some capitalists will get angry that they lose their means of gaining huge amounts of wealth and power? <<
And then... Leave. Demonstrating how much a country needs people like them...
>>Also, I don't believe in full socialism, I believe that the regulated free market does a great job of running small - medium business, but large business should be run by the state or at least 51% ownership by the state.
<<
Congratulations on ensuring anyone capable of founding and running a large business will stay away from any country you're in charge of. I'm sure that'll work out great, just like Venezuel.... Oh... Yeah, ok. Those things that you said shoudl be done weren't exactly stunning successes there, were they? Better find another example.....
Edit:
I was thinking about this a bit more and realised that you've got this idea it's only the rich and powerful who are likely to leave or who will damage (blackmail was your word) by not participating in an economy.
No.
It's the teachers. It's the skilled tradesmen. It's the engineers. It's the scientists. It's literally anyone who has skills that another country might find useful. They will leave if they think they can get a better deal elsewhere and other countries will be glad to have them.
A country that can't keep them cannot have a functioning economy. They're not interested in what you call fairness, they're interested in getting the best deal for themselves and their family, so they will leave and everyone who remains will be screwed. Those are the facts.
And you seem to think that skilled people in general who are leaving are able to 'blackmail' the country, and... Should be stopped, I guess... By, like, an anti-fascist protective barrier that's directed inwards?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>>Mao's idea was learnt from the old Russia it's to help recovering from being in wars for so many years. Labor was well needed for farming and development. Again it was extreme but not completely wrong.<<
This emphasis on "completely" is interesting.
No, it wasn't completely wrong. Even Hitler had some good attributes.
But on balance, it was wrong. You're making Mao's mistake, which is to simplify things to an extreme (Mao was a classic cargo cultist. In his case, his thing was iron production) then make an announcement. In this case, because it wasn't completely wrong, it appears to be OK in your book.
>>The more developed cities in China still can't compare with the developed countries. As most of them have only become more advanced recently and only economically. <<
Which is a lot of the issue people do have with Chinese. New money is often vulgar. As true for cultures as it is for individuals.
Particularly in China itself. Outside of China, the people I've worked with haven't been an issue. Reading news reports, plenty of tourists have made right asses of themselves, though.
>>The intangible parts take much longer to become 'developed'
We obviously have different group of people around us. As most people around me are more and more open minded and welcome diversity.<<
Or so you tell yourselves.
My parents left Shenzhen because of this a few years back. They'd been in China for a decade, and that was the first time they really felt unwelcome. It was getting worse.
Anyway, to repeat the bit that followed this that you ignored:
"If you're going to criticise a place for being like something, don't make excuses for the place you're defending being worse on that exact topic. At best, tactfully ignore it."
It puts you in a bad position. Any subject you open does become fair game.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When your best argument is "It can compare with many Capitalist countries in Europe" - It was not a success.
When your ideology is meant to be an improvement on another, your criteria for success can't just be that it's comparable, it needs to be an actual improvement. Lots of Western European countries went from being highly agricultural to highly industrialised.... Actually, almost all of them did. It's not a special achievement.
From looking at the economies on the East and West of the Socialist/Capitalist divide, it seems a fairly safe bet that if it had been part of the Capitalist block from day one, it would be doing much, much better than it is today. Why? Because every other country was, including those with ethnically diverse populations, so why shouldn't it? Are there any Western European countries with a GDP per Capita of less than $6k?
Which does bring me to the obvious question:
Which Western European country could it be compared with? Greece, which is arguably the biggest failure of Western Europe, still has a GDP per capita that is over 3x Serbia's.
Edit: Here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Using just those numbers, and being tolerant of mistakes due to changed borders (IE: East/West Germany reuniting) it's possible to determine which country was part of the Socialist bloc and which the Capitalist.
That. Is failure.
Further edit: Just went through this.
https://www.mises.ca/the-economy-of-titos-yugoslavia-delaying-the-inevitable-collapse/
TL;DR - I can have a pretty awesome life if I just borrow huge amounts of cash and piss it up against the wall.
When the bills become due, however.... Less awesome. Oh so much less awesome.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
I hadn't lived until recently (HK, which I've rapidly come to love), but due to marriage, I've been going back regularly since 2014
Crumbling is literally the word I used after my last trip (last week)
Everything is either brand new or crumbling.
That being said, people on the trains get up for, at least children now. That's new. Last time I went, my wife was very pregnant. No-one gave her a seat.
But still, crumbling. I'm torn between cursing my timing on when I came here (I'd expected this, but not for another few years) and, frankly, feeling privileged to see history being made firsthand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>is putting out the continental breakfast buffet a job for mexicans?<<
A job for anyone who's unskilled.
>>what are you trying to say?<<
That she has nothing about her that justifies a higher wage.
>>she was at one time able to earn a living wage & without changing herself or her daily routine she is no longer able to. is this not a problem? <<
Ignoring the world around you or assuming things will remain static is a problem.
>>or the symptom of a problem?<<
Yes, it is a symptom of a problem. Just not the problem you're thinking of.
>>is this a "learn to code thing" ??<<
It's an 'At least try to improve your own value' thing.
Something which she's spent decades not doing.
>>since when is going to work 5 days a week for 30 yrs a lack of ambition<<
"an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, and the willingness to strive for its attainment:"
When it's doing the same thing for three decades, with no self improvement or attempt to better your own lot, it's a lack of ambition.
>>or inflated entitlement<<
She's doing unskilled work, and thinks she should be paid more than the market value of other people with identical levels of ability for no better reason than she made the choice to not change.
Yeah, that sounds like entitlement.
>>are we ALL supposed to believe that we can be movie stars & rock-gods or some bullshit?<<
At least try to be better than a high school dropout.
At a bare minimum, she should have been managing the high school dropouts who were, after a month, every bit as useful to Disney as she is.
>>you never addressed the issue, only mocked her for being a loser while ignoring the issue. can you try again?
<<
As far as I can tell from other people who've talked about 'the issue' the issue is times have changed and you don't like it.
Quite frankly: She's not forced to work at Disney. Disney isn't her parent. No-one has more of an interest in her own wellbeing than she does, so if she's not going to lift a finger to improve her lot (whining and union activity don't count. If she has time for either, she has time to try other employers) there's no reason anyone else should.
1
-
@jamesschroder8927 >>disny isnt her parent & neither are you. you want to be critical of her fine just do it for a valid reason<<
She's being put up on as an argument. The criticising is the counterargument.
Don't want people to criticise you? Don't allow yourself to be used as an argument. Otherwise, yeah, you're fair game.
This is why you never include children in political arguments. The moment they're there, they become valid targets. As terrible as that seems, being prevented from arguing against anyone that's used as an argument is worse.
>>just because she doesnt hold the same values as you isnt a valid reason. she apparently valued what should have been a static situation, she valued stability & predictability, she found a place where she was happy & settled<<
And that stability and predictability came at a price.
>>is there something wrong with being content with what you have or is it required that you be always wanting more? <<
You must have missed the bit where she was complaining that she didn't have more.
She isn't content. She does want more. She just doesn't want to take any action (beyond complaining) that will lead to more.
I'm just going to skip over the stuff that goes on the same line. I don't think you know what content means.
Content people don't complain.
>>the yardstick is her happiness, the only thing that changed to affect her decline in happiness is that the dollar is greatly devalued over the 30 yrs.<<
Sounds like plenty of time to spot what's happening and take action to avoid it.
That isn't the only thing that's happened, though. What's also happened is the number of unskilled jobs has decreased relative to the unskilled population.
>>the issue is that she loyally served & over time her reward was watered down & devalued until she was no longer able to enjoy the fruits of consistant labor.<<
Over a long time.
Enough time to see what was happening.
Over the past few centuries, it's been really, really common to see people who were once useful watch their income decline because they were simply no longer valuable. She's in the same boat.
And it's not really right to call her loyal. It's more like she's comfortable. Those are two very different things.
Loyal people don't stand up and slag off their employer.
>>see she shouldnt HAVE to improve for you or to simply earn the same valued rewards<<
I genuinely don't see why not. Times change. Change with them.
>>the effect is that she stayed the same (not counting seniority, xperience, loyalty points etc.) & was paid less & less for the same thing over time. <<
Yep. She stayed the same.
As for experience, there's only so good someone can be at laying out a hotel buffet.
For seniority, that's only useful if you use it.
And her going up on stage to diss her employer really throws loyalty out the window. (For the record: I'm not a fan of loyalty. Which is why I'm starting my 12th job soon. As she can see, staying with one employer is expensive)
>>is THAT an issue yet?<<
Nope.
>>to quote an old movie, "self improvement is pure masturbation"<<
Was the movie teaching people to fail?
>>why should she take on more responsibility & risk for the same reward of going home to her dreary one-bedroom & overbred cats?<<
Why should Disney pay her at above market wages when it can employ a teenager to do the same thing with the same proficiency for far less?
Why would it be wrong to fire her and get someone cheaper?
And what risk?
I'm curious on what your job is. To get a clearer idea of the sort of person who makes arguments like this.
1
-
@jamesschroder8927 I'm so very glad I did this in notepad..
(1/3)
>>first id like to thank you for the time/energy invested in humoring my argument & for keeping it at least respectful<<
Likewise in return.
>>my job? hardly relevant but i own my own business, i produce a service as well as goods.<<
What do you think will happen to you if you decide to stay static for a few decades? To not change with the reality around you?
>>and you? (rhetorical, i really dont care :P)<<
If you're discussing this with someone else, it's relevant for why they think like they do. Better for their argument.
I manage large computer networks. If I stay still like she has, I'll either be paid my weight in gold each month because I know about one archaic thing some damnfool company relies upon (banks are terrible for this) or I'll be unemployable because no-one cares about my ability to manage a museum piece.
What I can guarantee in the latter case is that no-one will be trying to defend my right to earn (inflation adjusted) in 2049 what I earn now for doing the same stuff I'm doing now. Rightly so, it's a ridiculous expectation.
>>as i own my business & make my way, success/failure is placed solely on myself. i do not have employees other than the occasional helping hand so im not responsible for "creating jobs/careers". just me, im the boss. yes, in a way i miss the days of boring predictability, little responsibility, making someone else comfortable & the security of a dead end.<<
Yep. You've taken the upsides and the downsides. You're also not complaining about the downsides, because you made your choice and accepted that every choice has consquences.
I've just worked away from my family for six months, and am about to do so for the next year. If I complained about the unfairness that I couldn't have my family and the high income, that would be ridiculous. I've made my choice.
>>* why should it? how is that not a problem? peaceful contentment with a static productivity & reward ratio is a punishable offense now? only greed is rewarded? not a problem? oy... kids...<<
Everything has a price. High risk, high reward. Low risk, low reward.
She chose low risk. She got low reward.
Obviously there's more to the metric than this, but you've been talking about her lack of desire to take risk and responsibility. Well. That has consequences. The consequence in this case is that she's not paid as much as she would have been if she'd gone for that.
>>* i must have, i didnt hear anything about a two room apt, or a billion more cats, just wanted to keep her depressing little apt. & not go couchtouring<<
That's her wanting more.
Look, this isn't something that's suddenly happened. It's something that's been happening, at less than the rate of inflation (She's had raises, even if they haven't kept up with inflation) over several decades and hasn't lifted a finger to do something about it.
Being hit by a car that jumps onto the pavement is one thing. What she's done is sat on a train track and been shocked when the highly predictable train came.
There's no end of people like her since the industrial revolution. It's been happening for literal centuries. Do you think a farrier should be paid the same in 1950 that he was in 1920?
(At the moment, they're surpisingly well paid. Supply and demand... Not much demand, not much supply either. In her case, supply has gone up while demand has remained static)
>> thats not asking for more, thats asking for the same<<
More than she's currently getting.
Putting it another way: Imagine if a few dozen other identical companies popped your area, competing with you. Would you expect to earn the same amount as you do now without change?
>>the only reason she wants a raise is because her rent continues to climb. its really not her wanting more from disny, its her landlord demanding more from disny.<<
Sounds like she should complain at her landlord, then.
Who'll probably proceed to rent the place to someone who'll pay more. Because supply and demand affects everything and her life isn't his problem either.
I'm not seeing anything else in that paragraph that isn't addressed by this, but if there is, please highlight it.
>>...ya, shouldve seen the writing on the wall, she strikes me as someone to play lotto too, but...
why should it have been written that way? or at all? why isnt she able to write her own story on her own wall? <<
Because fan fiction isn't canon.
That being said: If we look at this another way, she can. It'll take effort, though. She has agency. She's the master of her own destiny. This is the story she's written for herself.
>>I genuinely don't see why not. Times change. Change with them.
* ... got me there :/ some people dont like change, but y'know, evolution...<<
Yep. You can't fight change. You can't argue with it. All you can do is deal with it, work with it and try to influence it.
Well... You can fight change.... You won't like the end result.
Like I've said a few times on automation. The only thing worse than the massive job losses that automation will cause is preventing it from happening in the first place.
>>* do you think disny has not spent time & energy trying to automate her job? i would bet she started out as part of a team & they found that over the course of time she got more effective & became the only one needed to do the job instead of the other 2 teens she started out with yrs ago.<<
There's an upper limit to how useful she actually is.
That being said, if I were disney, and there was no union involved, I'd have found a reason to fire her long ago. People like this are poison when they're left with impressionable teenagers. It takes a bit more maturity to realise that this experienced adult is someone that you should not emulate under any circumstances.
And in all honesty, it would have probably been doing her a favour. I've lost a couple of jobs. I'm thankful for losing them.
>>have you ever been to disny? if they could get you to shuffle through the continental & consume whatever processed kibble product falls from the chute without ever having to pay someone to provide the warmth of a human presence, they would. ill bet the quality of the crap shes putting out is gone way downhill while the cost to the consumer has increased at a greater & greater rate. how does she factor into that? while her employer refuses to keep up with her landlords demands. <<
Automation is expensive, and we're in the early years of this level. However, it's coming.
In the end, it's about math. The moment her cost per unit of usefuless is higher than a robot's, she's gone. (With some extra math thrown in regarding unions and their influence)
For her landlord, another thing comes to mind:
Everyone is trying to get the most they can with the least outlay. Disney, her, her landlord. What makes them different from each other?
1
-
@jamesschroder8927 (2/3)
>>* yeah, well... LOL actually this is recommended, i went the same way. i learned many skills along the way. my wife went the "safe way" & banked on sticking with a job & hoping they would keep up with the worlds demand for more & it didnt work out for her any better than my dad. he was cut from one of the largest corps, mere weeks prior to that nice pension he earned. i still dont think her ambition is the issue, or the fact that she could go jogging & get some sun. <<
Yeah, with my upcoming move, I'm having to explain to my state employed teacher wife the difference that being privately employed makes.
It took her years to understand I genuinely liked hopping from job to job.
Your wife is in the same boat as her... Kind of... Same decisions, same consequences. It seems a safe bet that she's learnt the lesson though.
Not enough people realise that failure, properly understood and learned from, is as valuable as success. One of the things that makes Western cultures unusual is that we embrace failure. When you try to stop people from failing is when you get real problems. A prime example is the Chinese stock market crash a few years ago. The govt tried to stop it falling, and kept on pumping it up. Then reality became unavoidable.
I warned my in-laws to get their money out before it happened. I told them when something happened, it would happen rapidly and would be bad. They took their money out, then it crashed.
Anyway, lets not call it ambition. How about we just call it keeping up with reality? You don't have to like it, but the consequences of not doing it are severe. In her case, even if she'd had her pay fully adjusted for inflation, what do you think her retirement would look like? (Obviously better than it would be now, but not that much)
>>* actually the movie is fightclub. i recommend it. just like clockwork orange or apocalypse now, ignore the ultraviolence. there is a deeper story there that needs to be taken in. <<
I really need to re-watch that. Haven't seen it since I was 20. Never seen Apocalypse now. On reading a quick review, that seems like a mistake.
And what's wrong with a bit of the old ultraviolence?
>>"a generation raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, movie-gods & rockstars, but we wont. we are slowly learning that fact, & we are very pissed-off"
except not all of us bought the bullshit so were not exactly pissed off, not all of us want the gold sarcophagus (wow cant believe i spelled that :P) & a pyramid the size of jersey. some of us are content to just get lost. some of us realize its not what you have but how you live. <<
1. Respect for the correct spelling.
2. If you plan to commit suicide the day of your retirement, why not?
Or the Wiggum plan:
"I'll be shot three days before retirement. In the business, we call it 'retirony' " "Well, what if you don't get shot?" "What a terrible thing to say! Oh, look! You made my wife cry!"
But if you realise there's going to be a morning after, a bit more planning is needed.
Or, live how you want. Just don't expect others to make up for your decisions.
Going back to the China stockmarket example, one of the reasons things got so bad is they thought the govt wouldn't let things get bad. They thought the govt wouldn't let it fail. So they kept on pumping their money in because they thought it was safe. They were wrong.
>> * why do i not eat out anymore? because they have hired teens who cant do the job as well as an experienced well paid employee. also i know my way around a kitchen & eat quite well preparing my own. <<
And yet, restaurants (here, at least. I'm in Brisbane, Australia) still seem to be doing well enough to get people to come in.
>>why wont i go to disny? they are the greedy corporate whore that consumes humanity as fuel, also we should nuke vegas! <<
And I'm going to be buying season tickets soon because I've got a five year old daughter.
I don't have a problem with whores. Corporate or otherwise. Although I'd ask you not to nuke Vegas. For some reason as I read this, I realised that if you haven't tried to hide a dead hooker, you haven't really lived.
I assue Vegas has streamlined hooker hiding.
>>* try to explain why its right & do it, justify it without asking for more. firing her to hire a cheaper employee is pretty much the same thing you criticized her for... <<
Because they can. If they did that, they wouldn't simply be complaining about their cost, they'd be doing something to fix the problem.
They can change employee, she can change employer.
If either can't, they've got bigger problems they need to look at.
Not much to add for the rest, although again, if there's anything particular you want, please highlight it.
>>a simple life is no crime. it should be encouraged & achievable.<<
But should it be subsidised?
And "should" is a big word. To be honest, given the ageing population we've got, and the challenges we've got coming, everyone should be encouraged to be the best they can be. We can't afford to waste someone who could be doing something necessary on something mundane like putting food on a table.
Every person who improves itself improves the world around it.
>>* say she invests her time & money to try for more, is it going to pay off?<<
Disney offers management courses.
And... Probably.
1
-
@jamesschroder8927 (3/3)
>> if it did college wouldnt be a scam.<<
College isn't a scam, but a lot of people are making retarded choices.
Take a look at the people who complain about their unemployment and college debt. In particular, take a look at the degrees they studied. There's a definite pattern.
Normally, there's a strong pattern to anyone like that. They make bad choices. One prime example from a couple of years ago was a male nurse who was on about $90k AUD (The value of this ranges from $110k USD to about $65k USD, depending on when) who, after taxes and accommodation had $50k left over. Which he pissed away each week and you had sympathetic articles using him as evidence of how hard life is in Sydney (It's a bloody expensive place. But like this lady, he was absolutely not the poster child any sane person would choose)
There's a reason I get annoyed by people who make bad decisions expecting someone else to make up for it. Ultimately, at the end of the day, I know exactly who's going to pay for it. The people who make good decisions.
>>fact is some will succeed, some will fail, the amount of effort is arbitrary & has little to no effect on the outcome<<
http://hamiltonproject.org/papers/major_decisions_what_graduates_earn_over_their_lifetimes/
Look at the data, not the anecdotes.
>>i see minimum effort time & again rewarded to select few, failure rewarded & serious effort punished for others. <<
An intelligent person, whether lazy or hardworking, will generally do well. The hardworking intelligent person will probably do better.
However, someone who's gotten himself in a position where he can cause real damage (which takes hard work) and makes a mistake will be crucified, because the mistake is probably going to be big.
I used to work for IBM. I was the team lead for one of their operating system teams. I worked hard, but I was responsible for stuff that, if it fucked up, well.... You'd have heard about it. I'll put it that way. Ignoring that it was dodgy when I was put in charge of it, if it went bad, a scapegoat would have been needed.
I wouldn't have been in that position if I wasn't good, but yeah, there was a risk.
My reward from that wasn't from IBM, but from subsequent companies (three of them) who saw what I'd done and decided they wanted me.
So yeah, you will see hardworking people get crucified, but generally they'll make a noteworthy mistake because they'd proven they could be trusted in that high stakes position in the first place. You'll also find the next job will still be quite good. Because you can't make a big mistake if you haven't shown you deserve to be responsible for that thing in the first place.
Obviously this ignores systems that aren't selecting people for merit. An unintelligent hard worker is someone I want to get as far away from me as possible as quickly as possible.
Beyond that, life simply isn't fair. All you can do is go off probabilities. In her case, I'd say she's getting exactly what her decisions deserve.
>> i see minimum effort time & again rewarded to select few, failure rewarded & serious effort punished for others. hard work will not guarantee success. i dont believe failure should be punished or rewarded.<<
First, for rewarding failure.... It really depends on the circumstances. Obviously you don't want to make it desirable, but if someone did a brilliant job of fighting a losing battle, that deserves reward. Some battles simply can't be won.
As for not punishing failure. No, unless it was something unavoidable, when the only question that remained was how badly it failed, it should have consequences. See previous comments about the Chinese stock market.
That being said, if someone did the right thing, but still failed, well.... Shit happens. Learn from it, but shit does happen. In that case, though, the lesson should extend beyond just one person. A case in point from a bit over a year ago was I bought down a core server for my company because of a mis-click. I executed a command on the wrong device. It took a day to recover. My management was ready to crucify me until they found out it wasn't because I'd ignored procedures, it was because I confused two screens that looked largely identical after fiddling with something for a day. After that, the only thing they cared about was how to avoid having it happen again.
As much as you should embrace failure, it should still have negative consequences. If there are no negative consequences, there's no lesson. My example had severe negative consequences, but it pointed to problems beyond just one person.
Personally, I have a fear of avoidable failure. It doesn't stop me from doing stuff, because I recognise inaction is a choice that brings its own consequences, but I will work like a demon to avoid it. Not always successful, but by and large, haven't done badly.
>>there is no guarantee for success nor should there be, i just dont think failure should be so fatal. except the only real failure, which is failing to try.<<
She's done that one real failure.
>> i would hope that trudging through 30 yrs of mediocrity would net & maintain at least a mediocre lifestyle. <<
I used to live in Fiji. The family across the road from me had a dirt floor and a pit toilet in a tin shack.
My wife's former employer was one of the students who was sent to the countryside after China's cultural revolution. She was 7 to a bed in northern China in an unheated hut. (Quite close to Siberia. -30 celcius is common)
My point here is that globally and historically, her lifestyle is pretty damn fantastic. She has clean air, reliable food, a good roof over her head, healthcare. She'll almost certainly die of cancer or heart disease, rather than some easily treatable infection, a mosquito bite or the consequences of bad water. Globally, she's a winner.
That being said, I've got absolutely zero doubt that there are tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of people in the US who are doing far worse than she is. That she's been chosen as their argument is simply mind boggling. They should have kept her a thousand paces away from that stage. I genuinely don't understand how out of touch with reality you need to be to think that putting her on a stage was a good idea.
Assuming for a moment (I don't believe this, BTW) that she actually is the best argument they could find. Conditions there must be unbelievably fantastic.
>>* unskilled hordes... we already know whats up there & automation is killing the balance too. dont think i have all the answers, if i did i would keep it secret until i could find a way to get paid for it. ;) (just kidding i would never share the answers for any amount haha)<<
There are no nice answers. Weather the pain, do what we can and, once the dust has settled and things normalise again, enjoy the proceeds.
And everyone has his price. :P
>>sorry to take it so deep, & get soo long winded. of course she should be selling those figures on e-bay & "cashing in her tips".<<
All good. I enjoy a long conversation with someone honest. We've both got our own points of view and both are worth hashing out.
Speaking of globally, the sheer fact that we're able to hash them out in a public space with no fear for our own safety puts us streets ahead.
>>greed & dishonesty are widespread. try not to get any on ya. <<
Greed is good. :)
It's when you try to act as if people aren't greedy that you get the problem.
Agreed on dishonesty. Again, another miracle of Western civilisation is our default attitude to strangers is to trust them. That's.... Really rare.
>>dont get hung up on the glass half empty or half full thing. its a half glass of water. it can always be refilled.<<
Oh, I'm 100% an optimist. Overall. There are large numbers of individuals will have problems, though.
However, I don't see an alternative. It's like Foundation. There was no way to save the Empire, but it was possible to limit the years of barbarism before the second Empire arose.
Yes, I know it ended up moving towards Galaxia, but the principle remains the same :P
Anyway, for future, apologies for my own length. And further apologies if I take a few days to reply at times. This is obviously not something that can be done in five minutes from a phone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christian Reisch bloody lack of undo on the phone.
Anyway, first you'd need to convince me that this would be the only time you'd dip your hands into my wealth.
For how much ditching the military would save you... The us military budget is 600 billion. That's about 800 billion aud. My state's healthcare budget is 18 billion, or 2.25 percent of that. My state has 4.5 million people, or 1.3 percent of the us population. To put it another way, ditching the military completely would give you 50 percent of a healthcare budget. Let alone what else you wanted. Ditching the military entirely would be an amazingly bad idea. You've got a very bad neighbour to your West. You'd basically be turning the pacific into their back yard.
The us military budget is huge, but it's only 1.8k per us citizen per year. The UK, which is quite cheap, spends 2.8k per person per year on the NHS. Really, the NHS is underfunded.
So yeah. I'd take the loss, knowing that if the 20th century had taught me anything, you'd be back for more. What you can do once, you can do twice. The sooner I get out, the more I get out with.
On top of this, skilled migrants and entrepreneurs would stay far away from you. They want to know that if they do well, they won't be your piggy bank.
And then the skilled jobs would go overseas as well. The best of your skilled workers would follow the money, which will always be with the entrepreneurs you've gifted to another country. The main people who could never leave are those you're trying to help. They'd be the ones to up the mess, and frankly, if they had the skills needed to do this, they wouldn't need help.
If you think it's difficult to change country, take it from someone who's done it multiple times. It's better described as an inconvenience than a real hardship.
After this, the economy would largely collapse. The people who drive an economy aren't the poor. It isn't the people who need free stuff. It's the people who view a pay rise as keeping score rather than as something they need. The poor are a liability. If they weren't, they wouldn't be poor.
As for getting rid of poor people in general. Poor is a relative term. Without complete equality, there will always be 'poor' for reference, someone on welfare in the US is in the top 20 percent of global incomes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GODMODEPLUS >>The first outbreak was in Wuhan<<
It was.
>>first sequenced by China<<
Yes, the lab that released it was closed for 'rectification' the next day.
You don't get points for doing that when it's against official wishes.
>>the source is still unknown.<<
Yes, but not nearly as unknown as you're pretending.
And.... Even the CCP does seem to have its suspicions. From its hysterical reaction to Australia calling for an investigation so we can find out what happened.
>>The world was notified in Dec 2019<<
It was notified that something small might be happening but it's probably no big deal.
Then there were lies about the spread of it. Claiming that there were only a few dozen (about 60) cases while multiple cases were turning up overseas.
>>but did not react till March 2020<<
It actually reacted sooner, by doing sensible things like preventing travel from Wuhan. The CCP then started screaming about racism (while taking the same precautions internally) and the WHO was issuing amazingly bad advice against doing this.
>>You are wearing a mask because in the USA people are selfish, they do not like wearing masks, gather in groups to party, to protest, conspiracy theorists who say the virus is not real, a president who caused the deaths of 350k ppl because he lied for 3 months<<
I'm in Hong Kong.
>>The virus was found in Italy and Spain in early 2019<<
So far the sources from the CCP have been....
Italy
Spain
India
Australia (from beef)
The USA
And most recently, imported on German car parts.
All for a virus that's from a family that's pretty common in the PRC.
>>I'm glad the first outbreak was in China as they controlled it extremely well<<
If they controlled the first outbreak well, it wouldn't have spread.
The CCP failed. They also lied while they failed. They suppressed information and they targeted people who spread this information. In addition to spreading their own lies.
>> (they csn party during new years while I'm stuck here at home in the USA).<<
Lol
Sure you're in the USA.
It's amazing how few pro CCPers actually admit to being from the PRC. It's like you're ashamed of what you are. (In fairness, if I were you, I'd be ashamed.)
>>The rest of the world was having outbreaks and did not even know it was a virus until China sequenced the virus as the numbers show.<<
Again, you gain zero points when the people who release information are punished for it.
>>Use cirital thinking, look at stats, look at how countries that have recovered and their strategies:
1. mass testing and screening
2. lockdowns
3. contact tracing
Key is to take action and not use the blame game.<<
The key is to find the root cause. Because this isn't the first virus to emerge from the PRC in the last couple of decades. It's the worst, but it's not the first. It's also not the first time the CCP has lied about it.
But, when Australia very, very reasonably says we should find the root cause and find exactly what happened that led to it being the global catastrophe it is today, the CCP went ballistic.
Most likely reason being: They know they lied (They always do) they know they covered up and they know that they've shown the world their true colours in a very dramatic fashion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jack Carroll the Pakman video is simply full of shit. That's the long and short.
It doesn't work, but it sounds nice. Believers who really want it to work go through a mental gymnastics to try and redefine it as something that's not a horrible failure.
Basically, from what I've seen, there are two types of people who try to redefine it. Those who are against social services, who try to link them within the massive failure that is socialism, and those who are in favour of socialism, who try to link out with the success that was social services.
Both are wrong and neither is doing social services a... Service.
And a welfare state is not a 'type' if socialism. It's a goal that socialist states have, but have been consistently unable to sustainably support.
If we're not talking about common ownership of the means of production (and Sweden doesn't do that) we're not talking about socialism.
Means of production doesn't include education, fire, police, military, etc. You can't base an economy on those. Norway's statoil does, but as you can see from the list of Nordic companies I sent, that's the only major thing that does in that region.
When Chavez and Maduro went around expropriating privately owned industries, they were moving the country towards real socialism.
If someone tries to dazzle you with welfare, etc, and say that it shows socialism works, that person is simply lying to you. Those places that were catastrophic failures were real socialism in action. Just... The real world result of attempting to implement that system rather than what they wanted the result to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll just paste here, because left/right aren't tied to particular policies, but are tied to someone's attitude towards things that are new. Whether a policy is left or right purely depends on whether the environment you live in either has, or has had that before.
Someone who wants a state to become socialist is left wing.
Someone who's in a socialist state that wants it to remain socialist is right wing.
Someone who wants something new is left wing
Someone who likes the status quo is right wing (conservative)
Someone who wants to return to a previous status quo is right wing (reactionary)
This is the basic definition of that, dating back to 1789. We apply the label to Socialists, because in countries that aren't socialist, they are definitely left wing.
It's not being left wing or right wing that's the problem, it's supporting retarded ideas that don't work.
For Fascism, I'll use Hitler as an example:
Hitler was left when his power was increasing. He really wanted a lot of change, and as he didn't turn Germany over to the Kaiser, we can see he wasn't a reactionary.
When his power was at its height, the war was going well, etc, he was right. He didn't want things to change.
And after that, when things fell apart, he was still reactionary. At least, I assume he wanted to go back to when he was still succeeding.
1
-
1
-
@jbo8540 from what I've seen, not really.
Considering how big a game changer the LLMs are, we're being pretty restrained about how we go into it.
People who think it's magic can try it for themselves and see that it's not.
However, people who are willing to put the time and effort into using and understating it (at least its behaviour) are finding it incredibly useful.
As an example, you learn to be very specific in what you ask. It's almost just the next abstraction of a programming language.
Even in my area, I'm a Linux engineer and developer. Most of my coworkers still barely take an interest in it or still barely view it as more than a browser extension.
I think I changed that yesterday when I converted his python script into ruby in about five minutes and had it working on the first run.
This was an easy task for it, though, because a well written script is about as specific as you can get.
And then there's copilot.
I love copilot. It would be useless if I didn't know how to program, but because I do and can understand its output, I can do in minutes what took me a day.
Most of my attention is focused on design now, rather than nuts and bolts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gangyang9801 >>I don't understand what you mean<<
Really?
You should be concerned by this. They're pretty basic concepts.
>>Regarding the aging population, the government opened the three-child policy yesterday<<
The one child policy was abandoned in 2015, in which year there were 16.5 million births. In 2016, there was a slight increase in births (17.8 million). Last year, there were 12 million births (official numbers)
Thanks to the cultural change wrought by everyone being raised in one child families, people generally don't want more than one child. Why do you expect people who don't want two children to jump on board with having three?
Also: Someone born next year (the earliest that change can even begin to take effect) won't begin be useful until 2040 (assuming only a high school education, in which case that person won't be very useful) plus another three to five years for a university education.
That's a pretty long time to wait.
It actually gets better, though. At the time someone who was part of that 12 million born last year turns 18, there will be roughly 22 million retirees.
>>As for ccp, I want to tell you that the younger generation is more supportive of the Communist Party than the millennial generation<<
You say this as if the millennials are on their way out and won't matter much longer.
I'm one of the oldest millennials. I'm not yet 40.
Also, how do you think this supportive fervour will last when a good, hard dose of reality and responsibility hits home? When times become harder.
>>in my opinion, the only thing that can replace the Communist Party is the Communist Party itself.<<
That's a meaningless statement that does nothing except evade the question. All governments fall.
If you asked me the same question, I could answer it with ease. I've seen it happen many times. In my country, it's an almost entirely peaceful and civilised affair. Even after very long running governments like the Howard government that went from... I think 1995 to 2007.
This isn't going to be the case for the PRC, though. If the question I've asked is one you can only evade (I don't believe for a moment that you wouldn't have answered that if you had a halfway believable good answer), you should be very, very afraid.
After all, you're in the middle of it. And your government has a rich history of mass murdering the Chinese people through its own incompetence.
1
-
@gangyang9801 >>I’m not an expert on the issue of population growth<<
If more people are dying (or more importantly, retiring) than are being born, your working age population will decline.
And if your working age population is declining while your non working age population is increasing, the burden on each individual increases.
Now that that's out of the way, there should be no reason to plead a lack of understanding on something so simple :-)
>>but China has not reached negative growth at present,<<
No, it hasn't. (Not quite) but the working age population started to decline years ago, and that decline is accellarating.
>>, and as the average life expectancy increases, our generation may be able to extend our working age to wait for the next generation. (Logically possible)<<
A generation is 20 to 30 years.
And those annual birthrates are continuing to dramatically decline. Even after the abolition of the one child policy five years ago.
Sure.... It's not technically impossible.... But it is wishful thinking.
>>Regarding the Communist Party, I don’t deny that they had a big problem and killed a lot of people (Maoist era), <<
Which is slightly understating what was done.
>>but now compared to external attacks and Western public opinion<<
That the CCP is very, very eager to encourage. You should be very concerned at their willingness to make an enemy of the entire world. The only reason they'd do that is if they needed an external threat to unite the populace.
>>as a middle-class Chinese, I only support<<
That's nice. I'll be interested to see how your support goes when you're one of the people forced to work until death as a result of the CCP murdering such a large portion of the generation that should have been supporting you in your old age.
And this says nothing of the massive amount of poor people (those 600 million who are on less than $5 a day - and that's according to Le Keqiang) might not have such a rosy view as you do.
>>We have the government, because I don't believe that the Western system will be more suitable for a country of 1.4 billion 56 ethnic groups<<
I'll agree that the PRC is too big to govern effectively using a highly centralised model. Weird that they're so obsessed with adding even more culturally disparate regions to a country that's already unwieldy.
As far as those ethnic groups go.... They're not a very good argument when talking to a Westerner who's used to dealing with a heterogenous society. Your minorities make up an extremely small portion of the population by my standards.
>>as far as the system is concerned, I hope that our country is stable and united even if it is painful.<<
So.... Let me get this straight.... Instead of giving some form of written prediction on what will happen when the CCP falls, the best you can offer me is your hope.
That's horrifying.
What you have isn't stable, BTW. It's rigid. Stable involves being able to deal with a change in government. Rigid involves stagnation until it all falls apart.
To be clear (and if the truth were otherwise, you wouldn't have evaded this question multiple times) when the CCP falls, you will have have blood. Probably a(nother) civil war. Everything the Chinese people have worked for over the past lifetime will be destroyed. All because the CCP believes that its position is more important than the longevity of the PRC. You say "even if it is painful" - Painful will be a massive understatement.
Disagree if you like, but again, you've had multiple opportunities to paint a peaceful (but believable) scenario, and all you've given me is.... Hope.
Again, more your problem than mine. You'll be in the middle of a potential civil war. I'll be in a country that's profiting mightily by selling resources to all sides and taking what the Chinese people have built up.
And all this is DESPITE having the perfect place to test reforms that could prepare the PRC for a post CCP era in the form of Hong Kong. Yet another wasted opportunity by the CCP.
1
-
1
-
@Zidana123 >>I mean... seriously. Think about what you've typed for just a moment. He's here saying that all he wants is safety and stability for his family and people, while acknowledging the realpolitik side of it, that as a Chinese there is currently more benefit in it for him to support a stable government for China, than there is in what the West wants, which is for China to collapse and fail<<
You realise that this can only happen when the CCP collapses, right?
His own naive wishes about a party he's shilling for won't change this?
It seems to me that you should be more concerned with the people who are putting him (probably not you. It seems that you're safely overseas) in this position in the first place.
What you have is not a stable government. If you had a stable government, my question wouldn't lead to his evasion and your indignation. What you have is a rigid government. These are two very different things.
>>and you start going on, gloating even, about how oh he's gonna have a civil war and you're gonna profit from his misery and take all his stuff. You think that's gonna make him more amenable to supporting you?<<
Don't honestly care if he supports me. Although I'd hope it would get him thinking about the barbarians in charge of the PRC who are putting him and his family in this situation in the first place.
I didn't put the CCP in charge. I didn't try to support them. I'm not on the internet arguing how great they are. I'm also not the one who's going to suffer when the situation that they went out of their effort to create falls apart.
He is, though.
What's worse? Attacking the people who put him in this situation? Or attacking the person who's giving him an honest appraisal (if what I said was nonsense, my questions wouldn't have been evaded) of what's going to happen next?
Is a doctor evil for telling a patient the truth?
>>Oh, and somehow he's not allowed to even have hope on behalf of his society, but has to first justify it to you, like you're his lord and master and he's not allowed to even have a thought in his head that you've not approved first. Even the CCP doesn't talk to people like you do.<<
I didn't make him come here, and I didn't make him bleat about hope. I also lack the power to make him say anything.
All I can do is make it obvious to him and to others that hope is all he's got.
If hope is all you've got, you should be very afraid. How many died horribly because they hoped Mao was correct?
>>Seriously, for us Chinese in the West, nothing has been more of an eye-opener than the abject and open EVILNESS of people like you. You talk like crazed villains out of a Bond movie and somehow think that you're the good, humanist side. It's literally insane how monstrous are the things that come out of your mouths (or fingertips)<<
I'm sorry you view an honest appraisal of the facts (accompanied by repeated invitations to show that I'm wrong. Something your own rant here hasn't done. I honestly don't care about your feelings) as evil.
I also don't care if I'm viewed as an angelic humanist. All I care about is that I'm accurate. Your and his evasion of a discussion of the consequences of the facts laid out does nothing to affect my accuracy.
>>and you try and tell us in the same breath that we should turn against our own.<<
Ignoring that the CCP aren't your own. They're the people who have put you in this horrendous situation in the first place. The people who starved your parents and grandparents. The people who've kept you in poverty decades longer than you needed to be (The people who could only 'eliminate' poverty by redefining it to be significantly less than the global extreme poverty level). The people who've overseen the murder of your unborn siblings and children, leading to the population crash that will mean you have an impoverished old age without nearly sufficient people to care for you (Moving to the two child policy didn't do much. My hopes for the three child policy are minimal). The people who've destroyed your environment. The people who commit mass murder rather than give the Chinese people a peaceful say in how their country is run, and the people who've gone out of their way to turn the world against you.....
Turn on them. Don't turn on them. It's your choice. Just as coming onto a public space to shill for them is your choice. Just as being hurt that someone in a public space disagreed with you in a way that you can't rebut is your choice (you've both had plenty of opportunity to. The free speech which the CCP is terrified of works both ways).
But the path they've gone out their way to put you on is, however hurt your feelings might be at a simple statement of facts and asking of some very relevant questions, what I've laid out.
Instead of shooting the messenger, a smart person would be doing what he can with the information given (or, if I'm wrong, instead of wasting energy on indignation, point out how I'm wrong. Hoping I'm wrong doesn't really cut it).
Just like everything that's led our discussion to this stage. It's your choice. I can't force you to do either.
If you can't cope with what I've said, then you have bigger problems than me. Much bigger.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zidana123 >>"I've never claimed to be uninvolved" How quickly you forget the things you yourself have written, eh? Go read back over your own wall o' text up there where you call yourself 'the messenger' and said that me calling you out on your shitty rhetoric techniques was 'shooting the messenger', lol<<
So....
Not a single thing rebutted. Just a bunch of ad hominem.
I'm not creating the situation and in this sense, I am the messenger. If you think I'm going to lead to the CCP's downfall, you've got some weird delusions.
I do have plenty to gain from the CCP losing power, though. Which puts me in the same category as pretty much the entire world.
>>On the contrary, my own premise is the only true one. After all, what would you call someone like you who aspires to be a war profiteer if not 'EVIL' or 'MALEVOLENT'?<<
Your premise is that my premise for everything I say is false.
You've yet to argue against my premise for anything. My premise has nothing to do with who I am or what I want.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what a premise is.
>>Asking the same question only gets you an invitation to re-read my previous answer to that question, please scroll up to my former posts.<<
I'm perfectly OK with you continuing to evade it.
I'll continue to ask it, though.
>>And no, trying to rebuild your false dichotomy isn't going to work any better on me this time than have the last 3 times. Look at you, going on about 'Oh! Oh! muh opportunities! I've given you so many, so why won't you say what I want to hear?'<<
I don't think you know what a false dichotomy is. Which puts it in the saqme boat as what a premise is.
>>Listen, I'm not obligated to respond to you in the way that you desire. Why should I deign to constrain myself within the confines of your pathetic concern trolling? If you want an honest discussion then stop trying to crudely build rhetoric traps or laughably bad consensus cracks when you're not even part of the original consensus.<<
If you were smarter, you'd realise that I love the way you're responding to me.
Please continue to lie (again: my premise was never based on who I am. Or who you are. Or who the OP, who has now run away is) and evade a very basic question.
It makes me happy :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>CHINA should not trade with America, Get back all the debts they owe<<
Then it's free to stop
>>Get back all the debts they owe<<
1. This shows you don't know how treasury bonds work. They're basically promises to pay X amount on Y date.
2. Even if they could, they do that and the RMB goes up in value. Same effect as tarrifs
3. The PRC bought them for its own reasons. Not as a goodwill gesture. It gets the pain from the lack of good that huge investment was meant to provide
4. The PRC doesn't actually own as much as people think. It's the biggest single holder, but there's a lot of holders
5. If the PRC sells them, it'll be at below market rates because it'll need to flood the market. It loses money. The only effect it has on the US is it needs to offer a slightly higher return. (Which people will go for, because the US will pay its debts)
>>recall back all the students<<
I'm sure they'd be happy to lose their course fees. Not creating unhappiness in the next generation there at all.
>>don't buy or sell to them anything<<
Chinese economy crashes, as outlined in my other post that you clearly lied about not reading.
>>overnight America will collapse<<
Worst case, a recession, the govt is voted out, a new one is voted in, life goes in.
China's worst case is civil war. Don't have that safety valve.
>>They're buying everything on credit and accumulating more and more and they're printing their money non stop<<
Debt to GDP ratio has gone down over the last decade. China's has skyrocketed.
>>CHINA should trade more with all other countries other than usa. Let's see what will happen to them
<<
It's already trading as much as it can with whoever it can.
See, all of this is why I say you're not too bright.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>Wow your level of ignorance is beyond repair. You don't even know what neither of them are and you talk like some kind of expert. Virtually every country in the world today is socialist.<<
No. It isn't.
Virtually every govt today has a government that does stuff. Governments doing stuff isn't Socialism.
>>and no Marx did not use these terms interchangeably, socialism was the transition period between capitalism and communism,.<<
Either way, with the lack of Communist states. It was still a series of failed attempts to achieve Socialism.
>>Socialism refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. <<
With this level of control varying on how badly it failed earlier. Redefinitions in an attempt to keep respectability.
>>In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few ''Communist'' regimes.<<
Essentially because the attempt to implement it has failed consistently.
>>Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, <<
And about as accurately as people are when they say 'evolution is just a theory'
Social Democracy != Democratic Socialism. I get that both have the word 'Social' - just like 'social services' - and that this is confusing to a lot of people, but they're simply different systems.
>>in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.<<
Which is again, without common ownership of the means of production, not Socialism.
Chavez and Maduro didn't achieve it either. They fucked up the attempt.
Nokia is a company you wouldn't have in a Socialist state. Neither is Ikea.
I really do get the feeling that true believers need to redefine the word to avoid looking like they're imbeciles supporting a fairly consistently horrific system, but that doesn't make them correct. It just makes them dishonest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kiyosenl.3889 >>wait is the guy actually being serious, i thought he was being sarcastic<<
This is something I notice about pro-govt Chinese from the top to the bottom.
They have no idea how to deal with the outside world. You see it once, you think it's sarcasm. Then you see it over and over and over again and realise they're simply clueless.
And remember that the Chinese domestic audience is largely blocked from here. This is them trying to convince a foreign audience of... Something.... That they're assholes, I guess.
>>rather interesting, also neat that you're the first direct source of this information ive had, i mostly learned about this from a bit china uncensored did where they asked English teachers in china to tell them what its like to teach there<<
I showed her that one. Her response was it was accurate. Both my parents were English teachers. They left in... I think 2012 because the anti foreign sentiment was getting physical.
Same logic is why my mainland wife agreed it was a bad idea for her and our daughter to move here. Whatever bullshit you hear about mainlanders being routinely discriminated against or victimised here aside (My favourite was someone claiming that a restaurant freaked out at seeing Alipay on his phone, as that marked him as a mainlander. That's a common payment method. I use it regularly.) when stuff gets like that, it's easy to have a trigger.
So far, everything that's happened has been overall, very directed and deliberate. But it's escalating. The pro-CCP govt here seems to be incapable of predicting how people will react to almost anything it does. What you're seeing from this person isn't an isolated thing, it really is like that from top to bottom. From amateurs to professionals. Read the comments section on almost any SCMP article and any mystery as to why things are getting worse disappears.
Like. From start to finish, this has been a pointless event. It was predictable. It didn't need to happen. In the early stages, calming things down would have been easy. To stop it from happening in the first place, all the govt needed to do was maintain the status quo. Instead, they bought in a piece of legislation that was simply horrifying as a blatant bit of opportunism, stuck to their guns and have been fucking up ever since.
>>if shes still in hong kong i wish her the best, i know its getting rough there<<
I was offered a job here early in the year. Coincidentally, she was offered a short term contract here. It's been interesting. The last paragraph was written after this one.
Never felt unsafe, though. At least not from protesters. My mother's first day here, when we arrived at my station, there was a fight between protesters and police going on overhead. As she was going up the escalator, one of the kids ran up to warn her about which exits were unsafe.
As for the police, well. The public line is foreigners are to blame for all of this. They're also so deep in that they either win outright, or every single one of them needs to leave. (There's a retirement village being built on the mainland)
My mother has a friend with a wife who's a detective. They're emigrating to NZ now. Whatever happens, the police will be seen as the enemy for generations to come.
Before this, they were proud of their police force.
And all for nothing.
I'd be amazed if the PRC survives with leadership this utterly incapable of dealing with the world. They're not trying to stoke the fires for some purpose, they're simply incompetent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@potassium7705 >> I think you over analyse what I mean.<<
From the looks of the rest of this post, not really.
>>No shit its not a new concept. This is a non-point.
Socialism isn't socialism? <<
Socialism is Socialism.
Socialism isn't what you think it is. Very few 'socialists' actually have a clue of what the word means. They listen to bullshitters who try to conflate them with welfare and social services and leave it at that.
Those who are against social services try to discredit them by linking them to the epic failure that was Socialism.
Those who are in favour of Socialism try to polish that turd by linking it to the stunning success of things like a public education system.
Neither is your friend.
>>How? Nordic countries consistently enjoy higher quality of life. <<
Yes, those Capitalist Social Democracies (which isn't Socialism, democratic or otherwise) are doing very well.
But they're not Socialist.
>>And no, authoritarian dictatorships aren't socialism the same way the Democratic People's Republic of China or Korea aren't very democratic at all.<<
Who are you replying to there? I don't think it's me, as I'm fairly sure I've never said that. I've said Socialism leads to authoritarian dictatorships (over and over again), but that's a very different statement.
>>The last claim is simply false. Unchecked capitalism expands the lower class, among plenty of other issues. And again, Scandinavia tends to perform better in this regard, because of socialistic policies.<<
You say it's false, then go on to list Capitalist states that have succeeded in doing what Socialism is meant to have done.
And 'Socialistic' (in the way you use it) != Socialism.
Socialism is about the public (IE: Non-private) ownership of the means of production. It's about who owns what generates wealth, not what you spend it on.
If listing Capitalist states as examples of Socialism working aren't evidence of just how badly Socialism has failed over and over again, I don't know what could possibly be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akhunsuryanto >> I don't read all of your comment, sorry too long,.... to make it short,..<<
I didn't expect you to.
I didn't even expect you to answer the very first question about how poverty was being defined. I especially didn't expect any answer to what happens when the CCP falls.
Your behaviour is nothing unusual. However, if you find my posts are too long, try being wrong about less. Your content and accuracy dictates the length of my responses.
This being said, when you remove the quoted bits, my own post was only a couple of hundred words longer than yours. There should be no problem digesting the content, although I do see how coming up with answers would be difficult.
It's also not unusual to find that pro-CCP people are far better at raising questions than they are at answering them themselves. You've got your script. Your ability to go off script is lacking.
>>to make it short,.. if you always prejudice towards the others surely everything looks bad, no positive side remain, no good points exist<<
I'm seeing very little to be positive about when it comes to China. That you went for excuses rather than responding to what I'd written says your own positive things have very little substance to support them. To be honest, you seemed to be whining that your own words weren't just taken at face value.
The rest of your post had nothing to do with what I'd written. It's a shame you're not more open to actually reading. Particularly when each point has been clearly separated, unlike the wall of text you expected others to read and response to.
1
-
@akhunsuryanto >>Haaaa,...haaaa, It seems you hate the CCP badly<<
Yep. Rightly so.
>>have you or your family ever harmed by CCP before?<<
No more than the National Socialists had hurt my own family. Do I need to have had something personal happen to me before a govt becomes bad?
>>For me, that's no problem whatever the government's system is as long as its bring the wealthy and prosperous to its own society, I just okay, no difference to me democracy or socialism, because my goal is to achieve wealthy, to become rich, to be happy and reach the prosperity status<<
Which is the CCP's sole justification for staying in power.
So what happens when the economy goes south, and the CCP loses power? To reiterate: All goverments lose power. The only questions are when and how.
I'm currently in Hong Kong watching what could, if managed badly (it's been managed worse than I could have imagined so far) be the spark that brings the Chinese economy, and from that the CCP down. What happens next?
In my own country, we'd have an election and vote out a poorly performing govt. What options do the Chinese people have?
I'm not expecting an answer to this, BTW. You've shown yourself to be pretty incapable of answering any question.
1
-
1
-
@akhunsuryanto >>That seems we are in an opposite position<<
Indeed we are.
And one of us is capable of responding to what the other says. The other finds excuses to ignore it.
>>Mr. Robert, we're arguing to much not solve this case<<
If you want to resolve it, you could try discussing instead of evading.
>>but I am still sure with my opinion and I also sure that all the Chinese people in mainland and overseas approximately 1.4 billion will not let it happened<<
Won't let what happen? The CCP losing power? If things go badly, if the economy goes down, they'll be the ones making it happen.
The biggest threat to the CCP is the Chinese people. And they know it.
>>rry, in free speech principle as you believe I have the right to defend my opinion, so if you get upset because of it, I apologise, thanks<<
When have I shown the slightest sign of being upset? Can you quote it? Also far from denying you the right to defend your opinion (position?), I've encouraged you to do it, and pointed out when you yourself have chosen not to.
If you want to defend your position, the time to start is now. Until then, that you're not is entirely by your choice and despite my encouragement to stand your ground.
But you didn't even try.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Based on what I know and suspect from being associated with China for the best part of twenty years:
>>Could Americans expect a draft? <<
Not my area, but I'd doubt it, it would be important to keep industry going at home. It would be a naval war, industry counts more than soldiers
>>Would China become the worlds new dominate military power?<<
If we ignore it, yes. If we don't ignore it, no. Most of what the PRC has achieved has relied on the rest of the world ignoring them.
Fortunately Russia was the final nail in the coffin of the world ignoring them.
>>How capable is Taiwan of defending itself without foreign aid?<<
If we completely ignored Taiwan, it would be extremely open to a maritime siege.
That this hasn't happened (and the CCP really, really, really wants Taiwan) shows what they belief about your next question:
>>Which countries would even come to aid?<<
For local countries, look at a map of Asia and ask yourself what happens when the CCP is unrestrained
Japan and South Korea are screwed for a start.
As is every country in the South China Sea.
As is Russia (Seriously. Look up the treaty of Aigun in 1858 and Peking in 1860 - The PRC wants that land back)
Further afield, Australia will definitely join in. New Zealand probably will (Hopefully Ardern is voted out soon) and obviously the UK, EU, USA and Canada will be all in. Basically because the consequences of Taiwan losing are catastrophic. Not just strategically but in showing the world what kind of allies the West actually makes.
I also doubt this will ever become a land war. Basically because the key isn't to invade the PRC, but to stop it invading other countries. Plus, it's really vulnerable to blockade. Taking energy as an example, they recently bent the knee to Australia and gave in on their coal ban.
And their economy is super unhealthy in general.
And if war never happens, then their window of opportunity is about the next ten years. That population is ageing at a ridiculous pace (40% drop in births since their 2017 peak)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JonySmith-bb4gx In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@qwertyuiopzxcvbnm9890 >>You are lucky, that in this case your hypothesis turned out to be more or less true<<
That's knowledge.
>>The only flaw is that you used nominal GDP. Also the poverty line for a single person houshold does not represent a general poverty line you can apply on an entire population<<
That's true. However, I'll put it this way: China's middle class is 400 million strong. So 1 billion aren't middle class. Those are official numbers. To be in the middle class household, you need to earn about $3,640 USD a year.
Assume a household size of three, for fairly obvious reasons.
Nominal spending power is about twice PPP spending power. Double that to 7k USD a year to be in the middle class.
A household of three is in poverty in the US at $20k USD per year.
I can't find the numbers on the high earners in China, but it seems slightly unlikely that it would be a bigger group than the middle class.
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class/
Puts it at about 1% of the population, that's based on how much they spend. Surprisingly difficult to find a better data source.
But either way: According to that, my numbers are very much in China's favour.
>>Actually the comment is not misleading for me. Just for other people. You<<
I don't think anyone has been misled here.
>>Looking at everything from the US perspective is a little egocentric...<<
I'm a British Australian living in Hong Kong.
The US is simply the easiest point of comparison. It's also one that's fairly famous for having a low poverty line.
I could have compared it with Australia, in which the poverty line is defined as half the median income. For a household is $40k AUD or $27K USD.
So to be middle class in China, you need to be in a household nominally earning less than 15% of Australia's poverty line.
I could go on, but long story short:
Yeah, they're poor. Go outside of the cities and you'll see.
Even inside anything except the major cities, and... Yeah, they're poor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not just that, but the cost of living difference has a pretty finite upper limit. It's not a multiplier.
At best, it's probably worth about 40k USD a year. Maybe more, but probably not a huge amount more. For argument's sake, we could say 80k.
Think of your annual food, rent, electricity, etc. However much you pay for that. If those were reduced to 0, how much would it be worth?
Which means that the moment you hit 40,001 or whatever dollars difference in pay (minus your actual cost of living in the new place), the cost of living decrease stops improving your lifestyle and starts eating into how much you can save for retirement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mistergeopolitics4456 >>The party currently in charge in Sweden, they proudly label themselves SOCIALIST. Who are you to say that they're not when they say that they are ? What about the "Nordic model" ? That's not Socialism either ? despite the fact that academics say IT IS ?<<
I'm someone who can read a dictionary.
I also recognise the difference between something being something, and something being descended from something.
Anyway, I'm not a fan of the argument from authority fallacy, but given you seem to put weight on it...
https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
The PM of Denmark is saying that the Nordic model is not Socialist.
>>What about the "Nordic model" ? That's not Socialism either ? despite the fact that academics say IT IS ?<<
Well, the PM of Denmark says it isn't. And given you seem to like to use that fallacy, I'm assuming the topic is closed now.
Or is this the point where you decide that logical fallacies are called fallacies for a reason?
>>Socialism works when people are willing. It won't work when people are forced. It's very rare that the vast majority of people in a country are willing to undertake a Socialist project for a long period of time, which is why you often times see Capitalist systems besides Socialist policies. <<
Socialism works when people are fundamentally different to the people we've got.
That's pretty clearly a requirement that leads to failure.
And know those Socialist policies working with Capitalist systems? They're pretty epic evidence that Capitalism is better at delivering the promises of Socialism than Socialism is.
>>Hitler was a proud Socialist & under his leadership Germany went from being bankrupt to becoming one of the most powerful & most advanced nations on earth. Hitler credited this rapid turnaround to Socialism
<<
Wasn't exactly a lasting solution, though. His idea for funding his works was to conquer other countries and take their resources/use their slave labour.
But hey, if you think that's a good thing, then at least you're honest about it.
>>If Socialism is so backwards then how did the Soviet Union compete with the USA for decades ? Russia went from a feudal system where the majority were illiterate and starving to a developed country with universal healthcare, education, one of the most advanced nations in human history. The Soviet Union was the first nation to put a man in space. That's right, a Socialist nation was the first to put a man in space.
<<
If Socialism works so well, where is the USSR now?
You've just made an argument that says it was too powerful for external sabotage to bring it down.
Anyway, the USSR was good at very specific things, but could never deliver the whole package. That's why instead of continuing to be a world power, it died after less than a human lifetime. It's also why it was a literal prison.
How many successful countries needed to be turned into literal prisons?
>>Don't even get me started on the evils of capitalism & colonialism. The Atlantic Slave Trade without which the USA never could have caught up to Europe ? The man made famines in India which claimed the lives of tens of millions some say hundreds of millions, caused by the greed of the British ?
<<
Yep. Bad things were done.
But there's something to show for it.
You've got excuses, and a desperation to claim the success of Capitalist nations, because Socialist nations are so lacking.
And a huge body count... All for nothing.
>>You think Capitalism is a perfect system ? Right now 8 people own as much as half of the worlds population. If you think that's right & just then you're either delusional or mentally deranged.
<<
Nope.
I just think it's far, far, FAR better than Socialism.
Capitalism doesn't need to be right and just, it just needs to be a system that works.
Which it is.
Which Socialism isn't. As evidenced by the Capitalist nations you've listed that have been far more able to deliver the promises of Socialism than Socialism ever was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg
This is Capitalism working. See how it plummets when the USSR collapses?
That's Socialism holding people back in poverty.
>>Under Mao China's population doubled & China went from a medieval feudal system to becoming an industrialized nation. Tens of millions were introduced to healthcare, education & sanitation.
<<
1. That large population was long term one of the worst things that could have happened to China. A large population is not a good thing.
Hell, African nations manage to be overpopulated. Poor people breed.
Now there's a huge amount of people about to entire retirement, without nearly enough to support them. To say nothing of the epic environmental issues.
2. More of that introduction was done after Deng Xiaoping allowed Capitalism. Before that, what they had was pretty shit.
3. China's education system isn't what people think it is.
4. All of this was pretty ordinary throughout the world. Except for the introduction of massive overpopulation.
>>Venezuela was suffering & poor under capitalism for decades. Chavez brought tens of millions out of poverty. You could argue that he was too ambitious & went too far with borrowing money for his programs, however Venezuela is where it is today because the USA has declared economic warfare on Venezuela for more than a decade. Now you're seeing the results of that sabotage.
<<
I like how you acknowledge he went too far, borrowing money for unsustainable programs, yet still think it was the US's fault.
While ignoring that with that oil wealth, borrowing money shouldn't have been a necessity. Remember that the country was failing while oil was at its peak.
>>Also the oil prices, the Americans made the Saudi's bring down the oil prices not to benefit the Saudi's themselves, but to hurt nations like Russia, Venezuela & Iran. It's economic sabotage. It's a crime against humanity. <<
Unless you're going to claim time machines are a thing, causality gets in the way of this argument.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959
This was from about a year BEFORE the oil price dropped.
>>"The aim of the latest US action is to choke off funding to Venezuela by blocking access to foreign currency."
That's just the beginning of the article. The proof in indisputable.
<<
And read the start of that that I'd already quoted in another thread.
It made it go faster. It was still happening.
It's like that $200 per capita you think would have made the difference. It wouldn't. It only made it go a little bit faster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YourHineyness no. He's just dishonest. He has a tendency to say what he doesn't believe.
You'll be able to see it here. He won't be able to say what's incorrect or unreasonable, but he'll whine about it being one sided propaganda without being able to give any specifics.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ambrosianas7505 A dictatorship isn't what you think it is.
What I'd have called China pre-Xi is a totalitarian oligarchy. Post-Xi, well...
He had the constitution changed for his benefit, removing the one peaceful method of changing who's in power China had left.
Which then makes the legal system within the party bollocks, when the laws can be changed to suit one strongman.
And given you yourself don't know what a dictatorship is, what the people of China in general think one is is irrelevant. However, it's a dictatorship.
"a ruler with total power over a country"
Which doesn't mean there's no political reality on whose support a dictator needs. Hitler needed to scratch industrialist's backs, as an example. Stalin was paranoid for a reason, there were people who could be threats to him. Even Mao was sidelined after he cocked up royally.
Xi most definitely is the powerful one in China. He is a dictator. Thanks to selective use of the anti corruption campaign, his enemies are gone. Who is left to challenge him?
My evidence? He's powerful enough to have the constitution changed for his benefit.
And your detailed explanations of why internally it's really a democracy are irrelevant. Externally, it's easy to see it as one monolithic entity. When the people want a change, they'll be targeting the CCP in general. Not enough disassociation.
In Australia, we have what we call the pub test. Which is basically whether the argument would convince someone down at the local pub. That argument would be laughed out.
All it'll take is one big mistake. One disaster. A recession or whatever.
So, now that we're past this:
What happens when the CCP falls? When the people decide they don't want a Communist party that (redefining the word here) "democratically" selects its leadership (without the populace at large having its say) and gives China (using the word accurately, which you're not) a dictator.
What happens when they're sick of the whole Communist labelled experiment? As has happened many times over the last century.
1
-
@ambrosianas7505 I think the population at large gets to choose which team gets in. What's more, they get to choose when a particular team gets kicked out.
Which is more choice than the people of China have and an incredibly important safety valve. If democracy offers nothing else, it offers a safety valve.
And you can avoid it here. It doesn't matter. Your attempt to redefine words is telling, though.
But.... The real reason Xi hasn't invaded HK to deal with the protests isn't because of any non interventionist ideals or any of that bollocks. It's because the Chinese economy is fragile (What I saw last week was not inspiring) and the CCP's sole remaining excuse for staying in power is the economy is strong.
HK gets dealt with harshly enough to stop the protests, the world will be horrified, they'll pile in on Trump's trade war and the Chinese economy will unravel.
At that point.... In my country, the govt would be voted out. The incoming govt would blame everything on them and attempt to fix the problem.
In China's case, there are no peaceful options. A civil war is a distinct possibility. I think Hong Kong terrifies him because it's given him no good options. He can crush it, horrify the world and fuck the Chinese economy, or he can (this is far, far, far less likely. And I'm saying him because Lam is a puppet) give the protesters what they want which will show the rest of China that the CCP is weak and that protest works.
Both options are fatal. The other two options (Do something mild or do nothing) are delaying options that just let the situation fester. Which it has.
And as for how bad the US is... You're still there. You chose to live in what, to listen to your words, would be a worst case scenario for China.
Inconsistent, right? This is why I'm always far more interested in someone's actions than their words.
Your words send you in one direction, your feet in another. I trust your feet.
On a wider level, I'll trust China's currency controls.
Don't need to limit how much currency people can send overseas if they've got faith in their own economy, now do you? There's no limit to how much I can send from Australia. I've already far exceeded the mainland amount for sending money from HK. I've sent plenty of money over from the UK, you get the idea.
All these inconsistent stated beliefs and actions.
1
-
1
-
@ambrosianas7505 >>Robert Bray China has to ignore whatever is in HK because China really doesn't control HK<<
It controls the leadership. That's enough.
>>HK is governed by HK government, not under Beijing.<<
HK is governed by a Beijing appointee. The window dressing they put in between that doesn't change it.
>>The bill wasn't even proposed by China. It already existed and HK government only amended it by adding Taiwan and China<<
Not officially proposed by China. But yeah, it was proposed by China.
And Carrie Lam's statement that it wasn't in her power to withdraw it was very telling. She's a puppet.
Also, adding China isn't a minor thing. Yeah, they had extradition laws. But China being left out of the list of extradiction jurisdictions wasn't an accidental oversight. It was an intentional act agreed upon during handover for one specific reason. To keep HK and PRC legal systems separate.
>>Rioters don't represent people's will unfortunately<<
One way to test this: Introduce real democracy. Not from a list of preapproved candidates ticked by Beijing, but an open choice.
>>By the way rich Chinese send currency overseas because their money is dirty and made thru corruption. My mom was once a professor who witnessed her senior leaders stealing wealth illegally and investing the money overseas. The corruption started getting cracked down after Xi rose to power and took the stolen wealth back and used it for public infrastructure improvement<<
So basically he hasn't done a good job of cracking down.
Should probably start targeting his allies as well as his opponents.
As it is, I'm not seeing much difference between the corruption perceptions index 2011 and 2018.
Really, corruption is such a huge problem that they need those currency controls (which are still able to be evaded) yet you don't see why people wouldn't want to replace the CCP? The party that was 100% in charge when China became this corrupt?
>>You really gotta know China well enough to not comment with such ignorance<<
You say ignorance, but I see childlike credulity and ignorance from your end.
>>Sorry I can't use paragraph because I'm using phone<<
My phone has an enter key.
>>Anyways Robert, I hope you realize when young HKers beat up people who disagree with them and occupy airport to prevent others from traveling, they are not expressing their wills freely - they are oppressing everyone else who has differing views.<<
It sounds like what we need here in HK is a way of removing an unpopular government through peaceful means, and a government that is not (to use Carrie Lam's words) serving two masters.
There should only be one master in any region of China. That's the people living in the area being administered.
Instead, she doesn't serve the people, she serves those who put her in her chair.
And you wonder why the people of HK are angry.
The violence in HK is nothing more or less than a creation of the CCP, under Xi's decisions. His puppet introduced that law. His puppet played word games. His puppet let things spiral out of control.
And he's hamstrung because the moment he deals with the mess he created, the international response could kill him.
>>It doesn't matter if you trust my words or not. I know I am speaking the truth from the bottom of my heart and I have nothing to fear. Time will prove everything.<<
Your feet say otherwise.
It's alright, you're not alone.
I married one who did this.
My neighbours are other Chinese who did this.
My home city is full of Chinese who did this.
The only people I ever come across who seem to be vocal about going back are on youtube comments.
And even then, their mouths say they prefer China, their feet say they prefer anywhere else.
With your skills, you can live wherever you like. From that, I can only assume you like where you live.
I'm in HK and loving it. I wouldn't be keen on living on the mainland though.
And even if I would, my wife point blank refuses to consider it.
1
-
>>Robert Bray It is only reasonable that Beijing wouldn't approve a leader who would want to separate HK from mainland<<
Surely this is only a problem if the people of HK want to separate from the mainland.
Which is surely only a problem if the protesters are representative of what the people of HK want.
If the people want to be a part of the mainland, why would they vote for a separatist?
>>However HK leader is elected within a small group of HK political circle and then Beijing shows approval or disapproval<<
Of candidates
Which isn't a choice.
If I say you can choose one of my three buddies, I'm not giving you a choice.
>>this is how HK had always elected leadership under British ruling before 1997<<
Ah, back to this old chestnut.
The British had started to look at introducing proper democracy in the 1950's (The best part of 50 years before the lease ended. Or enough time for a new people in govt to hit retirement. They'd have had to deal with any negative consequences of it)
The CCP govt threatened to invade.
Skipping over the rest of the stuff about that, as it's going to be more of the same. The CCP threatened to invade HK if the British stopped treating it as a colony.
>>Robert if you live in HK you must know many HKers have undeniable culturally racist mentality against mainlanders although they don't say it directly<<
You're redefining racism here.
They don't like the mainland culture, legal system, political system and so on.
Funnily enough, there's no issue with places that weren't under the CCP. It's more like the CCP has ruined everything it's touched.
So... Politicist? Not racist. They're > 90% Han Chinese here.
You really need to stop redefining words to suit your purposes. Particularly after the alipay bollocks below, you're coming across as very dishonest.
>>I went to HK last year on behalf of my American employer, and as soon as I accidentally showed Alipay app on my phone in the HK restaurant, the owner and server kicked me out and cursed at me upon realizing I was originally from mainland<<
I'm going to call bullshit on this story.
Alipay is widely advertised and used here. As is using Wechat to pay for things. My wife didn't have a single problem either.
And going to call bullshit on the rest of that as well. It's sounding like your 'bestie' who was so rapidly dropped.
HKers don't like mainlanders, I won't deny that for a moment. But from my own personal observations of my very mainland wife, as well as other mainland Chinese I work with, I'm simply going to call bullshit on it being at that level. Particularly when you claim the spark was using a product that's widely used here. I go to McDonald's and there's a very high chance the person in front of me will openly use Wechat to pay, as an example.
Dude. I live here. My lunch yesterday was paid for with Alipay. Make your lies believable.
1
-
@ambrosianas7505 >>Robert Bray The Alipay experience was true and I couldn't speak Guadonghua. It happened to me and I am not lying about it and I’ll always remember it<<
And I'll put down that reaction to a very common app and payment system as bollocks.
If it were remotely true, and not more than freakish bad luck from a crazy person who somehow hadn't managed to get used to seeing a common payment system that's used all over the place, then I wouldn't be seeing it.... Everywhere.
You can claim it's true if you like, but that's so far outside of what I've personally seen here, you look like you're doubling down on bullshit.
>>Regarding your mention of “choosing from my 3 buddies” equal no choice - I completely agree but you do realize in American democracy there’s no choice either - both republican and democratic candidates were sponsored and established by the same group of zionists. The American people don’t have a choice at all because whoever gets elected will act in the interest of zionists and bomb millions of innocent civilians worldwide every term. <<
See, here's the difference.
You've got the tired old anti semetic trope that's been overused for the past few centuries to apply a conspiracy theory on who gets into power.
Yet the CCP is openly deciding it.
Tired old trope vs something that's openly happening.
Hmm.
>>Is Lydia freer now after NATO liberated it??<<
Here's the problem with dictatorships like the PRC.
They leave nothing behind to replace the dictator. Leading to chaos when the dictator falls (which it inevitably will)
Which, to be honest, you show signs of recognising from your conflating the fall of the CCP with the fall of China and your insistence on skipping from "CCP falls" to "We'll rebuild" with nary a word of what happens that causes the need to rebuild.
Which is why it's incredibly irresponsible of the CCP to not prepare China for a smooth transition to whatever government is next. It shows that when given a choice between them and China, they chose them.
>>You think western democracy gives people any real choices?? <<
Yep.
More to the point, as far as safety valves go, they give the appearance of choice. They give the people something to kick out.
Even that appearance is a massive safety valve.
What happens when the people decide the CCP isn't working as promised (which it hasn't. It's been a complete and utter failure in the one reason it came to power in the first place. It is absolutely NOT the goal of a Communist party to make an extremely capitalist state) and decides it needs to go?
The rest of that part of your post (enter key is on the right hand side of most phone keyboards) doesn't even address the value of a safety valve to express discontent, so moving past that.
>>We know we don’t have a say but we are happy with our progress and trust the government to be component like I explained previously<<
And when things go badly?
And anyway, if you're happy with your govt, there's no downside to having a ballot box, is there? No downside to having a free and open vote.
A confident government doesn't care who or how many run against it. If they truly believe the people are happy with them, it doesn't make a difference.
>>HK wants to separate from China because it was poisoned by western media and they don’t realize democracy doesn’t truly exist in America either<<
They want to separate from China because amongst other things, China doesn't have rule of law.
Hong Kong's legal system is treasured and appreciated.
They've had 22 years of exposure to China. Things are getting worse and worse.
>>The only true democracy in the world is India and look at what a mess it has been under true democracy??<<
I could ask an Indian what happens if his govt falls.
I'd get a direct answer. That in itself speaks volumes.
Same as you could ask me, and I could give a direct answer based on repeated personal experience.
You? You shy away from the question.
Probably because what happened in Libya with the fall of the govt, and Syria with a massive uprising can happen in China. For the same reasons with the same aftermath.
Just on a much, much larger scale. Political vacuums are nasty things to fill. But fill they will be.
At least in India's case,there's an accepted way of selecting the replacement govt. Can't say that for China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ro Bastard that's fair, however the impression I get is the opposite.
It can't work (with the current technology. Get me a star trek style post scarcity economy and I'd reconsider) and the dictatorships are the inevitable result of trying to make something unworkable work.
As long as a government of true believers can think it would work if the people were a little more cooperative, I can't see an alternative. If X fails when it should have worked, they just double down.
It's like the communist party in China. If they thought they were doing a good enough job that people would reelect them, they'd become a democracy. However, like any socialist government (yeah, I know that the CCP has abandoned socialism in all but name, but that's result of epic failure) they didn't, so needed to force the people to let them try, try again.
We've got examples of democratic places that have tried in the form of Kerala and the kibbutz. In the former, there were no hardcore changes. People simply weren't interested. In the latter, it was fine with people who were literally comparing it with life as Hitler's number one target, but subsequent generations simply walked away.
1
-
>>I agree with you. I am not wedded to socialism or capitalism.<<
On this side, I'm fairly wedded to Capitalism, but for the same reason I'm wedded to Science. It works, bitches.
>>Also, I'll add to your argument that the Kibbutzes of Israel received lots of funding from the very un-communist-y Israeli government which in turn receives billions and billions and billions of American tax payer money itself.<<
So. Should have been a failure from the start, but were funded because, well.... After what they'd been through, personally I'd say the people who started those needed a break.
>>My friend couldn't help but admit that this is the case. <<
That's what I see when I look at the behaviour of so many hard left parties. They really seem to be happy as long as they've got a victim to claim to support. And they'll fight to make sure that victim remains a victim. (Of course, if the victim ever stops being a victim, they've lost their moral high ground in the future)
A case in point is Aboriginal communities here. We're trialling welfare cards that are largely quarantined for food and essentials (Alcoholism is a massive problem.) - The trials seem to be working, child abuse is down, etc, but the parties claiming to care about them are fighting hard to stop it from spreading.
This is ignoring the Union officials that have been caught with their hands in the till (One prime example was using union funds to hire prostitutes) and the left parties have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent union funds from being audited. This is also ignoring union leaders making separate deals with the companies they're supposed to be representing that their members don't know about or benefit from. (Our next PM sold out his workers in just this way while he was getting into parliament. Google Bill Shorten Unibilt)
And for your last paragraph, entirely agree. What they say and what they do as soon as they have the opportunity are so massively different.
1
-
This is where I point out that Capitalism is an economic system.
If we've got money (that has actual value) in our pockets. If we're able to get food, shelter, conveniences, etc in decent quantities without regular shortages (The last time I had to queue for more than ten minutes for basic essentials was when a flood that would cut us off from the major supply points was coming in the next few hours) it's working.
The only reason you could blame Capitalism for those things is that it's the foundation of societies people actually want to live in.
So... Damn you, Capitalism, for allowing us to build societies that aren't terrible enough to remove any incentive for immigrants to come to our countries......
I guess....
I'll agree on one implied point, though. If we abandoned Capitalism, it's a safe bet that our countries would stop getting anywhere near the number of immigrants we're getting now.
Why move to a country that's worse than your own?
Edit: Seriously, though, if you can show me your source for the (or even a) purpose of capitalism being to maintain racial purity, I'd be very interested. It seems an odd goal for an economic system to have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jacksmith6015 9.5 million births last year. 17.8 million in 2017. From the global times, taken from the national bureau of statistics.
"There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StephenTang-gy7bo In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jacksmith6015 @jacksmith6015 9.5 million births last year. 17.8 million in 2017. From the global times, taken from the national bureau of statistics.
"There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patewing5808 if you're going to lie, try not to start your post with it, and try not to make it something that can be disproven in two minutes.
---------------
The second part, which will take place from February 10-20, has been called ‘Union Resolve 2022.’ The purpose of this latter phase is to practice offensive fighting and develop tactics for repelling external aggression, such as countering terrorism.
The drills come as Russia stands accused of placing 100,000 troops on the frontier with Ukraine. The US State Department has suggested that the exercises could be a pretense for an invasion.
Speaking last week, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Belarus, Major General Viktor Gulevich, said he does not believe the exercises being carried out pose any threat to Europe or countries that neighbor Belarus, and highlighted the defensive nature of the movements.
Source is Russia today titled:
WATCH Russian and Belarusian troops conduct joint exercises
2 Feb, 2022 19:15
There's plenty more, such as this from February 10
With the West remaining on high alert over reports of Russian military activity near Ukraine, Moscow on Thursday has begun large-scale joint exercises in neighboring Belarus, the Ministry of Defense has announced.
Western leaders have been voicing fears for months that Russia could be planning an invasion of Ukraine, and have pointed to reports of troop buildup on the two countries’ border, as well as the exercises in Belarus, as signs of aggressive intentions. Moscow has consistently denied that it has plans to attack, and has called for security agreements that would limit the activity of NATO, the US-led military bloc, in Eastern Europe.
Russian tanks stage combat drills near Ukrainian border (VIDEO)
10 Feb, 2022 21:07 / Updated 10 months ago
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sjent >>Fair enough, apparently i was wrong on this part, as corruption in Chinese government make socialist principles to be applied rather selectively.<<
Not quite. Corruption stops free and fair capitalism.
The reason Socialism isn't applied universally is that if they do that, the government gets murdered by a populace that's sick of being poor. As came close to happening in 1989. The remains are basically there to employ people and fund high ranking party members.
>>Again, confiscation of land was one of the factors that lead to it current state. Saying that it was "single big killer" is simple false, as nobody can calculate that. And again, confiscation of private land is not something that do exist in capitalist systems<<
Not without compensation it isn't.
Very simply: If you make it clear that people won't profit, or will lose whatever they have, those who can profit, or those who have something will get out and stay away. That kills countries.
Those wealthy business owners, etc that Socialists love to demonise are actually what makes a country's economy run. It's a rare skillset that's in demand all over the world.
And when the highly paid jobs go, the people capable of earning the big bucks go as well. Again, everywhere wants those people. As a case in point, I'm an Australian who's writing this from Hong Kong. I came here because I followed the money. (50% tax rate in Australia vs 15% here)
>>Yes, there have been plenty of successes and failures. Doesnt make it somehow better than alternatives.<<
Socialism has nothing but failure.
>>China is more of a hybrid, so saying that its a socialist failure is false. In the same manner as saying that its an epic capitalist success story.<<
When China was attempting to make Socialism work, literal tens of millions died.
When China gave up and allowed Capitalism to take root, they had the largest reduction in the poverty rate the world has ever seen.
If that's not a failure of Socialism (tens of millions dying. Hitler didn't kill as many as Mao) and a success of Capitalism, what is?
Again, to simplify even more:
China attempting to make Socialism work = mass starvation
China letting Capitalism flourish = mass rise in wealth and living standards.
>>How about SU as socialist success story. 70 years is quite a long time.<<
70 years seems to be a long time, until you're in year 69.
It was also far, far less than 70 years before they literally turned the country into a prison.
>>Communists not just managed to pull country from deep hole that it was in after WW1 and fall of monarchy<<
It was pretty common for living standards to raise. Remember that Capitalists managed to turn a defeated West Germany into an economic powerhouse.
It's also easy to improve on utter crap. It's when things start going well that real skill is needed. Which is one of the major reasons Socialism has a time limit. As soon as things start going well, it's just not enough.
>>but they actually defeated Nazism almost single-handendly, while every other country in the Europe either fell or were holding by the skin of their teeth.<<
They did do a lot. (After allying with Hitler, but whatever) however a major part of it was the supplies they received from the US. Also can't overlook just how disastrous an overall commander Hitler was. Also can't overlook the Russian soldier's willingness to be cannon fodder. Or the lessons they learnt from their invasion of Finland.
>>Not to mention then rising to the level of superpower that challenged US. US, on the other hand, if not for WW2, would probably be long gone by now.<<
Challenged militarily (and bankrupted themselves doing it) but couldn't last the distance.
Whereas the US is still here and is doing pretty well.
>>Yes, SU eventually fell, but it was not failure of communism, but mostly governmental corruption, that no system is immune to.<<
Again, a 1990's fall date might have seemed a long way away in 1950. But remember it's 30 years in our past. 70 years is not a long time. Particularly not when you remember it was only 30 years in that the country was turned into a literal prison.
And you're ignoring that Socialist states have a tendency to be corrupt as hell. If you look at the corruption perceptions index, you'll see that the top of dominated by Capitalist states.
Sure, no system is completely immune. But there's insanely damaging, then there's almost inconsequential.
Looking at this, I've noticed you've taken a bit of a boolean approach to a couple of things here.
Either something exists (Corruption/Appropriation of private property) or it doesn't. If it exists, it's all the same. (Your argument relies on disregarding any nuance)
Same with the Human Development Index. You can look at the per capita GDP of each country in Europe and see where the iron curtain was.
1
-
@sjent >>Two problems with this statement. First, it implies that capitalism do not exist, period<<
No it doesn't.
>> And two, "free and fair capitalism" is an oxymoron. You can have one or the other. Free capitalism would not be fair and fair capitalism would require regulations, rendering "free" part unobtainable.<<
Allowing people to do their thing on the same rules as everyone else. Giving the freedom to do what they like, as long as they're not hurting someone else.
As opposed to preventing them just because private ownership or profit is immoral, somehow, or giving favours to friends (as happens with China's SOE's) or making decisions for reasons other than the merits of the business (Again, with China's SOE's - They have no problems getting loans. Other companies have huge ones)
>>You apparently know fairly little about China history. Tiananmen was a fluke, it never threatened state power even remotely.<<
Tian'anmen was one part of a countrywide issue.
And if it never threatened state power 'even remotely' that makes the response to it even more horrendous.
>>Its equivalent of Antifa pogroms in Berkeley. I find this utterly moronic notion that exists in the West, that all the people in socialist countries are spending their days and nights of overthrowing their government and installing capitalist system, to be extremely hilarious.<<
Well, they weren't asking for that, simply a say in how their country was run.
>>Again, ignorance. Chinese goverment has full control over country economy. They control prices, heavy industry, power, energy, transport, communication and finance<<
They're got the ability to, because they're a dictatorship, but ability to != does.
>>And state owns share in every foreign entity that sets up business in the country.<<
With this and the last thing I quoted, I'm really not sure what that had to do with what I'd actually said.
>>In US government can take away private estate without any compensation under certain conditions, like property being involved in certain types of crimes that are connected to said property. State can seize property if it was abandoned for certain amount of time. State can seize property if it was used for a criminal purpose. Then there are cases of judicial lien and tax seizures<<
Which all follows rules that are reasonable, and more predictable than 'We want it, we'll wake it'
Again, we get to this boolean thing we have. Where if two things are remotely the same, they're identical.
>>Yes, it is simple. So simple that its primitive and isnt applicable. No situation is ever this black and white. Pun intended.<<
What I mentioned wasn't a race thing.
And you think that making the people who enable productivity into an enemy and driving them out isn't applicable to failing economies?
>>No. If those "wealthy business owners", as you put them, are allowed to run amok, they will destroy country, as it can be seen with those mega-corporations in US. <<
There's a huge difference between allowing everyone to do whatever they want, and turning them into an enemy to be driven out, impoverished or destroyed.
>>Skill of leadership or being business savvy has nothing to do with capitalism, it can be applied in every socioeconomic system<<
It can, but the incentive is gone. Or the incentives in other places are greater.
People do things for personal benefits. Or is that something else that's so 'primitive' it doesn't apply?
People who are capable of doing these things are everywhere. The question is whether they're rewarded or demonised.
>>Its from same category of nonsense as claim that capitalism lifted millions out of poverty and reduced world hunger<<
Well that's a nice way of sidestepping this reality :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg
You can see where the USSR fell and where China embraced Capitalism.
>>Reality is that all those accomplishments are "fault" of industrialization, that also is not integral part of capitalist system and can exist under any socioeconomic system<<
Can, but either don't, or are done badly under others.
Probably because the others don't focus on profit, which is enabled by efficient productivity.
>>Again, disagree. Skilled workforce in general is wanted and being paid well. It is not restricted to one specific sector.<<
If economy A can afford 10,000 units, and economy B can afford 100,000 units to reward X person, where will X person go?
>>You apparently are not aware that abundance is a rare commodity in the world. In fact only handful of countries have it and generally it comes at expense of others. Success of European countries is based on centuries of conquest, blood and pillaging. Hell, US does that to this day. Nothing new there.<<
And?
>>Disagree. By the time capitalism came to the China, most of infrastructure was already build. Since 1978 they have developing system that has culminated in current hybrid model<<
LOL
Most of it wasn't. Even in the last fifteen years, there's been massive changes.
Check out Shanghai in 1986 to see how much of the infrastructure was already there.
Then check out Hong Kong for a capitalist from day one comparison.
>>If we judge failures by number of corpses, then US the the most failed state in the world.<<
I'm not judging it from number of corpses. I'm judging it from number of corpses with nothing to show for it.
>>Dont get me wrong, but this moronic implication that you can snap fingers and socioeconomic status just changes, and is not being result of decades of planning and building, is quite irritating.<<
I'm OK with you being irritated
Largely because I find it funny that you use this sort of straw man as an excuse to avoid addressing questions you have a problem with.
I never said it was a snap. But it did allow it to happen.
>>Empires fall, there are no exceptions.<<
And that doesn't change that 70 years is a short time.
A time in which the USSR lagged Western Europe.
>>It is funny, how fall of SU allowed soviets to get rid of propaganda, yet most of the West retains it to this day, despite the fact that Soviet Union has been gone for almost 30 years.<<
I'm only going to bother to quote this bit of that reply, because none of the rest of it changes a simple fact.
The Soviet union's government decided that they needed to spend a large amount of resources on turning the USSR into a literal prison.
Actually, I will bother to respond to one bit more. YOu say incarceration rates were lower. Almost 100% of the people who lived behind the Iron curtain were in a literal prison.
>>Standards of living do not rise on their own. It takes a lot of effort and work to get anywhere. <<
And not going out of your way to screw up these attempts is a huge contributing factor.
1
-
>>While communists were rapidly rebuilding country that was in many aspects still stuck in Middle Ages, most of the West was going thru major economic decline that was only stopped by WW2.<<
The West's major economic decline was from levels the USSR was nowhere close to.
As things get better, it becomes more difficult to manage. Yeah, there were issues, but always overcome.
And then post-WW2, with the lessons learnt, the USSR was outstripped.
>>West Germany was as much of "success story" as Israel is - if you just throw enough money on it, it is bound to prosper.<<
And which system allowed this massive amount of extra resources?
It wasn't Socialism.
>>Disagree. If you have nothing, then you still need something to get better. Progression will always be incremental. You wont just snap fingers and become CEO right after mail room.<<
You've got to get over this 'snap your fingers and everything's perfect' straw man.
At this stage, you needed four working limbs and a government that wasn't trying to fuck up your improvements.
>>USSR did become a superpower. Despite very low start and following war.<<
You mean the country that lasted a mere 70 years before collapsing?
>>What you refer is comfort and corruption. And this adage about "good times breed weak men". Yet again it is not related to any particular socioeconomic system.<<
It really isn't. What that looks like is yet another straw man.
WHat I refer to is increasingly complex economies that can't be managed by a system that only allows for simple ones.
>>Just looking at rapefugee invasion into Europe or migrant crisis in the US, it is fairly clear that capitalism is not some universal solution. <<
I've previously explicitly said it isn't a magic bullet.
"And yes. Capitalism has failed. Many times. It's not a silver bullet."
Do you notice, though, that these people are risking their lives trying to get INTO Capitalist states?
The USSR needed a wall to keep people IN
The USA needs a wall to keep people OUT
I'm not sure what the rest of your paragraph has to do with anything, so skipping over it.
Unless you think that Socialism is good because it keeps us suffering, which puts us at our best.
>>Supplies that SU received thru lend-lease accounted to about 5-7% of their overall war effort, with half of it arriving in 1944, long past point when it was relevant. Simple fact is, that even without Allied support, WW2 would have lasted maybe a year longer, but soviets would still win it<<
Zhukov says otherwise.
""Now they say that the allies never helped us, but it can't be denied that the Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war," Soviet General Georgy Zhukov said after the end of WWII.
"We didn’t have explosives, gunpowder. We didn’t have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives. And how much sheet steel they gave us! How could we have produced our tanks without American steel? But now they make it seem as if we had an abundance of all that. Without American trucks we wouldn’t have had anything to pull our artillery with.""
Skipping over the bits that have nothing to do with what I said or confirm what I said. I didn't say 'everything' I didn't say 'sole' I said 'a major part'
You've got to stop straw manning. Your post length would probably halve.
>>If 1940 soviet Union would be a capitalist country, it would be conquered by Hitler<<
Why? Would the winter have been warmer? The supply lines shorter? Would the Japanese have not focused on the South? Would the Russians have not wanted to avoid being exterminated (Probably quite the opposite. The Germans were viewed as liberators until they realised that they were worse. If they'd been under a more human system, it's likely the Germans wouldn't have been welcomed in)
Skipping over the bits that show you watched too much man in the high tower.
>>Hitler was not a bad commander and he listened to his commanders. Unfortunately, as was progressed, he was becoming more and more paranoid and deranged due to enormous amount of stress. It took it toll.<<
So Hitler wasn't a bad commander, he just turned into a bad commander as the war went on.
>>Militarily among other things. Competition took place in many fields, from space industry to agriculture. Often completely pointless competition<<
And the ones they won in were few and far between.
The USSR could never deliver the whole package.
>>SU never actually went bankrupt. Fall of SU was result of leadership crisis, not financial failure<<
Tell that to the queues.
>>"Well" is not the word i would use.<<
See my previous comment about the USA needing a wall to keep people out.
Also, WW2 was a long time ago. 74 years ago. Is this you officially giving up on your statement that 70 years is a long time and shows success?
>>I also remember that most western countries(in their current state) are around 100 years old. Or even less.<<
And?
>>I am also well aware that this index is being compiled and graded by institution located in one of those capitalist states. And is largely based on options of people living in those countries and businesses operating out of them.
Would you take seriously "index" composed "under guidance" of CCP ? I bet they would state that China is the best country in the world. And completely corruption-free. "Its a poor frog that doesnt praise its own pond."<<
Well, one reason is because in the West, it's safe to disagree with the government.
>>I presume its "theirs". And by what standards do you measure said damage ?<<
Well, did the country collapse because of it?
I've got no idea what the rest of that part of your response has to do with corruption.
Really, if you could stay on topic and try to avoid straw men, this would go much faster for both of us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's one sided propaganda, which we both know you hate.
Here's the other side. To bring the balance you do sorely crave.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JackSmith-mk1ru to spread the thing that the other account that you're claiming wasn't you ran away from:
@jacksmith6015 9.5 million births last year. 17.8 million in 2017. From the global times, taken from the national bureau of statistics.
"There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertwang7825 anyway, here's their recent track record.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dps253 >>No. I don't have an answer to your ideological question<<
It seems a pretty practical one to me.
>>because currently there's no danger of any trade route disruption, even with the Chinese military establishments in the middle of South China Sea<<
Before anything else: It's interesting that even you felt the need to insert the word 'currently'.
Anyway, is this where we try to pretend that the CCP doesn't use trade as a way of punishing countries that say things it doesn't like?
More seriously:
1. The world (even if only tacitly) decides that these are PRC waters, and that the PRC has the right to say who can go through them.
2. The PRC starts to find reasons why ships going to countries it dislikes can't go through them.
>>On the contrary, with her focus on the BRI project which will require this Seaway and all other international trade routes to be free of disruption,<<
All approved trade routes
>>China will ensure this passage be accessible to everyone<<
Accessible to all approved entitites.
>>But obviously you agree with sending 80% of the Navy strike groups to exercise in an area where there is no clear and present danger<<
The only way there isn't a clear and present danger is if you believe the CCP doesn't have a tendency to use trade (and trade embargoes) as a weapon.
>>while ignoring the real flashpoint 8000 km to the West,<<
You mean the land based flashpoint?
>>and you are more than willing to lose 78M of tax payers' money to a phantom mission,<<
Peanuts vs the value of trade going through there.
>>and you inadvertently place higher priority on commercial interest over democracy preservation, then in that case, I have no answer for that.<<
How is allowing totalitarian states to have a powerful tool they could (If you're going to claim that the CCP doesn't use trade as a weapon, this Australian will simply laugh at you) use against democracies democratic preservation?
More to the point, what do you even mean when you say 'democracy preservation'?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FNLNFNLN >>You know how communism will never work because Pareto principle? Well. Pareto principle. You're essentially asking people to spontaneously share all jobs equally<<
Really? Where did I say that?
Although with your post, you're basically debunking
"Hey dumbass, if everyone leaves their low wage job, first, a ton of necessary work goes undone, and second, there's so much competition for the high wage work that those become low wage work."
Because there is a skills barrier.
That being said, this person was on zero skills. She has more than that.
>>There are practical and human barriers to that perfect scenario of yours from ever happening.
<<
When did I deny it?
From where did you get the idea that I think all people are capable of doing all jobs?
Your whole post is a based on a fairly retarded understanding of what I'd said. As well as a similarly retarded understanding of how skills can be gained. Hint: There's a thing you didn't include. It's called experience. We're paid to get it.
Changing jobs isn't difficult, BTW. If you've got time to do union stuff, you've got time to attend an interview or two. I've seen people who have this idea you need to quit your current job before you look.... I have absolutely no idea why they'd believe this.
And of course you don't change on a whim. You change when someone offers you a better deal.
You talk to people while you're employed (Again: If she has time to union she has time to interview) and when you're offered something better (which, if you've gained useful experience, should come up every now and then) you hand in your notice and move on. Have you never changed jobs?
>>The next issue is that like for a free market to properly function, for supply and demand in the job market to be perfectly balanced, requires all participants to both be perfectly informed, and perfectly rational<<
Now for this: I'd like to see how you define 'properly' because the free market functions. Sure, there's room for improvement, but it does a pretty decent job overall.
>>For example, putting aside the cost for a moment, if my training for a new, better paying job, takes , say, 3 years, I would need to know what the job market is like in 3 years. Otherwise, I might just end up in another job with a labor glut and we're back at the original problem.<<
Sure. If everyone does exactly the same thing at exactly the same time.
And you can do general predictions. There's never been so much information as there is now.
I've noticed that the people who complain about their low wage jobs are complaining about jobs that have been low wage for decades. The rate of change isn't quite as big as you seem to think. (Although the amount of people who are incapable of doing basic research is huge)
Although it's based off the straw man in your initial post. No-one is suggesting everyone leave their low skilled job. But they could at least try.
>>And that situation is not only possible, but it's the most likely. Some jobs will just pay better (initially), and be a nicer workplace, thus attracting more people than average. In fact, you would expect the popularity distribution for job choices to follow.... a Pareto curve. If every individual makes the best choice, then they're screwed as a group.<<
If everyone makes the best choice, then we've got people doing whatever thing they can do is most valuable to everyone else.
I work in IT. I make a very nice six figure salary. It's been obvious for a very long time now that the IT industry is a good one to get into.
But it's hard, so people don't. Stuff that pays well is usually difficult.
>>Finally, you aren't factoring in technological development. Automation is going to replace more jobs every year - and it's going to start by replacing higher paid jobs - primarily white collar desk work.<<
Here I'm going to guess you've never automated anything. I have. It's my job to automate other jobs.
To start with, your idea that it's going to start by targeting white collar desk jobs is... Problematic. Yes, the repetitive ones are gone. Or the ones with easily defined logic. However, those low hanging fruit are already gone. Its effect on factory jobs, however... God damn. Yeah, it's not the white collar stuff it's hitting hard. (At least not at the moment) it's anything that requires brawn rather than brains.
What's happening now is the same thing as with the low skilled work. People who were doing routine stuff are now focused on the stuff that requires creativity and flexibility.
For those who have those attributes, automation isn't a threat, it's a tool. They'll always be valuable. For those who don't have those attributes, well.... They'll have problems.
>>How's your free market solution going to work when there's an overall labor glut (i.e. looking at all jobs vs all workers), and that glut is concentrated in fields with already poor wages?
Hint: There is no free market solution
<<
This is where we start to look at our declining birthrates and consequently ageing populations.
We'll need every set of hands we can get.
Expect China to be spending its cash reserves on similar in the coming few decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aikighost "Population projections in the EU" on Eurostat
Which is focusing on the EU as a whole, rather than cherry picking a single country and acting as if it's the entire group.
BTW Italy's births per thousand are above the PRC's (which is something you can say about literally every non tiny country)
If you'll remember, that's the country we're comparing with.
Quite a bit as of this year. Up to a 20 percent difference, with the PRC getting much worse over the previous few years.
This is from Caixing global (subject to the PRC's laws and practices when someone makes the PRC look worse than they think it should look)
Annual births fell from 18.83 million in 2016 to 17.65 million, 15.23 million, 14.65 million, 12.02 million in 2020, 10.62 million, and 9.56 million last year. Therefore, the rate of decline each year from 2017 to 2022 was 6.27%, 13.71%, 3.81%, 17.95%, 11.65%, and 9.98%, respectively.
The same article gives the births at somewhere between 7 and "over 8"
Assuming 8.5 that's a birthrate of 6.07
And as the number of women who are of an age they'll want to have children decreases over the next decade, that number will decrease as well.
After the decade, they increase, but only back to the current levels before plummeting again.
And this is Italy's decline each year. Taken from the vital statistics section of Italian demographics on Wikipedia with GPT doing the math to help me be lazy.
2016 to 2017: Decrease of 3.23%
2017 to 2018: Decrease of 4.02%
2018 to 2019: Decrease of 4.47%
2019 to 2020: Decrease of 3.62%
2020 to 2021: Decrease of 1.15%
2021 to 2022: Decrease of 1.91%
They're a little bit different to the PRC's.
And any advantage the PRC currently has over.... Anyone... Won't survive long.
Edit: Those last couple of sentences do a far better job of describing the PRC, BTW.
The PRC's relatively low deaths to births ratios don't improve things.
Deaths are cheap. Retirees are expensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DK-gj5sp In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>The fact that Venezuela went to shit had nothing to do with socialism. Corruption, bad managment, a lot of dictatorships<<
All pretty standard things in Socialist economies. It's like there's some cause and effect going on here.
>>Plus being an economy almost entirely focused on oil, the nation's wealth will rise or fall depending on how much oil the rest of the world is buying, and, you now the story, it wen't tits up<<
Venezuela's economy was tanking long before the price of oil dropped.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959
Price of oil didn't tank for the best part of another year. At this point it was over $100 a barrel.
>>State run economy is actually not that big in Venezuela. The main part of Venezuela economy, even during Chavez, is market economy. It follows the same capitalist rules as everyone else.<<
It was attempting to become Socialist. The 20th century has given us enough examples that the very idea is a bad one. People learned, y'know.
>>So I guess the video title should be "Is Venezuela even Socialist?"<<
The attempt at Socialism is a killer.
>>But it wouldn't be, because this is PragerU and it's subtext is telling you that if you vote Bernie or AOC, the US will turn into Venezuela. Thats why its Venezuela and not any european country that problably has more social programs than Venezuela did.<<
Ah. I see the problem.
You don't know what Socialism is. You just think it's a bunch of social programs, a welfare state, etc.
There are no socialist states (democratic or otherwise) in Europe. There are social democracies aplenty, but no democratic socialist states. Socialism is the public (normally as represented by the state) ownership of the means of production with the idea that the rewards of this were spread more evenly. Social Democracy is using taxes from a Capitalist economy to fight inequality.
Common root (Social democracy was an offshoot from the socialist movement). Broadly overlapping goals. A completely different way of attaining those goals.
It's a common misunderstanding. Most 'socialists' have no idea of what it is they're actually supporting.
Probably because if they did know what they were supporting, yet still supported it, after the last century they'd be monsters.
100 million dead and nothing to show for it. If supporting a system that bought that doesn't make you a monster, I have absolutely no idea what would. 200 million with nothing to show for it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Technically yes there is.
Someone who wants a state to become socialist is left wing.
Someone who's in a socialist state that wants it to remain socialist is right wing.
Someone who wants something new is left wing
Someone who likes the status quo is right wing (conservative)
Someone who wants to return to a previous status quo is right wing (reactionary)
This is the basic definition of that, dating back to 1789. We apply the label to Socialists, because in countries that aren't socialist, they are definitely left wing.
It's not being left wing or right wing that's the problem, it's supporting retarded ideas that don't work.
For Fascism, I'll use Hitler as an example:
Hitler was left when his power was increasing. He really wanted a lot of change, and as he didn't turn Germany over to the Kaiser, we can see he wasn't a reactionary.
When his power was at its height, the war was going well, etc, he was right. He didn't want things to change.
And after that, when things fell apart, he was still reactionary. At least, I assume he wanted to go back to when he was still succeeding.
1
-
>>Robert Bray right wing isn't keeping things where it's at. <<
Oh, it is by definition.
"disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."
Or moving back to a previous status quo. The stuff you're talking about is libertarianism. If you're in a libertarian society and you want to keep things as they are, then you're right wing. If you're in a society that focuses on the group and want to become libertarian, you're left wing.
None of these terms are applied to any specific issue. That's why, as you say, conservatism is different between different countries. A right-winger in the USSR is a very different beast to a right-winger in the USA. Views that were extremely left in the 1800's are very right during the 2000's.
I'm going to apologise for skipping over a lot of what you've said, but that's largely because it's embodied in what I'd just said.
Bismarck wasn't conservative. He was a Monarchist, sure, but as I'd just said, left and right aren't confined to specific issues. They only apply to someone's attitude to change.
He wanted a united German Empire. He sure as hell wasn't Liberal, but he wasn't conservative. (Although if you count the Holy Roman Empire, he might have been reactionary)
>>The political spectrum isn't just right and left it's big government which mainly tends to the left with some going for smaller government<<
Going to use this as another example:
If you're in a country with a big government, and you want to reduce it, you're left. Vice versa is also true.
If you think the govt size is just fine how it is, or you want to put it to what it was before, you're right.
>>Constitutional conservatives want to stick to the constitution where there are limits on how much the government is allowed to control<<
Exactly. Constitutional conservatives don't want to change the constitution. They also want it to keep its current prominence.
Anyway, I could go on a lot longer, but...
If your society is X and you want Y, you are left wing.
If your society becomes Y and you still want Y, you are right wing. (Conservative)
If your society becomes Z and you want to go back to Y, you are right wing (reactionary)
That's true for any position. If you've never had it but want it, on that topic, you're left. If you either have it, or had it and want it back, you're right.
Left/Right apply to how much you want change
Libertarian/Authoritarian apply to how much you value individual rights.
And how Liberal you are (I can't think of the Antonym) is basically summed up by one sentence: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" - It relates to how accepting you are of people who disagree with you. Antifa aren't liberal. Socialists are not liberal. Anyone who will use force to silence someone they disagree with is not liberal.
On the other hand, if you accept that people will disagree with you, and that's their right, then you are liberal. By definition.
I make a big point of highlighting these definitions because, well...
Their colloquial definitions have been so warped by both sides, it's impossible to have a conversation about them.
I'm a Liberal. I'm sure as fuck not a Socialist.
I'm actually pretty left wing. I'm a geek, part of the job requirement is a belief that change is awesome. But the change needs to be a good idea. Socialism is a bad idea.
So I'm a left wing atheist capitalist who strongly supports skilled migration from any source and thinks that even Nazis have a right to voice their thoughts and contribute to the debate. With the sole (as far as I can tell) exception being if there's an immediate incitement to violence. "I think the Jews should be wiped out" = Fair enough. That's just an opinion. "Lets go and kill a Jew" = No. That's an immediate incitement to violence. Assuming there are Jews in the area.
In Australia I'm a Liberal (Conservative party) supporter... In the US, I really don't know.... I guess I'd be a democrat, but... Really don't know.
A large part of this indecision is because there's a huge religious aspect to politics in the US that's absent here. Minus religion, I'd probably be a Republican. Another large part is because our Labor party is union-controlled, plus a decent amount of influence from the socialists. I think both are cancer.
Oh, I'm also a fairly weak Republican who stopped being a Monarchist purely because I want a directly elected head of state, not because I've got any problem with the Monarchy. I think they do a good job.
So... Pigeonhole me :P If you manage to do it convincingly without breaking down my views and assessing each individually, I'll be impressed. If you break down my views and assess each individually, you'll have seen my point :)
>>Robert Bray thanks for the polite response. People get to emotional nowadays the farther they get to both sides.<<
Amen to that, buddy.
Another reason I'm very keen on correct definitions. Words mean things. If words become meaningless, debate becomes impossible. If debate becomes impossible, things get very bad, very quickly. Which was one of the key takeaways from 1984.
You see similar on Atheist/Agnostic/Religious. That's a false trichotomy.
Either you're a Theist or an Atheist. (Someone who believes in a deity, or someone who doesn't)
Either you're a gnostic (someone who knows or thinks he knows) or you're an agnostic (someone who doesn't think there's enough information to say either way)
But you're going to be two of these. I'm an agnostic Atheist. It's impossible to know (logically, it is impossible to know. How do you disprove a negative?) but I have no religious belief.
People focus on atheist/agnostic/religious as a way of creating a straw man when discussing atheism, to try to turn a lack of belief into a positive claim that there is no god.
Edit: Apologies for any rambling or wall of text. My wife has the same problem with me... It's just that as simple as these sound, and in many ways, as simple as they are, they've got a tendency to need a lot of explaining. It's not because of anything you've said, it's because I've been down this path many times)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, yeah, well taken at face value, that's stupid.
As is the whole tax citizens who aren't in the country thing.
For difficult to change, I was largely referring to the Australian system, but yes, it does need an additional amendment.
Particularly given that the small arms people have today are going to be fairly useless against the weaponry that's accessible to a modern state.
If the US military ever decides to go balls deep in supporting X president in becoming dictator, whatever the cost, a dictator that president will be. Amongst other reasons, because causing a massive city to starve by putting it under siege is just too easy. Even if that siege is nothing more than the airforce destroying anything that might convey food to, say, New York.
BUT.
That doesn't change the fact that the second amendment isn't particularly damaging to America as a whole. People do get killed. Lots of people. But it's not going to be the reason the US falls apart, which is the scale we're looking at here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fatcrewz America, Canada, new Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, probably others, but it's 12:42 here in Hong Kong and I should sleep.
While it's not perfect, there have been failures, I doubt there's been another empire with that success record since the Romans.
A few kilometres north of me, however... That is an evil government. It boggles the mind that people support it. Every thing an anti westerner rants about is done there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>It makes there the safeist country in the world. .You can see in your footage, even young girls can go anywhere of the city in midnight , their parents do not worry at all. (you can never be killed or raped like in the US or India ). 99% Chinese People support that. if you are not a bad guy, nothing worried.
<<
Who's defining who a bad guy is?
And not reporting != safe. It might be safe, but the PRC's official data doesn't have a history of being reliable
>>and you know china is still a developing country . a lot of old people still do not have the ability to know what is the truth. so freedom speech can only produce liars and fool just like Trump .that could be the worst thing.
<<
So we can expect things like internet censorship to disappear, because the internet is mainly the province of the young?
>>the Government of China's main KPI is the GDP ,not the freedom speech. and freedom speech is the worst thing in developing country. It will definately harm the government to boom the economy (look at India ,you may love to live in there , so many parties makes the govenment can do nothing )
<<
And they'll make that KPI appear good by any means, for as long as possible.
And when it all comes crashing down, well... They'll have their funds and family overseas. Pity about the poor buggers left behind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So this is where we pretend that the PRC's debt to gdp ratio hasn't come close to tripling in the last decade. From about 34 percent in 2012 to 84 percent last year.
With no end in sight. That's before whatever this latest sugar hit cost.
The In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
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
-
Oh no. That's one sided propaganda. We both know how you hate that.
Here. Let me give the other side.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manichaean1888 More data to help understand the scope
Assume the retirement age is pushed up to 70 in the next couple of decades
That means that people born in 1972 will be retiring about the same time your newborn turns 18 and is able to enter the workforce (it would probably be a bit later than that, but this is getting a worker into the workforce ASAP)
In 1972, there were 25,663,000 births.
This year, it's looking like there's going to be between 7 and 8 million births
Which is a shortfall of somewhere in the realm of 18 million workers.
And that's ignoring the decade plus prior to that, which needs to be made up for ASAP (there's a 20-25 year lead time between a policy that works and actually getting a benefit from that policy)
Between 1962 and 1972 (or representing the workers from the decade prior to your newborn's earliest entrance into the workforce) there were about 293 million births.
Again, going to assume that most lived this long.
Over the past decade, not including this year, there were about 170 million births.
So that's a 123 million shortfall between the people who've been born over the last decade and the people leaving the workforce when they enter it.
Not leaving for the grave, but leaving for retirement, where with increasing lifespans, they'll probably have an average of another decade to live (and consume adult levels of resources, plus elderly medical resources) after that.
So with the declining numbers of women who are at the age most women give birth, I really am super interested in who's actually going to be making up for this shortfall.
Or even stopping the shortfall from getting worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DemonofElru666 >>The deaths are caused by imperialistic wars over the control of natural resources or by the direct use of force by the imperialist nation. The imperialistic wars happen usually because of the imperialist nation's direct use of force, or by more subtle means like the corruption/dictatorships fueled by business interests. Often, this starts by capitalists wanting to exploit the natural resources and cheap labor of another nation, with the state helping the capitalists so that it can help fuel the engine of the home nation's economy... these are the main incentives inherent to capitalism that drives imperialism and so the deaths can be attributed to it.<<
Is it your belief that Socialist states didn't exhibit the same behaviour? If you're going to say yes, keep in mind the obvious rejoinders. If you're going to say no, well...
If you're going to try to pin something in Capitalism, it needs to be something that's unique to Capitalism.
Otherwise it looks more like people wanting stuff. Which isn't a problem with any particular system, just us being jerks.
>>There's nothing that would make capitalism worthwhile if something inherent to it can cause so much death and can never be done away with. I would say the same of socialism if there was something inherent to it that has similar or worse results. As a society we should be trying to fix serious problems like that by trying things that are new, especially different economic systems, but we don't really do that because so many people, especially right wingers, don't seem to care that much if at all about such problems and actively go against any sort of change that could make the world a better place.
<<
Long story short: You need to choose something. If you've got anything better than Capitalism, feel free to give it with the reasons. Keep in mind that failed economic experiments have killed far more than Hitler has. How many people are you OK with killing to replace the system that caused this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg
That's some pretty epic success right there.
>>Socialism has had the most success in anarchic societies... genuinely socialist societies most likely wouldn't have states and a "state socialist" society always had some kind of fake socialism that was far from ideal historically. There have been socialist societies formed by libertarian socialist philosophy (and all were anarchistic) that have made me think it could work if we do it right though.
<<
Yeah. Not many Anarchist societies today. Particularly not that are economically competitive with an organised Capitalist state... Pretty sure that number is 0.
1
-
@DemonofElru666 >>No, and the reason for why they behaved the same way was because those states had to do exactly as private capitalist institutions do, which is exchanging products and services for profit. So those that controlled the state responded to the same incentives that capitalists would. <<
Profit is the positive difference between what you put in and what you get out. I don't care what system you're running, if there's no profit, you're operating break even, or more likely, at a loss. That's not sustainable.
>>Imperialism may not be unique to capitalism, but it still drives it by mechanisms that are inherent to it just like previous systems and that result in the incentives I mentioned previously. The main ones being the constant need of market expansion to survive, and the immense concentration of wealth to a small unaccountable elite that controls society with their wealth, which makes the government appeal only to the morality of them (which tend to be extremely greedy and immoral since capitalism rewards greed and certain kinds of immorality the most) instead of that of the whole society.<<
Yeah. Again, people in general need resources.
And you're concerned about businesses being in control of the economic world. Yet apparently see no issue with governments being in control of the political AND the economic world. All you're doing is changing the masteres.
>>Getting rid of imperialism can be done with a socialism that establishes a political system that is truly accountable to the masses.<<
Good luck with that. Maybe the next hundred million deaths will get it for you.
You can choose accountability or you can choose socialism. Socialism fails the first time someone says he'd rather keep what he produces for himself. At that point, you can either crack down, and set the precedent that'll turn you into just another socialist dictatorship, or let it happen, and set the precedent that'll result in every skilled person walking away.
>> An economic system based on cooperation and individual achievement rather than market competition. It seemed to have greater productivity and prosperity than the capitalism in the same regions for the time it was instated during the Spanish Civil War (at least before the time it was suppressed) .<<
That you've led with an excuse instead of a success speaks volumes. Venezuela seemed to be doing just fine, right up until it wasn't. The 20th century showed us many temporary successes that completely and utterly failed to withstand the test of time.
>>Those economic experiments that killed all those people were the fault of the Marxist-Leninism philosophy and Fascism, which both led to authoritarianism and the former did because of its faulty methodology. As long as an economic experiment stays careful of potential authoritarianism (which really shouldn't be hard to identify as a mechanism within the system) we should be fine. If it fails we could just intervene. We should be able to prevent as much death as possible that way.<<
And yet...
Anyway, again. You can have authoritarianism or you can give up socialism. The people who make an economy run will walk away from a situation where they can't personally profit. That's the reality. People are in it for themselves. You can deny that if you want, but all it means is you're working off faulty information, and after that... (At which point you've decided the people are the problem) you're on the road to being yet another Stalin. Or on the road to being murdered by yet another Stalin.
Interested in what kind of intervention you're thinking of here, BTW.
And there's so many millions of lives hanging on that 'should' - But after the 20th century, if you're not sure it's a failure of an ideology, what's a few more tens of millions?
1
-
@DemonofElru666 >>Profit in that sense is not eliminated in socialism.
<<
I was saying the opposite. I was saying whatever system you had, profit was essential.
>>Which makes the issue devolve into imperialism in capitalism and previous economic systems. We can have economic and political systems without imperialism.
<<
Including Socialism. Remember when Hitler and Stalin split up Europe between them? Pepperidge Farm remembers. That's just one example. Given your reluctance to address it head on, it seems a safe bet you know there are many more.
>>If the people rule the government, it should have control over economic activity that could result in anti-social behavior against other nations, like imperialism. But the economy should largely be left alone by the government IMO, unless it's necessitated for there to be much control like in capitalism.
<<
If the govt leaves the internal economy alone, you're going to get Capitalism.
It's what people do when they can do their own things for themselves.
>>Why are you so sure about that? lol
<<
That the next hundred million deaths will be enough? Not really. Anyone who supports Socialism after the last century obviously doesn't give a shit about the masses of dead.
>>In collectivist anarchism, if I was an innovator I would be rewarded by the society according to the usefulness of the creation to the society. Then I would be able to set up a cooperative where I would able to derive even more value from my work. I could also, as a self employed person, just keep what I produce for myself as personal property and if I wanted to derive value from it, I could just trade it to the communal market.<<
And what happens when the next Bill Gates comes along, and wants to setup something far, far larger than himself?
Is he going to:
A. Do it there, where he'd be forced to split ownership of his company between himself and his employees?
B. Emigrate to a Capitalist country.
You're thinking very small scale.
>>A skilled person with a job gets paid more than an unskilled person that has the same job. Jobs that have more difficulty than another would have higher pay.
<<
Then wait until the envy (that this idea is based on) gets to the unskilled and they decide the skilled, wealthier people are conspiring against them.
>>There wouldn't be a single person that cannot keep what THEY ALONE produce.
<<
THEY ALONE sums it up. See my Bill Gates question. You'd be fine if all you needed was people doing little things. The big stuff, however... Good luck with that. The people capable of doing it would emigrate.
>>Production is often a social endeavor, and socialism is about distributing the fruits of social production equitably as well as having autonomy over what is produced, and the people in a society would agree to it because a lot more people are better off with that instead of having a society without that, in which people are subjugated to authoritarian institutions where capitalists/feudalists/etc. take the value of what another person produces for themselves. This can be said to be the raison d'etre of socialism's existence.
<<
Which is the reason the Iron Curtain was raised. Because the really good people. The people any economy desperately needs, will leave under those conditions. Unless their country is turned into a literal prison.
>>Didn't we already talk about this before? I believe I once said that the socialism in the anarchist regions of Spain were truly socialist in form, as in what was exactly as intended with it based on conception. All of the socialist experiments of the 20th century that ended up exactly as intended and envisioned by at least one of the theorists who created the ideology were destroyed by external forces, while all the other experiments that failed due to internal reasons weren't even the real thing. There's nothing that can be derived of the workability of the economic systems of socialism tested in the 20th century, because they were not even allowed to withstand the test of time. You can blame authoritarianism and capitalist imperialism for that. If Mutualism, Collectivist Anarchism, and Marxian Socialism/Communism had been allowed to stand by its own merits and failed, nobody would be a socialist anymore.<<
And that was where I pointed out all you've got is excuses.
What are the odds that the only 'workable' ones were all wiped out by external forces?
If Hitler was killed shortly before being rejected for art school, what place in history he'd had would have been far more positive as well. Could have been a great artist.
If you're not getting what I'm getting at: A success is anything that didn't have a chance to fail on its own. Those that did have a chance are invariable #notrealsocialism
If I had the same excuses to results ratio that Socialism does, I wouldn't be looked at for a minimum wage job.
>>There's little to no evidence to suggest that there would be authoritarianism in real socialism. Have you considered that you could be wrong about your assumptions? There's almost no incentive for someone to "not want to share" because such a person, who would typically be an innovator, would be paid more to compensate for their expertise.<<
Not as much as they could get in a Capitalist state, though. So how do you feel about turning a country into a prison?
>>Also, I think "the people who make the economy run" would like not having to risk as much value in their endeavors as they would under capitalism.<<
People who are good have confidence. Because they know they're good. Which enables them to be risk takers. Someone like that doesn't have the same aversion to risk as you apparently do.
I've had the same conversation with my wife. It took her years to understand that I don't view unemployment as an issue (I'm a contract worker) because I know I'm good enough to get another high paying job. It's why I won't touch a union. I don't want to be held back.
We're talking about people who are far, far better than I am.
>>Capitalistic activity doesn't really emerge naturally, it actually seems more of a cultural thing that will die out if a superior economic system is established.<<
you mean one that doesn't require an endless list of excuses, #notrealthateconomicsystem and lamentations of ones that died too young, which would, invariably, have gone well if they'd just had the chance?
>> If you forbid capitalism people that would want to engage in capitalistic activity would establish worker cooperatives instead. Like, why didn't a significant presence of capitalistic activity emerge in the Zapatistas communities after 24 years without it going full authoritarian? Why doesn't it spread in Rojava despite it being allowed?<<
Most likely, because the people who are inclined that way won't go near the place. People who can do this are generally wanted all over the world. (Currently on the second last interview for Hong Kong. I've also worked in the UK, two major cities in Australia, and am regularly contacted by American companies. WTF would I go to a place like a Zapatista community?)
A Better question is the reverse. There's absolutely nothing wrong with starting a cooperative in most Western countries. Why are they such a small part of the economy? Why did capitalism take over so rapidly in China, the moment the active suppression stopped?
>>The intervention I'm thinking I haven't really given that much thought, but it shouldn't have to be that complicated anyway. We could send aid to the people that aren't doing too well while economists analyze the problem with the system, then have the system changed if it can't be fixed. But I'm thinking these experiments should be done at a small scale first before being done on a bigger scale, so that it wouldn't be that hard in most cases to intervene in this way.
<<
You could take a look at the people and see what they have in common.
Like.... Not studying something useful. Blaming others for their failures. And yeah, a lot of people just aren't capable of being that useful.
1
-
@DemonofElru666 Thankful I did this in Notepad.
1/2
>>So what you actually mean is monetary profit? <<
Money is nothing more or less than a measure of productivity. I gave the definition earlier. Getting more out than you put in.
>>Gains and losses can be calculated under socialism too.<<
Is there some way I'm phrasing this that's confusing? I look at it, and it seems fairly simple, but what comes out of you in response is strange.
I never said it couldn't, BTW. What I said was it's essential under any system.
>>I've already given my reasons as to why those experiments weren't real socialism, and you'd have to be right about all socialisms in general for this to be true. So for now, we should just agree to disagree here.
<<
You forgot the hashtag. #notrealsocialism.
Which, again, is basically define as anything that lasted long enough to fail. The things that were cut short by something else appear to be #realsocialism.
>>No, capitalism is what you get when you have a mass of people that are dispossessed from the means to fund their own contribution to production,<<
Weird that Capitalist societies have a much, much higher standard of living than those that attempted to abandon it, then.
Also complete bollocks, especially in today's knowledge economy.
>>and a group of people that are able to take advantage of that by hiring them into servitude. <<
AKA: Giving people something of value in exchange for something of value under an agreement freely entered into.
>>It's just a thing that's much more likely to emerge in an economy based on competition.<<
You say competition like it's a bad thing.
What's wrong with it? If you're competing, you're trying to be better.
>>So because I have a different interpretation of the events than than your interpretation, I really couldn't give a shit about the people who died? Anyone who supports Socialism... anyone... doesn't give a shit about them? It's not that most of these people don't give a shit about them, it's that most of these people come to different conclusions about the events based on their own knowledge and observations about them, and still think socialism is tenable as long as it's done in a different way where it wouldn't kill so many people<<
Anyone who can ignore the 20th century fairly obviously doesn't.
Anyway: What's an acceptable number of the deaths for the next failure/attempt? Is 5 million a reasonable pricetag?
How many would it take to convince you that it's a bad idea if it fails again? 100 million obviously isn't enough, and you seem to think (like everyone else who tried) that you could do better.
>>Did you know that there are plenty of people that have invented things without much monetary incentive if at all? <<
I do.
Did you know that there are plenty of people who invent things and market them BECAUSE of a monetary incentive?
Your entire paragraph seems to suggest that as long as the number of people who have motivations that aren't monetary is greater than 0, it's not needed.
>>Even if innovators were purely motivated by monetary profit, they would share their innovation with the community, get their reward, and then move to the capitalist country where they can profit off their idea<<
You mean after they've just shared their idea with others, who can also take it?
Why do that when they can simply emigrate?
Any ideology that doesn't take human selfishness into account is doomed to fail. We're not descended from selfless people.
>>Eventually, people within the collectivist anarchist society that want to use the idea to benefit themselves and/or their communities will setup cooperatives where the innovation is used for production<<
How does that help the innovator?
That hurts the innovator.
>>Are you concerned about a person like Bill Gates not being able to steer the cooperative in the right direction? If so, that person could be granted power in the cooperative by being the lead resource manager or something. There's still a place for people that come up with the good ideas under workers self management, and they could be compensated more. But if your concerns are all about getting the most money out of everything, well... you should consider the above.<<
I'm concerned that a person like Bill Gates wouldn't have the incentive he'd be able to find in a Capitalist state in a cooperative, so he'd leave.
How much do you think a cooperative could afford to compensate bill gates? How does that compare with his earnings under Microsoft?
>>How envious does a person working for a capitalist enterprise get, when another employee doing the same job gets a raise and they don't?<<
That person can leave for another company that values him more in that case
I know. I've done it many times.
>> I find it hard to believe people would think others are conspiring against them. This just seems like the kind of thing that people would accept or get over, especially if they knew the reason others are getting paid more was because they were more skilled. <<
You have a very idealistic idea of human nature. That sort of rejection of reality isn't the sign of someone who could run a community. What's actually worse is that you've decided people are good, nice, reasonable, etc. So those who aren't are obviously aberrations. I realise you won't accept it, but when you've decided people are the problem, you get the mass deaths. Because you've got to get rid of the problem to make your dream work.
1
-
2/2
>>Those aren't the same conditions<<
In your mind, which thinks people are good, pure, reasonable, etc (see the last paragraph) they're not. But that doesn't mean much.
>>And that COULD happen only if innovators were as motivated by maximum monetary profit as you assume,<<
Enough of the really big ones are.
It's why their ideas changed the world, instead of staying small.
>>if all innovators were the type to leave their friends and family behind for profit, and there was an out of control state (which there wouldn't be under collectivist anarchism). I strongly suggest you watch this video<<
I like how you say "all" there.
No, not all. But enough are. Particularly the big ones.
And that video is talking about normal people. The people you need are abnormal. The one in many millions.
It's like... Normal people don't emigrate. Which makes immigrants abnormal people. By definition.
However, thank you for pointing out that things like ego make a difference. There comes a point where money stops being valued for its own sake, but is valued as a way of keeping score. Or being the biggest and best. Same thing applies (I don't really care about money, although I don't have enough to stop working. I care about the score, though. That and working on something big) you don't have that in a commune. IT's just too small a pond.
Interesting that he mentioned Linux. I'm a Linux systems engineer. One of the problems you've had with Linux development (which does have a lot of money put into it) is that people only do the interesting stuff. Which is why we had Heartbleed and Shellshock. Bug fixing isn't interesting. Testing isn't interesting. Security checking isn't interesting. It's mainly new features that are. Which is why companies that profit from it have started putting serious money into incentivising people.
I put a lot of effort into my home network. I run services that are used by friends. But I very explicitly only work on the interesting/immediately annoying stuff. It's at work where I put the effort in to find every single thing that could go wrong and fix it. Because I need money to do uninteresting things. I will sit there for hours at work testing something against thousands of devices, because I need to find every edge case. But that's not shit I'll do for free. Sod that. It's boring.
It's not just the innovators, but things that make things what I like to call tidy. Things that can be relied upon. The people who can take something from being a great idea to a great, finely tuned, properly finished product.
Use Linux, then use Windows, and tell me the difference. I use Ubuntu at home, BTW (developed by a company that very definitely pays its staff)
>>Economies are pretty complex and one slight variation to them might result in something very different. That's why it's important to note what was originally intended with a theoretical economy, and if a number of them emerge that are exactly or almost exactly as intended with them but were destroyed by external forces, I personally think they deserve to have another chance. The kibbutz system, in which ALL types of property were shared (and should have become worse than many countries in the eastern bloc by your assumptions), had a chance to stand by its own merits and even though it failed, nobody really died because of that experiment. So the same could happen in another socialist experiment like collectivist anarchism, except this time it might actually succeed.<<
Really, it says that there's two outcomes:
1. Everyone walks away.
2. People start to get murdered.
Either way is failure, but congratulations on having a failure that didn't lead to mass murder... Your standards are a bit low.
And the Kibbutzi are still part of "nothing to show for it"
>>If it fails the experiment would just dissolve, not turn into another soviet union.<<
There's more costs to a failed experiment than just the body count. There's also the economic damage that causes genuine problems. Lost opportunity. Lower standard of living. Worse healthcare, sanitation, etc.
The Kibbutzi were fortunate they had the Capitalist Israeli economy to fail into. Without that... Completely relying on themselves... How do you think it would have gone?
My prediction is that if the experiment failed, you'd have a failed state, with all the evils that contains. Including (especially) bad people taking advantage of the chaos.
>>But what about the people within those societies? Literally none of them would have inclinations for entrepreneurship or capitalistic activity and could leave if they wanted to?<<
The question for a lot is do they have the education they need to be useful elsewhere? If they don't, they're trapped.
>>These are places with economies that still have economic development with populations that are growing, so there seems to be plenty of entrepreneurs that don't leave those places for some reason.<<
What I'm seeing is a largely agrarian society that would be considered beyond abject poverty in any Western state.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/01/are-mexico-zapatista-rebels-still-relevant-20141183731812643.html
Not really the most inspiring example.
It does seem to be better than one of the most impoverished parts of Mexico, though, so.... Congrats? It's pretty easy to improve on nothing.
>>Because most people don't even know what socialism or cooperatives even are, thanks to our shitty education systems<<
We've got this thing called the Internet. We've also got living examples. Just... They tend to be quite small. The potential doesn't seem to be there.
I used to shop at cooperatives on my way to work. They're definitely known about.
However, I'll agree. Most people don't know what Socialism is. They think it's Social Democracy, and therefore think it's nice.
However, start teaching the truth about Socialism in the 20th century and watch the shit hit the fan.
>>things like the red scare, the events of the 20th century, and the mainstream news, all of which contributed to the muddling (either intentionally or unintentionally) of the actual meaning of socialism.<<
And apologists for it. People who try to misrepresent what it actually is.
>>Even if someone knows what cooperatives are, they typically would think that it's not very viable despite the fact that they very much are.<<
Not if you want real rewards, though.
Notice how few major companies are moving towards that?
Your criteria for "good" really does seem to be "not a guaranteed failure"
The people you need aim higher.
>>Probably... but you really should consider the fact that not everyone invents things for the money though. There have been plenty of people that have invented things simply because they want to use it for themselves and wanted the world to use it as well.<<
Nope. But most do want rewards.
Not everyone, but quite easily enough to make a massive, massive difference.
It takes more than one altruist to make a socialist economy work.
It also takes more than "Might not fail with mass murder, maybe, as long as there's a Capitalist safety net" to make an ideology worthwhile.
1
-
@DemonofElru666 >>Well, that was a brainfart on my part. <<
Well that's fair enough, and it happens.
That being said, there was a reason I said it in the first place, going back several posts to when you said "No, and the reason for why they behaved the same way was because those states had to do exactly as private capitalist institutions do, which is exchanging products and services for profit. So those that controlled the state responded to the same incentives that capitalists would. "
Which is unaddressed except in a few other brainfarts.
>>There was some pretty strict criteria on what defines a socialist society that was laid out in the 19th century, with the main one basically being worker ownership and control of the means of production. Have you considered looking up what was debated in the International Workingmen's Association (or what was called the First International)? <<
I'd assume many things were debated.
But that doesn't make them socialism.
And the government is there as the representative of all workers.
>>People generally prefer to work for themselves, and not for others. If they have to work with others, they would generally want an equitable share of the profits and as much autonomy as possible. Capitalism denies these basic things to a large majority of the populace. <<
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.
>> "freely entered into"? It's all about leverage, and capitalists have far more leverage than the working class in the agreement. It's pretty fucked up that people are forced to live under a system that perpetuates huge imbalances of power between those that engage in transactions for their own means of living. It's why people like Karl Marx described Capitalism as a "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie".<<
Both sides benefit from it. Both sides choose it as the best alternative available. Neither side thinks it's perfect.
So, yeah, freely entered into. That the alternative is worse doesn't change this. One choice being better/worse than the other is generally the basis for pretty much all choices beyond what's effectively a coin toss.
>>If society can engage in cooperation as the basis for an economy, rather than competition as the basis, then the latter is clearly barbaric and should have been abolished a long time ago. <<
That's a pretty big "if"
>>Except most of these people aren't ignoring it, they are just coming with different conclusions. At least, that's what I have done. <<
Conclusions that do a pretty good job of finding excuses for the masses of dead.
But I'm sure when it's done your way, it'll be different.
Just like everyone else who's tried (and piled up the bodies)
>>No, what I'm suggesting is that as long as people aren't being paid peanuts for their innovations, which is what a collectivist anarchist society shouldn't do, there would be plenty of innovators that would stay if there's so many people that don't have that much of a monetary incentive, at least enough to have the economy functioning well. <<
Taking Bill Gates as the ultimate example, there's nothing that the collectivist society could offer that isn't peanuts compared with what he could get elsewhere.
And there would be some, but as a percentage? Pretty small.
>>They can't patent in a collectivist anarchist society, but they could in whatever capitalist country they move to. <<
Which kind of helps my point.
Obviously, the collectivist anarchist society will steal their ideas, but that still doesn't give the people like this reason to stay.
>>Nobody in the collectivist anarchist society can use the innovation in whatever capitalist country the innovator patents it at, so the other people can only use it within collectivist anarchist society. <<
More reason to leave. If your idea is going to be stolen, it's better to take it to where you can at least oversee it and make money from it.
For the rest, the collectivist society will get what it can reverse engineer (those capable of doing that will probably leave, BTW. Because money) or what it can get a small number of ideaologues to steal from the company that empoyees them.
>>Most of their earnings would come from the society actually, and if their really that useful to the cooperative they would typically be paid significantly more than the lowest paid member of the cooperative. <<
You don't seem to understand that we're talking about absolute terms of reward. What the cooperative could afford to pay them would still be peanuts compared with what they could get elsewhere.
>>Except I'm not "rejecting reality", I'm trying to see how something like that would happen. I don't have an "idealistic idea of human nature"... there's not a single damn scientific consensus on what human nature is.<<
As a whole? No. But we know that there are lots of bad elements in any society. Bad elements that are perfectly capable of wreaking havoc.
Ultimately, there's no difference between us and the Germans. When push comes to shove, we're all capable of doing what they did
>> you've got here is just a claim that you need to back up with evidence. People are already well aware that the more skill you have with a job, the higher you get paid in a capitalist society. Why would it be any different in a socialist society?<<
The amount of zeroes is a big thing.
How much do you think a Collectivist society could afford to pay 1985 Bill Gates for Windows?
Or 1994 Bezos for Amazon?
edit: When I think about what you say, you seem to have problems differentiating between "some reward" and "massive reward"
Many of your arguments on reward rely on them being the same "Oh, they're still paid more than the less skilled people, so that's the same" Ignoring the difference between "being paid more than your neighbour" and "owning a fleet of private jets"
$10 is a reward.
$10 million is a bigger reward.
I'd probably fellate someone for 10 million (I'm straight, but 10 million is a shitload of cash). I wouldn't consider it for 10.
The logic you've given says I should do it for $10 because it's still a reward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll just paste here, because left/right aren't tied to particular policies, but are tied to someone's attitude towards things that are new. Whether a policy is left or right purely depends on whether the environment you live in either has, or has had that before.
Someone who wants a state to become socialist is left wing.
Someone who's in a socialist state that wants it to remain socialist is right wing.
Someone who wants something new is left wing
Someone who likes the status quo is right wing (conservative)
Someone who wants to return to a previous status quo is right wing (reactionary)
This is the basic definition of that, dating back to 1789. We apply the label to Socialists, because in countries that aren't socialist, they are definitely left wing.
It's not being left wing or right wing that's the problem, it's supporting retarded ideas that don't work.
For Fascism, I'll use Hitler as an example:
Hitler was left when his power was increasing. He really wanted a lot of change, and as he didn't turn Germany over to the Kaiser, we can see he wasn't a reactionary.
When his power was at its height, the war was going well, etc, he was right. He didn't want things to change.
And after that, when things fell apart, he was still reactionary. At least, I assume he wanted to go back to when he was still succeeding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
>>Well, what percentage of the Venezuelan(VZ) economy is socialist?<<
You don't think stated goals, actions, and the ability of people to recognise patterns might have had their part to play?
Well, 30% with the writing on the wall for the remaining 70% (in addition to a large number of controls, including price controls) and the resultant brain drain (that even the USSR felt was bad enough to turn the country into a literal prison)
And yes, the US has some things that some might call socialist. The fact that you ask this question shows you don't understand where the real damage lies.
Respect for private property is paramount. By definition, Socialism doesn't respect it. Someone who might lose everything that person has built will either leave, or not bother to build anything. This is also why Chinese buyers invest so heavily in Western property. Buy a house and land in a Western country and that house is yours. Buy it in China, and it's yours until some official decides it wants it.
>>For successful socialist economies - should I exclude ones which have been subject to debilitating US (and therefore world) sanctions for decades?<<
"and not excuses for failure"
If you've got excuses, you don't have successes.
Success doesn't need excuses.
Think we'd have heard of Napoleon's hemorrhoids if he'd won the battle of Waterloo?
Anyway, that you felt the need to ask these questions instead of spitting out a list speaks volumes.
1
-
1
-
>>Do you mean the VZ government declared itself socialist? And the US declares itself capitalist? I would still like to know what proportion of each economy is socialist?<<
For VZ, I just told you. The declaration coupled with the lack of respect for private property.
If you want more, you've got Google right in front of you.
>>yes, the VZ governments attempts to control a sliding economy is an issue, but what caused that slide? Hyperinflation? Oil prices set in London and New York? Currency exchange values set by other countries?<<
Given that the slide happened while oil prices were at their peak, and the currency only devalued because there wasn't enough backing it up...
None of the above.
Seriously. You did know that they were having serious problems in January 2014, right? (Long before even that, really. Toilet paper shortages were an issue in... What? 2007?
Yep. https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-venezuela-referendum-toilet/venezuela-makes-stink-over-toilet-paper-hoarding-idUKN3030073520071130 )
>>It's a bit of a big issue if you can't trade with other nations and you are prevented from importing goods. It's more than a little dishonest to claim you can still succeed despite these obstacles.<<
I might buy that for small countries. Not for massive, powerful ones like the USSR.
Which still failed. Which means the common root cause wasn't mere powerlessness.
Anyway: Excuses aren't successes.
So far, all your focus on excuses has done is confirmed that the quest for Socialism has led to nothing but failure.
But hey, maybe it'll work next time. Amirite?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>Wasn't this experiment actually some form of Communism (a primitive type) rather than Socialism?<<
I'd agree with this, actually. Fair point.
>>Personal property doesn't have to be shared.
A person who creates a means of production like a new type of factory would have it as personal property only if they don't employ others, and they could sell it to a worker cooperative who would make use of it. If that person plans on employing others with it, it becomes socially owned property but the workers would cover the cost of the factory. I don't see how there is a lack of incentive for creations to be shared.<<
As for personal property not being shared, you're going to get people who make better decisions than others. Gaps will be created. People will complain. There's always going to be a 1%
But business is more important.To take an extreme example:
If you were Bill Gates. You had an idea for a company that was going to be far bigger than yourself. You also knew that if it became bigger than you'd be able to personally handle, you'd be forced to sell it off long, long, long before it reached its potential value.
If you were given that choice, what would you do?
Would you cop it on the chin? Or would you leave?
Obviously lots of companies failed, but pretty much all successful ones were started by people who believed they could do it. There's probably exceptions, but it seems like going in with an attitude that says you won't get very far isn't what big businesses are made of.
>>Also innovations are largely made by people without much monetary incentive to innovate if at all. Innovations are usually made by people following their passions with typically communal intentions.<<
I'm interested in a source on that. Inventors of the products we take for granted typically took big risks. They are backed by people who are also taking big risks. They expect to be rewarded.
This isn't some simply hobbyist level stuff. This is stuff that requires real investment and a real chance of costly failure.
Are you in the habit of taking big risks with no possibility of a justifiably large reward?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now here's some actual numbers to show why your fantasy is just a fantasy.
And I know you've seen them before. Many times.
That makes your complete lack of response to them worse. Not better.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skyexu2018 >>The Chinese government has said that China can come and go as it pleases. So are we not respecting the human rights of a few people? <<
First, what does 'China can come and go as it pleases' even mean?
Second. The CCP absolutely respects the human rights of a few people. At least 7 of them.
>>It's not unheard of for the Hong Kong government to talk to Hong Kongers who want so-called human rights<<
And to treat the responses with contempt.
>>but the bottom line is not to harm the interests of the country<<
You don't spell party with a C.
The bottom line is not to harm the interests of the party.
If it was about preventing harm to the country, I wouldn't have had so much trouble getting your like minded people to explain what happens when the CCP loses power.
>>We do not accept the demands of the independents for Hong Kong's independence<<
I know you don't. Which makes that bit where you pretend to care about Northern Ireland a complete lie.
I can't help but notice that you completely abandoned the numbers bit. It's a bit difficult to argue it against a country that had an independence referendum from one of its constituent parts a few years ago.
Because ultimately, as far as the CCP is concerned, the Chinese people are its property. Its possessions. Not the people it serves, but the people that serve it.
Maybe if they needed to face an election every few years, that attitude would change, but until then, their masters aren't the people.
>>We also respect their human rights<<
At least, the rights of those who agree with the party.
>>The Hong Kong government only arrests those who break the law. <<
A law that's a classic example of rule by law, rather than rule of law.
That bit where the CE can select the judges, or have people sent to the mainland for trial makes all the difference.
>>Hong Kong has never stopped those who want to leave.<<
Oh, so there's no problem with the UK and Australia for making it easier for HK people to emigrate to those countries.
All those angry tirades must have been my imagination.
Wonder where this video got that from.
1
-
@skyexu2018 >>Robert Bray First of all, the explanation of "go" is as follows:
To renounce the nationality of the PRC, you only need to:<<
1. So basically your idea of a level of freedom and respect for human rights to be proud of is "Accept the CCP or leave China"
Congrats on being better than North Korea. I guess.
Although the reality is it isn't even that good.
2. It's even easier. Get citizenship in a civilised country (who gives up all citizens? Really?) and they revoke your Chinese citizenship for you the moment you apply for a visa.
>>It only costs 250 RMB to become a Chinese citizen, but I have to admit that becoming a Chinese citizen is difficult<<
Massive amount of effort vs reward.
I mean... Why would you?
>>China's political system is different from that of the West, so it is not surprising in this respect<<
Yes. It's an authoritarian ethno state. Kind of like a central European power was 80 years ago.
>> I respect your immigration conditions, and I appreciate our immigration requirements<<
You might claim to respect it, but the CCP has been whining incessantly about the path to British/Australian citizenship that's been opened to Hong Kongers.
>>Second.
The starting point of your second question is to question the CCP<<
Absolutely. They're not Gods. They're the 20th century's greatest failures.
>>The essence of your idea on this issue is to have a bias against the CCP. If you are a Democrat or a Republican, you may have a different view on this issue.<<
If they're that wonderful, then they have nothing to fear from the ballot box.
>>The interests of the CCP are those of the people<<
And if you don't believe this, just ask the CCP.
>>This is damaging the interests of 1.4 billion people<<
So the CCP says.
>>also it is damaging the interests of the Party<<
Which is all that really matters in the end. I've got no idea of why you bothered to mention the Chinese people
>>Do you think the Chinese Communist Party has brainwashed 1.4 billion Chinese people?<<
To the point that everyone believes it? No. Of course not.
To the point that the vast majority of people realise it's better to keep their doubts to themselves? Yes. Absolutely. With a small, manageable amount left over.
>>The Chinese people are indeed the property of the CCP. But the CCP is also the property of the Chinese people<<
At least your first half is honest.
>>The CCP did not invade and occupy China. It came into being among the people and served their interests<<
It was a party propped up and supported by Russians following an ideology thought up by a German.
>>Sun Yat-sen also proved the impossibility of bourgeois revolution in China. So the existence of the COMMUNIST Party of China does no harm to China<<
How does one thing support the other?
>>any political party is based on the people, so if the CCP is not good, it will be overthrown long ago<<
If it's this good, why the fear of the ballot box?
>>I respect your correct opinion and affirm the virtues of the capitalist party. But it will also refute your narrow understanding of the Chinese Communist Party.<<
Capitalist party?
This isn't the first time I've wondered if you know what these words mean.
And I judge the CCP by what it does and what it has done.
What it's done is kept the Chinese people in poverty for decades longer.
What it's done is killed more of the Chinese people than the Japanese ever did. For a failed cause.
What it's done is controlled the Chinese people to prevent them from having a choice.
And what it's just done is fucked up the best part of China.
>>Finally, I don't want to argue with you too much about the issue of Hong Kong law, because it is an internal affair of China<<
I genuinely don't understand why you keep bringing up that internal affairs stuff as if you believe anyone cares.
Anyway. It's not an internal affair of China's. It's the result of an international treaty.
Plus, if the Germans and now the CCP has taught us anything, it's that we accept this 'internal affairs' argument to our lasting shame. The Holocaust was an internal affair of the Germans.
>>Every country has its own laws, no other country can interfere<<
They interfere all the time.
Why, at this very moment, China is interfering with Australia's immigration laws and trying to influence them to make the extremely low bar you mentioned as if it spoke to China's freedom impossible for Hong Kong.
By the logic you've given, Australia and the UK's immigration laws are their own concern. And yet, constant threats and meddling.
>>English is not my native language and I'm not an English major, so I'm sorry if you have any difficulty understanding.<<
No issues understanding. Your language is very good. But your views are the sort I'd like to show to anyone who didn't understand what the CCP is like.
Literally, the only human right you could think of to argue that the CCP respected human rights was that it was legal to give up their citizenship. That's an incredibly low bar.
Legal, until, obviously, they're imprisoned and coerced into giving up, say, Canadian citizenship and taking up PRC citizenship again.
So as with even the most minor of human rights 'granted' by the CCP, that one's gone the moment it becomes inconvenient.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toonmag50 >>the British government should have kept the parts that were ceded ,rather than leased.
It's very unusual that the British give anything back<<
The preference was it become an independent country. However, there were threats of invasion if Hong Kong's colonial status was changed.
>>I assume that the British government gave the whole region back due to practical requirements and military reasons.
<<
Bit of column A, but of column B.
Which doesn't change that the CCP freely signed a legally binding international agreement.
>>Too late now, anyway.
<<
Yep. On the bright side, now we know beyond any doubt that only credulous fools trust the CCP at its word. Agreements signed with it are worthless.
I do wonder how they plan to make agreements with a world knows that any agreements made are meaningless.
>>The Chinese government claim that they are not changing anything substantially, some of the Hong Kong people think they are. <<
I'm here. It's been a dramatic change.
Apparently the vote to decide on which democratic candidates will stand for election might be in breach of the NSL. Because an election with unwelcome results would subvert state power. According to Lam.
>>In any event mid 21st century I understand that any arrangements agreed in 1997 expire.
So China will get everything there way anyway.
<<
You say this as if 27 years is a small amount of time.
People are born, educated and grow to adulthood in 27 years. Millions of children go through a propaganda free (I've seen the mainland education system) in 27 years. People live out a retirement and die in peaceful old age in 27 years. Governments rise and fall in 27 years.
There's a very good chance the CCP won't be in power in 27 years.
Or, and this is least likely of all, a PRC under the CCP could become a civilised country in 27 years. Which was the original reason for that 50 year period. To give China to catch up to Hong Kong's high standards. (Still not even close, BTW. There are some, specific parts of China that are very nice. Shenzhen is great, as an example, but only a very small percentage of people live in these areas and with the exception that there's space and everything is new, they're still not up to HK standards. It's difficult to even think of a comparison that would be relevant to someone whose experience has been British... I guess.... Taking modern Cambridge and putting it in the most depressed parts of Scotland or Wales right after the mines had been shut down, and claiming that was how all Welsh/Scottish would be on the right path, yet still a grossly inadequate comparison)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@majicweather4890 >>he mentions the "genocide camps" in Western China for minorities. This is the reference to the Uygur Genocide Hoax the West tried to push. <<
The CCP's response, including refusing to allow anyone except approved people to go in, and those weird "Everything's just fine" videos (that we're now seeing from Peng Shuai) aren't what you'd expect from a hoax. They're what you'd expect from someone doing an insanely clumsy job (the CCP is insanely clumsy. I was in HK during the protests. They have this childlike belief that whatever they say should be taken at face value, no matter how unbelievable it sounds) of covering up something monstrous.
All we've got here to support the claim that he's lying is your personal claim, BTW.
>>You clearly don't watch this guy's content or know anything about any of this do you? He's been pushing US government propaganda for a very long time now. Just watch the stupid video. How did you not notice that in the video? Oh I know why, because he makes so many bullshit claims back to back, at a blistering speed, it's almost hard to keep track. <<
I've watched a lot of his content. It's telling that the only response you've got when asked what lies there are a single un-backed up assertion of your own plus whataboutism.
If there was as misinformation as you say there is, I'd be expecting a much better response than this empty assertion followed by an attempt at a distraction.
>>Here's another one this idiot said " China's a bully and the world isn't taking it anymore" WHAT? Since when did China bomb and annihilate millions of brown people in the middle east for their Operation Iraqi Freedom ? When did China drop drones on Palestinian families? Since when did the CCP enslave black people in literal chains for 400 years???? Since when did the CCP make treaties and promises to the native Americans and break those treaties and promises and genocide them? Since when did the Chinese make hundreds of military bases around the world? Oh that's right, that never happened. Cuz it was the US government that did all of that.<<
Whataboutism doesn't support your claim that he's lying about the CCP.
That you've felt the need to resort to it says he's not lying.
That you've felt the need, even in your whataboutism, to be very specific in your questions also says he's not lying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The most common age for women having children in the PRC is 27.
The number of 27 year olds will decline for the next decade, before rising back to the current levels, before declining again even more sharply.
This has been going for years, getting worse year after year.
And it's a very age dependent thing as well
Plus, according to the China daily, over half of newborns are second or third children. This is from a baseline of a one child policy.
So, no, you can't point to specific people and say that person won't have kids.
But the overall amount of people who you would have expected to have children has declined dramatically. Far more than simple birth numbers would suggest.
And no, they didn't just coordinate and decide to collectively hold off having children for X years. There's no massive wave coming. This is individuals making choices that are overwhelmingly against having children.
As far as your comment on the overall size goes, that just tells me you don't understand ratios and think that all ages are equally valuable to the PRC's future.
They're not.
Last year, the working age (18 To 59) population declined by 10.75 million while the retirement age (over 60) increased by 16.93 million.
Those elderly need to be cared for by the workers. More to do, fewer people to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Logical fallacies are always relevant, when they're all you've given.
Anyway, I emphasise the difference between socialism and social services, because the former is a regularly failed economic system, while the latter is something that adds value to society. The right uses the former to attack the latter, while the left uses the latter to support the former. Attempting to create a false situation in which you must either support both or oppose both. Education is good. Universal healthcare is good. Roads are good. Getting the government to own/run the companies that actually produce the income that pays for these other things is generally bad. (Very little is universal, obviously. A prime case where it's good is where it would otherwise allow a private company a monopoly on something that's essential and not really replicable. Internet wholesalers are a more recent example. Food is essential, but distribution networks are easily replicable. Water networks aren't.)
The only reason to link these two things that closely is to make either of those false arguments.
Stack Overflow did put it well, that's true. But nothing you've said in there actually demonstrates this distinction to be incorrect. Roads facilitate income, but they don't produce. Universal healthcare facilitates income (By keeping workers healthy) but they don't produce (Not counting the pharmaceutical industry, obviously) Police do the same by keeping the public safe, but again, they don't produce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mac-gv8wc >>1) You mentioned USA fought a war against the british to gain independence, did the ROC fought an independent war against China to Gain independence? <<
The ROC predates the PRC. It was never part of the PRC.
There are two Chinas. Both independent nations.
>>2) "Taiwan" is still operating under the constitution of ROC and are still using the flag of ROC, so how is the so called "democratically" elected party(DPP) elevates the status of the island to a country? <<
Who said that was what made it a country?
>>3) So if the US would protect Taiwan if China gets involved, why hasn't Taiwan declared independence from China? How is Taiwan a country without declaring its independence, changing its flags and constitution? <<
You missed where Tsai pointed out that there's no need to declare independence because the ROC has always been independent.
At what date was the ROC not an independent nation?
>>4) Why does the passport still says ROC? Why would countries allow VISA Free travel of ROC passport holder but not recognize it as a country? So you're saying VISA Free status overrides official statements of countries not recognizing Taiwan as a country?<<
Because it's still the Republic of China. Which is one of the two Chinas currently in existence.
And when did I say that? Can you quote what I said, exactly (this conversation was the best part of six months ago and I don't feel like re-reading everything)
>>5) Taiwan Military? More like the Republic of China army, air force, and navy? Why are you changing the official name just for the argument's sake? <<
OK. Republic of China's military.
Which is not, and has not ever been part of the People's Republic of China.
>>6) Hong Kong has its own currency and it is clearly not a country. Take a look at the NTD currency. What does it says on the top? <<
Hong Kong is. It's just not an independent country.
You should look up what a country is.
>>7) Taiwan government? Again still under the constitution of ROC. Hong Kong has it's own constitution and it still recognize it's a part of China. <<
ROC != PRC
>>8) It's own language? More like Dialects? How many dialects does China has? Why don't you mention the fact that Uyghur and tibetan are also used as official language in the regions? <<
What separates a language from a dialect in your book?
>>9) Keep arguing from the so called "freedom" perspectives. That doesn't change the history, the international recognitions, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that Taiwan is not a country.<<
Neither does this rambling post.
What aspect of being an independent country is Taiwan missing? Before we go down this hole, being a member of the UN has never been part of this criteria. There's a pretty good chance I've posted the major criteria for being a country under the legal theories that aren't "Because the CCP complains if you disagree" - Can you look at those and let me know what's missing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The attempt at Socialism is damaging enough.
Anyway:
>>Venezuela is in this mess for two reasons, overdependence on oil<<
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959
That's from the best part of a year before the drop in oil prices.
>>and failure to challenge capitalism enough<<
Uh huh.
Yes. They became overly reliant on oil by killing off their other industries, but their problem was they failed to act enough against the privately owned industries the country had to reduce reliance on oil.
Right.
>>Venezuela has been overly dependent on oil since it was first discovered there in the 1920s, including through right wing neoliberal governments of the 1980s and 1990s, so Chavez's failure to diversify the economy is nothing unique to socialism, but is actually something Venezuelan governments have failed at for 80 years.<<
If he'd maintained the status quo, that would have been a fair enough comment. If he'd used the record oil prices to diversify the economy, that would have been brilliant. That he made the problem worse, means the comment is bollocks. Oil now accounts for 96% of Venezuelan exports.
And again: They had serious problems when oil prices were at their peak.
>>Chavez failure to challenge the flow of capital in Venezuela has allowed companies who don't like him to hoard goods and ruin the economy that way, hence the shortages in Venezuela<<
He challenged too much and made production unprofitable.
If you're making a loss on everything you do, you stop doing stuff. What do you expect to happen? Doing nothing is cheaper than doing something.
>>The crisis in Venezuela is not the fault of socialism, but is the fault of factors that are unique to Venezuela and the fault of governments prior to Chavez as well as Chavez himself, meaning socialism is not responsible for Venezuela's current issues
<<
Sure, a ruined economy isn't the fault of socialism. It's just coincidence that shortages, corruption and economic collapse are things that happen over and over again.
To the extent that when people are asked for examples of socialist successes, they almost invariably point to Capitalist states like Sweden and Norway.
1
-
>>Also, your beloved ideology of "Free-market Capitalism" is not responsible for major growth in most parts of the world. The basis of South Korea's economic boom we see today was laid down by the military dictatorships of the 1950s, 60s,70s and 80s when a series of 5 year plans told businessman where to build factories and what they had to be. If they refused, their properties were nationalized<<
Authoritarianism works pretty well when things are really bad. They're generally incapable of going the final mile when things are getting good, though.
>>In China, the wealthiest company owners have close links with the communist party<<
Yes. It's how they keep their wealth safe. If the Communist party decides you're an enemy, you're dead. The solution? Be friendly.
>>Some of the largest growth rates in history have come about thanks to state intervention in the economy and not the lack of it. <<
Actually true. And I did pick on up 'growth rates'
But:
1. See what I say earlier about when things are bad.
2. If you're starting from a really low basis (as China was when it ditched the attempt at Socialism) percentages are easy.
>>The current system of capitalism is doomed to keep repeating economic crash after economic crash until there is no more money for the rich to take from the poor and demand ceases.<<
So.... In this scenario, you'd expect the portion of those living on a dollar a day and below to increase, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg
>>The main reason Chavez won the 1999 election was the wealth inequality in Venezuela<<
Yep. People thought he could fix the problem. Turns out they were right and wrong, in the worst possible way.
>>Also under Chavez, the economy grew until the oil price crash of 2014<<
The crisis started in 2013.
Oil price crash of 2014 was late 2014. Here's an article from January 2014.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959
But what's really funny is that I pointed this out in the last post, and you simply ignored that and continued to state the same shit. Do you think of yourself as an honest person?
>>after which it collapsed<<
Before which it was collapsing.
>>Feel free to criticise Chavez for not diversifying the economy, but trying to make out that socialism is at fault is rather stupid<<
Because of things that happened after the collapse started?
Causality doesn't work that way.
>>Secondly, Venezuela was not a rich country when Chavez came to power and never has been a rich country<<
Compared with whom?
Compared with post-Chavez Venezuela, it was absolutely loaded.
>>If you know anything about how economics and production of goods works, you will know that primary resources (oil, coal, fish etc.) sell for alot less than secondary goods that are produced using primary resources (steel etc). No government in Venezuela had even bothered to do that and with the focus of manufacturing now in China and other East Asian states, this would be an expensive process and with his promises of wealth redistribution, this would simply not work. If he fails with his election promises, he gets voted out, quite simple really. <<
'member the National Assembly? 'member when it had power? 'member when the people voted for 2/3 opposition members?
I 'member.
I also 'member the rise of the National Constituent Assembly, which shits all over your implication that the elections there are free and fair.
>>"If you reduce demand, you take a loss on everything you do"
How you ever heard of Keynesian economic<<
I've searched for that text, and can't see where I said it.
The closest I can see is:
"If you're making a loss on everything you do, you stop doing stuff. What do you expect to happen? Doing nothing is cheaper than doing something."
Now if search has chosen this time to fail, or if I said it elsewhere, I apologise (and would suggest keeping comments on what's said in a particular thread, or sourcing the origin)
But otherwise, it looks like you've intentionally made a straw man. In that case, why the dishonesty? Considering you're ignoring things you dislike to repeat discredited statements, I'm finding it difficult to believe you're speaking in good faith.
>>Well Norway has a larger state sector than Venezuela, so why is Venezuela socialist and Norway capitalist<<
Literally answered in the first line of the post you're responding to.
"The attempt at Socialism is damaging enough."
You can argue all day whether they're socialist (I'd say they're not. Although at some point, you have to wonder how much of an economy they stuill have) but that they're attempting to be socialist is indisputable.
If I invest in Norway, I know the Norwegian government will respect the private property I've bought a share of, and my investment will be safe from them.
If I invest my money in Venezuela, I have no such guarantee.
>>Your assertion that I'm using "coincidences" is also rather stupid. Any crisis like this is caused by multiple factors (in this case its a mixture of the Oil Price crash of 2014, <<
I'm loving the repeated lie that problems that started in 2013 and were well underway by January 2014 were caused by an event that happened July/August 2014.
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
You can see the prices here.
>>Venezuelan dependency on oil and not the greatest fiscal policies by the Venezuelan state <<
'not the greatest fiscal policies'
THat we can agree on.
Socialist policies are almost never 'the greatest fiscal policies'
It wasn't dependency on oil, though, as it was collapsing while oil was near its peak.
I know I've said this many times, but you ignored it before, so seem to need to have it repeated.
>>as well as US sanctions in place since 2003 when the CIA launched a military coup that overthrew Chavez but then his supporters ran the military from town).<<
How about you give the details of those sanctions, as well as the dates?
Who/what they targeted is a good one.
>>What Im saying is it is factors unique to Venezuela and not just SOCIALISM as your asserting.<<
Factors unique to the USSR
Factors unique to North Korea
Factors unique to East Germany
Factors unique to Yugoslavia (Touted as a success. It really isn't)
Factors unique to pre-Deng Xiaoping China.
Yes. All unique factors. Nothing in common.
>>Your thinking is way too simplistic for a highly complex world and economic system where different factors and unobservable structures are working together to cause events<<
And you're completely refusing to look at what the failures have in common.
Seriously, when there's a large amount of failures, you look at what they have in common. You can find any number of things that set them apart. It's the things in common that are important.
If I've got a hundred people who smoke a pack a day and have lung cancer, I don't look at what sports they play, what car they drive, what kind of job they have. I look for the thing they've got in common. Which is exactly what you wouldn't do.
>>And if you want a definition of socialism: Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are collectively owned. With the private sector dominating the Venezuelan economy, I would not call them socialist (the party in charge ideologically is, but the economy isn't and still is in transition, just a very slow one<<
And that transition is amazingly damaging, because the people who make an economy tick are no longer ignorant on what's coming.
If you've never seen a bus before and it's coming right for you, you'll probably stand and get hit.
If you know what'll happen when the bus hits you, you'll get out of the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zhaoraymond8656 >>What did you Westerners say a month ago? Don't you think it's hypocritical to say this now?<<
What's this got to do with whether it's racist or not?
>> Is it that the PRC cannot be trusted or you cannot be trusted?<<
If you decide not to trust us, you can enforce the same testing requirements (which you are)
Anyway, no, the PRC can't be trusted.
>>Also, and most importantly, Taiwan is only a province of China. It has the same status as East Germany. The unification of China is a matter of time. Just like Germany must be unified<<
LOL
LOL LOL LOL
Yeah, I've been hearing this for so long, and so many prime opportunities have been passed up on. Especially considering that HK has ensured the Taiwanese people joining voluntarily (and believing the CCP's promises) is simple, contemptible fiction.
My dear turd polisher, under the CCP the PRC lost the race to become rich before you became old, and the window to even attempt to invade Taiwan is slipping by more every day.
I think the CCP will attempt, but only when the cost of not attempting (emphasis on attempt) becomes higher than the cost of atempting.
And if they thought they could do it with a worthwhile cost (the CCP survived. No-one cares about the PRC) they'd have done it in 2020.
So I'll finish this off with another laugh of contempt at your belief that your cowardly leaders will put their actions where their mouths are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>Social democracy does stem from socialism, believe it or not. But pardon my mistake, i inverted two words. Chavez was a democratic socialist (even if his political thought evolved during his life)<<
Yep. Seems similar, but very, very different.
>>The point is that this is not a matter of socialism or capitalism, it's a matter of authoritarianism<<
Socialism tends to lead to authoritarianism. Over and over and over again.
>>A country needs a mix of capitalism and socialism, and the transition from capitalism to socialism should be a slow evolutionary process. This is the essence of the social democracy<<
So my takeaway from that is you still think socialism is the providing of taxpayer funded social services and general usage of taxes to redistribute wealth. It isn't.
For the rest of it, I really have to wonder what you think capitalism and socialism are. From a definitional point of view. I asked previously, but you didn't actually put in an answer.
Your hint is: It's about who owns the means of production. (Production. The things that make an economy an economy. So generally, actually making stuff)
As for this:
>>You say capitalism brings people out of poverty? It does not. But it produces wealth, which should be partially redistributed to the population in the form of education, health care and social assistance.<<
How do you bring people out of poverty if not by producing wealth?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>+Robert Bray I'm curious. What exactly do you think socialism is?<<
An economy system in which the means of production (as in: The wealth generating bits. You can't run an economy on free healthcare, after all) is publicly (realistically state. I can't think of another way in which that would be expected to work) owned.
>> If you think it's when the government has total control of the means of production, that's not it.<<
It was it before it was found to be a really, really bad idea.
If the USSR had lived up to its promises, I can guarantee it still would be it.
>> It just bothers me when people say that "socialism is the worst thing in the world" and act as if all socialism is one in the same. I've literally heard people claiming that Britain or France are communist states because they dare offer more affordable college. <<
They're idiots and wrong on the definition. Actually even more wrong, considering how far Communism is from anything we've even had a shot at attempting.
>>For example, China is a one party state<<
Yep.
>>with an economy owned and operated by the state<<
Not really. China's economy is mostly privately owned now. About 70%
However, if the state steps in, GL/HF stopping it.
>>Aside from China's five economic zones, the society operates as what we would call a socialist economy<<
This was true in the 70's. Now Capitalism is everywhere.
>>Now, I would never say to adopt the way that China operates as a viable solution to economic issues. The government may be effective at getting things done due to being one party, but stiffling opposition is not the American way. But credit where it is due. The country has seen unimaginable growth, and is the second largest economy in the world. <<
After embracing Capitalism.
And... Lots of cracks showing. It's not a healthy economy.
>>Another example. We have an issue with student loan debt. If studies showed that a way to ease this debt was to make college more affordable so young people could put that money into the economy, then I would agree. Because the system we have now is obviously flawed.<<
The average degree adds something like a million to lifetime earnings. That's average of all degrees, good and bad.
If your degree is so far below average that it won't pay for itself at full prices, it's probably a really bad idea to do that degree. I mean, even if it was completely free, it's probably a waste of 3-5 years of your life.
I'm Australian, it's subsidised, but that's still the math I'll do and I'll tell anyone else to use. At international rates, my degree was about $80k USD (from 2010) in Computer Science.
The jobs it lead me to pay for it free and clear about every six months. With pay increases in IT becoming a bit crazy, I wouldn't be surprised if that's every three or four months soon. (It seems like a shitload of cash, but I wouldn't have imagined being what I'm on now two years ago, so.... Anything's possible)
Seriously, have a look at what the people who complain about the cost of education actually study. With the exception of doctors (A couple of hundred K in debt sounds like a lot until you see what they earn, then it seems like a fantastic investment) it's fairly easy to predict.
Basically, it's an investment, but the people complaining about it don't see it as an investment. They see it as something else, then whine about the cost of that something else.
>>Yes, I know this doesn't exactly correlate to a socialist society. And I'm sorry if I strayed from the topic. What I am trying to say is that the reason for a countries success is not always gauranteed by it's economic systems. A complete free market society without government control leads to monopolies, and a truly socialist economy can lead to political instability.<<
Yes and no...
Breathing oxygen doesn't guarantee I'll be a success. Attempting to abandon it guarantees I'll fail.
Capitalism doesn't guarantee success, but ditching it is a pretty efficient recipe for disaster.
1
-
1
-
>>Yes and no. That's it if you boil it down to its basic and essential components. While that definition is technically( The people own the means if production. Not the state. If the state-owned production, it would be a small group owning the means of production. Exactly what they fight<<
You'll notice I said public, realistically the state. That's about the most feasible way I can think of.
>>Exactly what they fight. The government handles distribution, not owning production<<
Which, taking yours further, still puts a small group of people owning a crucial piece. Ask any of the 19th century railway tycoons just how powerful owning the means of distribution is.
As well as what has been reported from Venezuela. Supplies withheld from opponents and given to supporters.
>>, what I was attempting to get at was that there are many different types of socialist philosophies. Many of which argue for various things. They can be market economies or non-market economies, utopian, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism<<
And any attempts end up the same way. Over and over again.
>>Governments today can still affect the prices of goods and services through taxes. Just because the government doesn't technically own it doesn't mean it has absolutely no say in what private businesses can and can't do. The government watches private businesses to make sure that all companies have a chance at success. Companies can affect how closely the government watches through lobbying but that's neither here nor there.<<
You're getting into the realm of Socialism being a synonym for government here.
>>You got me there. I will retract that statement. But it is safe to say that China has stricter regulations on goods and services. Not necessarily to favor the worker, but the government.<<
On paper, they have very strict and normally very good regulations.
However, they're not applied remotely evenly.
Assume that murder is illegal.
Now assume that I won't be prosecuted for it, but you will.
That puts you at a bit of a disadvantage against me.
>>Healthy no. Effective, yes. While the growth of China has slowed down, it is expected to be the largest economy in the world by the 2030's. While I am not a fan of the way China conducts, anything really, I still must give them credit. <<
It also has the largest population. If it had the population of my country (Australia) you'd be hard pressed to think of a single reason to give a damn about its economic performance.
On top of this, what it also has (Thanks in part to the one child policy) is a complete shitload of generally poorly educated people (If you were educated during the cultural revolution, your education probably has serious problems) hitting retirement age, with no-one to replace them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:Population_pyramid_of_China_2016.png
Retirement age is 60, BTW. With the type of jobs so many of those work, I doubt they'll be able to extend it.
>>What I was arguing here was that obviously, something has helped economies like China boom. Embracing Capitalism and using their large societies to build the economy obviously were contributing factors, but the government helping to regulate these businesses contributed too<<
When I go to China, I generally see little evidence of widespread regulation.
Which is why we're careful about where we eat. Is it a lamb kebab? Or is it a rat kebab? Was the oil at some point taken from a drain?
Or if I'm a mother. Is it all milk powder? Or is it half milk powder with Melanine used to make it appear to be all milk powder? (Walk into your local chemist at some point and count the Chinese buying stuff. They're doing it because what we sell is real. You can trust it. That's not the case there)
China's economic miracle isn't due to their regulation (again, you're getting dangerously into 'socialism is a synonym for government' territory here) but due to that they stopped actively trying to screw things up.
>> I am not arguing that we should adopt a Chinese economy, I am saying that lumping all socialism into a category of evil and totalitarianism, and pretending that it has no merit to modern society is an ignorant way of looking at it.<<
From this post, I'm getting the impression that enacting laws for things like truth in advertising or taxing goods are classed as Socialism in your book.
Which in turn means you've made it into an effectively meaningless concept.
So to put what you seem to be saying another way: Yeah, government is frequently good. We agree.
...
>>There are reasons why companies adopt more socialist principles, and there are reasons why the United States adopts its own social services. Rather than pretending that we don't and ignoring all arguments the system has to offer, we need to look at all viable options in order to help boost our economy.<<
Social services aren't Socialism.
They're things that are compatible with Socialism. They're also things that are compatible with Capitalism.
>>Kinda. First off its around $500,000 rather than a million, and secondly while that may be true, in America it is not at all guaranteed that you will find a job in your field after earning your degree.<<
Nothing is guaranteed, but that doesn't change what I'd said.
Not all degrees are equal. It's as simple as that. The people who complain tend to simply be people who made blatantly bad choices.
>>I never asked to ditch it. I just want us as a society to stop seeing socialism as a dirty word, or a failed economic system with nothing to offer. Every idea has reasons for why they become popular, and reasons for why they work or fail. I do not want to ditch capitalism. Venezuela never even did that. I want to see what works in this economic system and see if integrating it could help the economy.<<
And again here, we're getting back to that you seem to view socialism as a synonym for government. If a government isn't socialist under the wide net you've cast here, it almost certainly isn't even a government.
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
In a similar boat, except I went to university. I'd had a career before that, though.
I'm 35, about a decade in Linux, plus a few years in Networks. Looking for my 12th job, earning an indecent amount of money that I've worked my arse off for. I've changed country twice, city three times, and if things go well, changing country again soon.
And then I see people who've actively chosen to take shit jobs and refuse to look elsewhere be held up as examples of things being wrong with society.
Yeah, I'm painfully lucky. At the same time, I did the bare minimum that they refused to. I changed jobs whenever something better came along and I kept looking for the next one.
No, fuck that. This isn't a problem with society. This isn't a problem with our economies. This is a problem with them making the decision to stay in one shitty job and whine about it rather than looking for something different. These people are people who'd fail under any system. They're not slaves. They're children.
If they showed any signs of people the sort of people who'd work to improve their own lives rather than stay at the status quo, I'd have buckets of sympathy for them and support anything that would help them help themselves.
But no. Instead, they're looking for someone to fill the place of their parents.
And someone who recently made a serious attempt to become President is actually using them as evidence that the world is fucked. The world isn't fucked, these people are.
And to cap it off?
Guess who's paying the difference between their crap choices and genuine poverty (which I've seen much of. I doubt a single one of these people has a pit toilet or dirt floors.)?
It's not them, I can guarantee that much. My tax bill gives a pretty clear hint as to who it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BioBiro so that's fine.
But companies expecting to be profitable enough to survive competition, economic downturns and to strengthen their position and grow isn't?
It's the same logic.
I could sum it up even now succinctly.
Both are doing it for selfish reasons. It's just that one side appears more noble because we, personally, find it easier to identify with that person.
How many people does a company that's gone out of business employ?
Incidentally, I can't help but notice how quickly you abandoned any defence of your ideas to replace it with what amounts to "but that means people are selfish"
This isn't a moral debate, it's a practical one.
Yes, people are selfish.
.....
Any idea you have that doesn't take that into account will fail badly.
Edit: I've got to ask, and this isn't intended as an attack.
What kind of environments have you worked in that make all this surprising to you?
It's obvious that you've never really thought about automation, that's fine. Most people don't think about it, but the idea that people (employers are people, too) are selfish jerks who are looking out for themselves can't possibly be news.
1
-
1
-
@BioBiro >>I don't think people are wrong to be annoyed at getting laid-off, while the bossman pays himself a juicy bonus and outsources their jobs to India. It's human nature to be envious in that situation. People aren't wrong for experiencing those emotions; it's instinct.
<<
I didn't say it was wrong or unreasonable to say that, I said envy is bad.
>>It was fairly obvious my idea would lead to offshoring; the regulation I suggested is little different from a large corporate tax increase. I suggested it, because I wanted to hear you admit that the unlimited pursuit of profit leads to human misery.
<<
Not a difficult thing to get me to admit.
Although if you look at Venezuela, you can see which is the lesser of two evils.
>>No. I'm too concerned about my costs to do that.
<<
Which, according to too many people, makes you a bad person. An exploiter.
>>I did once sacrifice a great deal of money, for the happiness of people I didn't know. Would you like to hear the story behind that?
<<
Sure, but I doubt it'll change the overall logic behind the employee/employer relationship.
>>In my experience of being an employee and employer, people don't leave the moment they receive better offers. I've seen lots of people remain in their jobs for long periods (years), being paid uncompetitive rates, because there are other aspects to their job that they enjoy. Surely you've experienced that, too?
<<
My first job.
My fourth job.
Both were expensive mistakes. I now view getting comfortable as an indication that it's time to leave. From this, you can see why my sympathy for this person is so low. She made her choices for comfort and is complaining about the money. I made my choices for money, but you don't see me complaining about the discomfort. What I do get annoyed at, however, is grown adults expecting to be taken care off like children because they don't like the consequences of their choices.
My 6th job taught me that only the first contract renewal matters, and that for no better reason than it shows your next employer you didn't screw up. That came close to losing me my sanity, in addition to what would have been a very good addition to my CV at Redhat.
Now I'm living in Sydney, separated from my family who are in Brisbane, because there's things we'd like to do, and those things require money more money than I'd make in Brisbane. Choices have consequences.
>>I have no idea what that is. Do you get to use Visual Basic?
<<
You don't know what Linux is?
And I'd use VB at gunpoint.... Or as the result of someone who's paying me telling me I had to use it. Same reason I used a Macbook at my last place.... I hated that thing.
1
-
@BioBiro >>Would you go as far as to say that their feelings are 'justified'?
<<
I'd say it doesn't matter.
The world isn't fair. Some people are smarter, some people are better looking, some people have the right parents, some people just have dumb luck. The only question is what benefits them the most? Going balls-deep anti-inequality has a tendency to end badly.
So, yeah. It's justified.
shrugs
>>What is the difference between me, and a big fancy suit guy who off-shores thousands of jobs but pays himself a huge bonus? Is there any difference? Are we the same?
<<
It's only a question of scale.
And the guy who offshores thousands of jobs has benefitted thousands of people who probably need the job more than the people who lost it. The only thing that makes the newly unemployed special is that you can see them. From their point of view, that big fancy suit guy is a saint.
>>Inherited my mother's house when she died (was paid-off, no mortgage). Sold it for $100,00, instead of $175,000 (market rate). Discount was given simply because I felt like being nice to the couple who looked at it. Didn't earn the money, so felt I should give some if it away. Or, looking at it another way: my stupidity and innocence cost me $75,000.
<<
This is why I do the math on any major decision. There's a big gap between what I'd like and what is a good idea.
>>She's putting in a hard day's work, and expect's a fair day's pay. How is that child-like? I don't get it. She's asking to be paid enough, so she can take care of herself.
<<
She's had decades in which to make use of her experience. She's in a job that teenagers can do.
>>You've certainly got a particular style to your movements in the job market, and some pretty strong opinions. I know this is a bit insulting, but you don't actually sound very happy. Like, I don't get that sense from you. You sound like you're on mission, that you're only interested in the almighty Australian dollar, and that you look down on those who aren't interested in that.
<<
Oh, I'm very happy.
But when logic comes up, emotionally I shut down. Because emotions aren't useful when it comes to solving problems or improving matters. It's been incredibly useful when dealing with a high-strung wife and a child who is far too much like me for comfort. (She's Chinese. Her idea of what a student should be like is 100% not what my daughter is like.)
I'm interested in more than the dollar. I'm interested in my family and what's best for us in ten, twenty, thirty years time. Money is a means to an end. It's something that's quite uninteresting on its own. But what you can do with it, what stresses it removes, what opportunities it opens, those are extremely interesting. How I can position my daughter for the best start in life I can give her is also extremely important. Which as I write this is the big difference with this person. I get the feeling she's never had to care about anyone except herself. She's never had responsibility, so has never had to grow up.
And I don't look down on people for not being interested in it. I look down on people for not being interested in it who then complain that they don't have it.
I respect people who own their choices and the consequences. I don't respect people who repeatedly make bad choices then turn themselves into victims because of it. To me, there's no difference between her and someone who spends decades smoking then thinks it's unfair he has lung cancer. Consequences were easy to predict. Choices were made. Even now, she still doesn't see why she should change.
This is something I'd expect from a teenager. She's not a teenager, but she's still got the attitude of a spoilt teenager.
>>I'm just having a bit of silly fun. You're into all that... no-drivers, broken-features Linux stuff, are you? I tried distributions a bunch of times over the years, and they always give me lip, and I end-up installing them.
<<
Oh yeah, 100% - My early days were filled with the screams of 'why?'
Fortunately, things have improved out of sight. It'll be a long time before I touch an ATI card again though. Also be a long time before I bother to install anything except Ubuntu at home. (Redhat is lovely for servers. Not so much for desktops)
1
-
@BioBiro >>I don't think it is, though. I can't imagine myself fucking-over people that much, for my own self-interest. I have too much empathy, and too strong-a moral code to behave like that. I might own my own business, but I was still cheering-on Occupy Wall Street a few years ago, until the end.
<<
That's why your business won't become big.
That might not be a problem for you, but the bigger ones are run by people who are capable of being assholes, because to do that, and have the business survive, they need to be assholes.
>>So, if it was American workers losing their jobs to India, it would be accurate to describe the bossman as "anti-American", but not as a bad person, as such?
<<
It depends on whether the reason was better value for money, or not liking America.
>>Dude, that sounds like the perfect home life for me. I'm single and would totally trade.
<<
Yeah, it's fun. It also motivates you to be the best you can be.
>>That's great, but can you take it a step further, now - can you care about those who aren't you or your family? Care with your money, I mean.
<<
I've been to India and China.
I've been chased by beggars. I mean this literally. After giving to one.
No. It's too easy to destroy yourself trying to be nice.
>>I think I understand what you're saying about money and responsibility, although because I'm not as passionate about it, it's difficult to judge how much I understand how you feel. I definitely get a slightly... 'warped' feel to your opinion. Like, there's an element of Gordon Gecko to it, and it's off-putting.
<<
I'm pragmatic. I've seen the results of good intentions firsthand. I've got in-laws who were starving during the great leap forward because of good intentions. I've read up on the results of good intentions leading to sweatshops being shut down in India, which led to child prostitution. I've seen how people's good intentions lead to children being used and abused in Europe (Gypsy beggars) and India. If people didn't give to begging children, there's thousands of Romanian kids who might be in school having a chance at a future right now.
I'm not an asshole because I'm an asshole. I'm an asshole because I look at the expanded consequences of easy moral decisions and they have a tendency to horrify me.
I'm an asshole because I look beyond what I can personally see and recognise the importance of the bigger picture.
People I don't see are people, too.
1
-
@BioBiro
>>It hurts, to be told that.<<
Being serious:
If I were your friend and you were just starting out on what I thought a bad idea.
It would hurt you a bit to be told it was a bad idea.
It would hurt you a lot if I cared about your feelings and blindly supported you.
I'd recently had a friend call me up awkwardly to tell me I was looking downright unhealthy in a photo I'd put up. He was a bit shocked to hear me say I'd looked at the same photo and came to the same conclusion. Some would call that mean. I'd call it being a friend. You'd probably find that a large part of this woman's problem was she never had someone who was a good enough friend to tell her she was making retarded choices.
>>It can't be about survival if they're already financially successful and paying themselves enormous salaries. At a certain point it crosses-over into greed.
<<
Because financially successful now doesn't mean financially successful later. Markets change. Just ask Apple what's happening now that they've got one single successful product and a changing market that doesn't really give a damn about it anymore.
>>How are they not anti-American if they're offshoring American jobs simply for superior value for money? The boss is smart enough to understand what he's doing, and who that'll effect, surely?
<<
So, I'm anti-every-group-I-don't-buy-something-from?
I'm Anti-Apple because I'll actively argue against them. Great products, but I think for the industry as a whole, it's a horrible company.
I'm anti-Lenovo because, well... They've got a history of adding a bit extra to their phones and laptops.
I'm heavily anti-China because of the CCP. (Specifically I'm against the govt)
But I'm not anti-Canada, I just choose to go to other places for my holidays. I know the effect of people choosing not to go there on their tourism industry. I bought a Mazda, rather than a BMW or Volkswagen. Does that make me anti-German? I bought a Mazda rather than a Holden, does that make me anti-Australian? I know the same things as that boss does. What makes me different?
>>We've exchanged a few messages, now, and you do kind of sound like a mean, and slightly radicalized, person - only on this specific topic, of course. You don't come across as an asshole about IT, for example - only finance. And, I bet (but not with money) I'm not the first person to tell you that.
<<
Again, people who look beyond what's right in front of their faces often do look that way. By contrast, I'd call you a kind-hearted disaster waiting to happen. If you go to the wrong place, you will be fleeced. (It's happened to me.) As you saw with the people you undersold your parent's house to, you will be taken advantage of by people. Also happened to me. If you were in charge of a company that hit bad times, I'm fairly convinced you'd be unable to make the hard decisions to ensure the company survived. I'm not sure how that would benefit any of the employees. For the record, that's why I refuse to run a company, or even take any management position (lead is fine). I've been in a position where I've had to fire people before. Never again.
I've seen the results of feel-good decisions gone horribly wrong.
Ask Kevin Rudd what happens when you make feel-good decisions, like opening up our borders to boat arrivals.
Ask parents who've lost a child because chemo was too painful so they decided to stop it what happens when you make feel-good decisions and go for alternative remedies.
Ask the people of Venezuela what happens when they make feel-good decisions like driving out the capitalists and focusing everything on helping their poor.
Ask an Indian or Romanian child being used by Fagin-like figures what happens when tourists make feel-good decisions and give them money.
Ask any enabler of an uncontrollable family member what happens when they make the feel-good decision of continuing to fund their problems. (Look up the Dave Ramsey show for examples)
Is it really being 'radical' to care about the wider consequences of something more than the local consequences?
Is it really being 'radical' to consider the complexities of an issue?
Is it even being 'radical' to accept that some people are simply there as a warning to others?
And for that matter, is it really 'radical' to understand that decisions have consequences?
Ask investors in the Chinese stockmarket what happens when they think they'll be protected from negative consequences. My in-laws were almost screwed nicely by their belief that the Chinese govt would keep on propping up the stock market indefinitely.
What's really radical about my position? It's largely summed up as: "We all make choices. If the end result is obvious, don't complain about the end result. Own the bad decisions you've made" What makes this person and people like her different to pack a day smokers who get lung cancer?
1
-
@BioBiro >>I'm hearing a lot of excuses, but no actual criticism of executives paying themselves huge amounts while treating their workers like old spaghetti. If I don't hear any criticism from you, I'm going to start assuming you're okay with their excessive behavior.
<<
The shareholders approve it.
If the shareholders don't want to pay high amounts, they can pay less to get a lesser product.
>>Apple is rolling in money. Serious question: Is Foxconn's work environment justified, because of future potential market instability or similar shareholder concerns?
<<
You'd be getting at the suicide rates, amongst other things.
You might like to compare the Foxconn suicide rates with China as a whole.
It's a massive company. There are going to be suicides.
And all Foxconn has to do is be better than the alternative. It's traditionally been a very desirable job.
>>The fact that you are in such a position of power, whereas they are not. You're just one sale. They control their entire company's employee's well-being, via their job stability and salaries.
<<
And I'm one of many whose cumulative buying decisions end up to make the difference between success and failure.
That I'm smaller doesn't change the ethics of the decision. You might question my ethics, but to me, it looks like you put effort into saying why something that applies to some people doesn't apply to you.
>>I don't know if you think you're actually successful at hiding this, but it's entirely transparent that you don't care about people you have no direct connection to. These scenarios aren't examples of why we all shouldn't help people; they're justifications as to why you shouldn't feel obliged to put your hand in your pocket.
I wish to now come forward and boldly state, that I believe you have a fundamental lack of empathy and compassion.
<<
I'm OK with you believing that.
But, in the end, for people like her... You can't help stupid. I'll save my sympathy for where it's deserved and my efforts for where it'll make a real difference. (Currently tutoring someone in Vietnam who's earning about a tenth of what this person is in using Python and doing data analysis. I've been helping migrants with English for university since I was about 16. I'm still doing it for high school students. I've got all the time in the world for people who want to improve their own situation. In her case. She doesn't care enough to improve herself. If she doesn't care, why should I?)
>>You're at the point where you're literally arguing that being nice and being loyal are negative qualities. Isn't that a bit far down the road? I think so.
<<
I've had this position for years. Yes. For your professional life, being nice and loyal are negative qualities. The person with the biggest interest in you is you.
I don't mean be nasty to your coworkers. God forbid. I mean the moment you can get a better deal elsewhere, you absolutely should go for that better deal. I have IBM to thank for that rather expensive lesson. (Cost twice what my degree did. Worth so much more)
>>The fact that working for a living is applauded and respected, whereas smoking is the opposite. After writing this sentence, I started to ponder the thought: Why does a job exist that doesn't pay enough to live-on, anyway?
<<
So. She's got food in her belly. A roof over her head. Carpet or tiles under her feet. Clean water. Healthcare. I could go on.
Does she really look like someone who's not paid enough to live on to you?
What's she missing?
I used to live in Fiji. Our neighbours had dirt floors.
My wife's former boss shared a bed with 6 other people in a place in Northern China with no heating.
If you don't think she's paid enough to live on, all I can say is you've never seen poor people. I have.
>>I'm really struggling, in my mind, to validate the concept of "This woman went to work for thirty years, at a job that doesn't pay her enough to live on, anymore. This is her fault, so fuck her, right?" It seems like a warped view, to me. I know you want to defend yourself with "Hey, listen, I'm not naive, I got a hot Chinese wife and I know how the world works - cynical is realism, baby," but at a certain point it just crosses over into being a jerk.<<
Ok, I'm a jerk. I'm a jerk who works hard, pays high taxes and helps strangers who want to improve by teaching them to fish, rather than giving a fish.
And she's someone who has spent decades passing up every single opportunity to improve herself.
Yes. Fuck her. Fuck anyone who won't expects the world to help them while refusing to lift a finger to help themselves. You want to improve your life? Work at it. Don't want to work? Deal with a poverty-level retirement. We've all got choices. We all make them. We've all got consequences.
Nobody is owed anything. So yes, fuck people who choose to make their own lives worse then blame everyone else.
But in many ways: The real villain here is Disney.
The humane thing to do would have been to fire her decades ago and force her to learn that there are other choices. They're villains because they were enablers of stupidity.
Incidentally: This attitude doesn't apply to people who were victims of accidents, were robbed, born with disabilities or whatever else. All the sympathy in the world for them.
I've also got pots of sympathy for people who recognise a mistake and are willing to correct it.
But her? With decades in which to choose, and still not seeing why it's up to her to ensure that her life is good?
No, 100% fuck her. Save it for someone who deserves it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BioBiro >>So far, you've not provided me with an example. Would you be able to do so now, to prove me wrong?
<<
I hit the roof when it was revealed that Google was looking to re-enter the Chinese market. That's short-term economic gain and helping to prop up a dictatorship run by a party that's killed more people than Hitler managed.
It's not the doing business there bit I've got a real problem with. It's the associated string of helping a murderous dictatorship censor information.
And generally speaking, I'm against conflicts of interest. I'm against companies doing deals with unions without union members knowing. Most of the other stuff I'm against is already illegal, though (such as falsifying data)
>>That's actually a very realistic point, the more I think about it. I, personally, like to put as much blame on the people actually exploiting the laws, as the laws themselves<<
They're commonly sociopaths. It doesn't work. They don't care.
Sociopaths are surprisingly good at running companies, as long as they're watched closely. They're able to make the tough decisions. There have been post-nuclear war plans to put them in charge for the same reasons.
Then we get Enron. But, that was illegal as hell.
I'm also against things in general that hurt the company. Within our existing laws, attitudes that hurt a company normally hurt others. That being said, at the same time, they provide opportunities for others.
>>However, what am I supposed to do about it? I, nor we, can make unpleasant people be nice - it's not possible.<<
Which is why I view failures like that as legislative failures.
>>That said, I suspect that - in the future - when regulations are proposed - you are probably going to be generally be against those that side-with workers, much more than I am. The reason I have that impression, is because of your earlier responses.
<<
Because I'm against supporting people's mistakes. In particular, when they continue to make the same mistake.
Fair enough. Some people think it's OK for adults to be treated like children. I just don't happen to be one of them. With exception for those with mental problems, etc, obviously.
>>Why do you choose to keep using metaphors that aren't apt, regarding her? "Working for a living" can't be described as "playing."
<<
If she was working for a living, she wouldn't still be at Disney. She's not there for money, she's there because it's fun. She's playing.
>>This is just the 'bootstraps' mantra, repackaged. You can't fool me!
<<
Bootstraps is telling them to sort themselves out.
Fear of failure is giving them a reason to sort themselves out.
I'm a terrible student. I passed uni because failure was not an option. I didn't go there intending to be the best, I went there intending to not fuck up. The consequences of failure were fairly terrifying. It wasn't a pure solo effort, but the difference is I recognised what I needed and asked for help where I couldn't do it myself, with the goal of improving myself in mind. I didn't expect to be given good grades just because I wanted them. I expected (and received) the support I needed to get myself in a position where I was capable of earning good grades.
She's just expecting the grades.
>>The fact that I am defending this woman, is the perfect proof that what you said should be true, yet I feel so strongly that it is not. I believe that I do care about the whole, far more than you do. How can I not, if I am defending the common worker who is taken advantage-of, when you aren't?
<<
Well, I don't think anything is being taken advantage of except her poor decision making abilities.
If she was forced to work there against her will, that would be something else entirely. That would be slavery. It's pretty clear that's not the case, though.
>>No, wait - I came up with a cleverer comeback to this one: The whole is just made-up of many random individuals. Suck it!
You know what it is? I think I actually care not about random individuals, nor the whole. I think what I care strongly about, are the exceptions. Do you think so, too?
<<
Yeah, that seems fair.
I think you can't save everyone, and you can only help someone who wants to be helped.
She doesn't want to be helped, she wants to be enabled. Helping her would be assisting her in finding a better job (Something which I have almost zero doubt she's capable of getting) enabling is supporting her bad decisions. (And is bloody expensive to society as a whole)
If someone doesn't want to be helped, well.... That is entirely their choice.
In that case, I'd rather divert the resources to those who can't make the choice, or do want help.
>>Ohoho~, ahaha~!<<
What? A lot of those will be migrant workers. They need to live somewhere.
>>Who the McMuffin would actually believe that figure? 22 per 100,000? They're obviously not telling the truth, which is not unusual for them.<<
Annualised, that's a pretty normal suicide rate. It's twice the US rate, but still nothing eyebrow-raising. It's about on par with Japan.
1
-
@BioBiro >>Yes, but - as you said - that's a matter of political corruption, not of the excesses of capitalism. What I'm asking for, is you to criticize the latter.
<<
That's an interesting goalpost shift there.
Anyway: Our laws protecting workers are fairly first class. We're in the realm where anything that's not covered is highly debatable at best, and an outright no brainer "this is OK" at worst.
>>Let me phrase it as a question: You said you want the law to change, and I agreed with you. What legislation would you create, to prevent a CEO paying himself $70 million per annum, while paying his staff the minimum wage and robbing them of every benefit legally allowed?
<<
None.
>>When I form political opinions, it's always on the understanding that my solutions must fit to every American, in every possible circumstance; if you don't, then people fall down the cracks. I know it's tempting to not help those who are rude or refuse help - I feel the same way - but I don't think it's Presidential to do that.
<<
Who said anything about what's presidental?
And what happens when the returns diminish to the point that helping these people just hurts everyone?
>>I don't think I can argue in her favour, any longer. The video made her look like a bad person (perhaps she is, in some ways), you feel she's a bad person... why am I picking this hill to die on, for some chubby middle-aged broad?
<<
Honestly? This is something that amazes me.
I've got no doubt that there are thousands upon thousands of genuinely good examples of people who've been shafted by life's unfairness.
This person is not one of them. I can't begin to comprehend the logic that says putting her in front of a camera is a good idea.
If she was the best example, my response would be 'Well this shows how good things really are'
But I find it impossible to believe that she's the best example. At the same time, if she's not the best example, why put her up there?
Either things are better than I believe, or someone very, very stupid/delusional is choosing their examples.
>>What annoys me, are the comments ridiculing her. I look at her situation, and I just think of the many others who are in her positions, who aren't unpleasant people, who may be genuinely struggling. Why would people laugh at them? Why is laughter the appropriate response to someone being paid so little, that they can't afford to live near where they work? Isn't that a sign of a systematic failure in capitalism? Why is the worker being laughed at for being in that situation? I feel anger when I think of that.
<<
The issue to me is that she made the choice to keep working there.
In many ways, she's enabling Disney in doing things you disagree with. If she left, that's that tiny bit more reason for Disney to offer more competitive rates. It's a grain of sand, but enough grains and you've got a desert.
>>We seem to fundamentally disagree, to some extent. I wish to ask you something: Do you think that personal life experience(s) may be clouding my opinions, or do you think my opinions are formed clearly and purely by my heart and brain?
<<
Of course your personal experiences are clouding your opinions. Just like mine are.
A big difference is I've known people who are genuinely hard up. Who have genuinely had an unfair life. Who've put in every effort, but have still failed. She is not one of them. My big issue is that she refuses to lift a finger to help herself, but expects others to help her. I have zero respect for people like that. Zero sympathy. I see zero reason they deserve anything except the consequences of their own inactions and I simply can't understand why any hard worker who's put effort into bettering him/herself would think otherwise. Seriously don't see the logic.
As you say. She's not the hill you want to die on.
1
-
@BioBiro >>Honest, but then you're not taking an active-enough stance against corporate greed and unfairness. I throw shame on you, for this :throws shame:.
<<
1. There'll never be an 'active-enough' stance. 100 years ago, my views would have been considered radical by the radicals. It'll keep shifting.
2. If you try to fleece someone who'll be welcome in any country and has the resources to move to any country, what do you think that person (or company) will do?
>>I can't really see an obvious example of that, unless you're referring to taxes. Drug addicts may be surly and poor-quality economic units (bit like me, heh heh~), but we still spend taxpayers money on trying to treat them - and quite right too! Would you rather just let them rot?
<<
No, we've got a limited amount of resources, so we spend resources where we get the best return on investment. To help the largest number of people.
This applies everywhere. To almost every situation. If you've got one person whose problems can be fixed with $100k and ten people whose problems can be fixed with $10k who do you prioritise?
If you prioritise the one person, how would you explain to the ten that they're just not even a tenth as important as that one?
You see the same thing with organ donations. The recipient IS graded by who'll get the most value out of limited resources. At that point, you ARE choosing how many people you'll save and letting the rest die.
My Uncle is a 70 year old man with heart, liver and kidney problems bought on by diabetes. Unlimited organs? Sure. Go for it. As it is, not even he can think of a good reason why he should get donated organs. What he gets, someone with decades more to live doesn't.
>>Drug addicts may be surly and poor-quality economic units (bit like me, heh heh~), but we still spend taxpayers money on trying to treat them - and quite right too! Would you rather just let them rot?
<<
Because drug addicts damage everything around them. A drug addict is a painfully expensive thing in any society. Not to mention the danger from those who are forced to resort to crime and ignoring the benefits of someone who's no longer a drug addict.
>>It's blindingly obvious why they put her in front of a camera. It plays into a narrative that the viewers and commenters believe in, and gives them an obvious - and deserving - target to spew a little hatred at, and feel better about themselves. People - especially conservative-leaning people - love this sort of stuff, on YouTube. There's channels full of videos like this, and it's very successful.
<<
You think that was Bernie's goal?
It's him that put her on camera.
>>Why is it always the underpaid worker's fault, and never the greedy company's fault<<
Because no-one has as much of a stake in her future as she does.
She's also free to leave at any time.
>>Why is it always the underpaid worker's fault, and never the greedy company's fault<<
Because the underpaid worker is choosing to remain there.
The worker tries to get the most, the company (why do you only apply greedy to companies? We're all greedy) tries to pay the least.
It's called the free market.
Now, if she was enslaved, my u-turn would be so fast the whiplash would kill you. But she isn't. She's there voluntarily.
>>I'm sure Disney has a queue a mile-long of prospective employees, to hire at the same rate.<<
Wow. It's actually sounding like Disney is providing a desirable job with worthwhile benefits.
It also sounds like they could actually go lower. Which suggests they're paying above market rates.
>>She can sacrifice her job, to very slowly help turn that giant oil-tanker of a hiring policy around?<<
Changing employer = sacrificing your job?
Nobody is saying "quit and be unemployed" they're saying "Find a job somewhere else"
>>Why can't the government intervene and turn it for her?<<
Again. Why can't the government intervene and turn it for her again? (It's been done many, many, many times in the past. Normally for the better, which is why it's difficult for me to come up with an answer to your previously shifted goalpost.)
And then again.
And then again.
And then again.
And whileever there's inequality, there'll be the same argument.
Here's a better idea. Why can't she take some responsibility for her own life and try to turn it herself? Turning up to work day after day, year after year, doing the same thing over and over again doesn't cut it.
I was going to compare it with Groundhog day, but the guy in that actually put huge amounts of effort into improving himself. It would be like groundhog day, except he just did the same thing day after day until the end of time.
>>She's going to work every day! Not lifting a finger? If she was unemployed collecting welfare, you would have been screaming at her to get a job. Now she has, and it's not good enough for you.
<<
She's complaining about her situation while refusing to lift a finger to change it. She might be gaining experience (By this time, she isn't, though) but until she uses what she's learnt to improve her own situation, she's not lifting a finger.
If she was working that job and accepting that she was there BY CHOICE. (FFS. I'm sorry, but how often does it have to be stated that she CHOOSES to work there. She CHOSE to accept those conditions. She CHOSE not to look for something better. Those are her CHOICES. Why do you have this idea that people should be protected from the consequences of their own CHOICES?)
If she was OK with the status quo, I'd see no issue with her remaining in the status quo. Instead, she's complaining about the status quo while being unable to understand why she should look at other jobs that could improve her situation.
As for her choosing to be unemployed. Entirely different again. Personally, I'm against funding the lifestyles of those who choose to not work. If someone can't work, I've got no problem helping that person. If someone chooses not to work, they can starve on the streets for all I care.
You seem to have a real problem understanding choices and their consequences.
So here's one question:
Do you think it's unfair that people who make bad choices should deal with the consequences of those choices?
1
-
@BioBiro >>You've never really been poor, have you?
<<
I haven't. It's a safe bet that no-one reading this has been.
>>And, furthermore, I suspect that you look at yourself as being a success story of the free market, and as something of a rags-to-riches-type character?
<<
My first job was in a meatworks. When I die and go to hell, I'm going right back there.
My second job was lost when my company was taken over, then mismanaged into the ground. When Telstra changed CEO back around 2000, the entire company froze from top to bottom. I'm not talking about mismanagement as in "I'd have done better" I'm talking about mismanaged as in "Everybody refused to make any sort of decision whatsoever for months on end because they weren't sure about the new guy"
And my third was lost due to my own cockup. Coming into work sick is begging for trouble.
Which terrified me (remember I said fear is a great motivator?) because at that point, I was a high school dropout with zero qualifications and nothing to fall back on.
Yeah, I'd say I'm a success story. I wouldn't say rags to riches, but a lot of that is because I've seen poverty. I'm well aware of how many opportunities are available to us simply by virtue of living in a Western country that aren't available to people who are actually poor. Which is a lot of why I've but contempt for people who (like this person. No. Sustaining the status quo doesn't count) who simply refuse to try. We have so many opportunities to better ourselves. To improve our own situation. No other type of culture gives its members anywhere near the number of second chances as we do.
If you've read my other responses, you'll have also noticed I explicitly reserve this for people who don't even put the effort in to improve their lot. Huge wads of support for people who'll put the effort in, though. Free school? Absolutely. Free tertiary education? A sliding scale that steers people towards stuff we need and away from stuff we don't would be ideal (As determined by market rates for people with those qualifications). We do need doctors of medicine. We don't need doctors of 14th century poetry. 100% subsidy for the former, 0% for the latter.
Also: If you want info on how to do things well, you don't listen to the failures except to use them as a model of what not to do. You listen to the success stories.
And yes I'm passionate. I see her belief that it's the responsibility of others to make sure she has a good life as cancerous. Something that can cause untold damage to all of us if it's allowed to spread. Every person who thinks it's the responsibility of other people to make his/her life what he/she thinks it should be is a burden on those who actually put the effort in. That isn't a sustainable attitude.
Letting those who choose to be failures go hang, however.... Yeah, that's sustainable as hell. Particularly for those who might consider those bad choices. I'm currently keeping my friend (who's going into a largely new field) motivated by showing her how big and how rapidly expanding the field she's studying for is. That's a definite carrot (To someone whose daily rate is about the same as this woman's hourly rate, the rewards do seem a little difficult to believe). A stick made by showing people who might consider simply doing nothing how bad things can get has similar value.
>>No. However, I believe there are many situations where letting the full consequences of a bad choice impact the chooser, results in more damage than stepping-in and artificially preventing those consequences from occurring to the chooser<<
There are.
However, we still get back to that you can only help people who want to be helped. She doesn't want to be helped, she wants to be enabled. Two very different things.
Someone who puts up his/her hand and says "How can I improve my life?" - Yeah. All the way, I'd completely support supporting and guiding that person. People who want to improve themselves improve everyone around them.
She's not like that. She doesn't even see why she should be like that. To her, her life is Disney's responsibility in the same way as my daughter's life is completely my responsibility for the next 12.5 years (Yes, I'm counting down) and partially my responsibility for about a decade after that.
>>r. I also believe (well, realistically, I "know") that many situations which appear to be a choice, are actually really not; this element strongly ties in with my point, earlier - I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.<<
I do. But this person isn't one of those people.
Unless you've got information I don't, she isn't tied to Disney or even the location she lives in by anything except her own choice to not look at the wider market.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/mistakesdemotivator.jpeg?v=1416776264
Is the one I had in mind.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/demotivationdemotivator_large.jpeg?v=1414004067
Is one that should probably be in Bob Iger's office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>I think we can meet eachother halfway there, the place to be is somewhere in the middle of those two economic systems<<
Here we're getting definitional.
We probably agree on the real-world result, but the views on the meanings of words are quite different.
I view Socialism as the economic system. You view it as the goals of that economic system. Those are very different things.
>>some need to go in a direction towards the left and some to the right<<
And here I've got an issue because those things are nothing more or less than descriptors of how someone reacts to change.
As a geek who loves change, I'm quite left myself, but I won't touch Socialism. Just because I like change doesn't mean I support bad ideas.
>>The video we're commenting on, however, is very much intent on painting the whole spectrum to the left with a very hard brush<<
What I watched (but it's been a while) was painting Socialism with a very hard brush. Socialism != the left.
>>The intention no doubt is when people talk about socialism (and when they mean what we've been talking about) it imediately puts the worst example front and center to an extent where people write off any necessary movement towards the center as a move towards that worst example which it definitely isn't.<<
Again, this is a problem caused by abuses of the definition of the word, which is something you've been participating in.
Socialism is an amazingly bad idea. That doesn't mean that ideas people associate with socialism are bad ideas, but those things, such as welfare, are not socialism. By definition. They're not even economic systems. They're simply nice things we spend our excess production on.
So if you don't like that, I'd only ask that you stop using words like 'socialistic' as if it's a synonym for Socialism. You're a gift to people who are against things like social services.
>>The question is in that Norway example, would that country do well to be more capitalistic or has it found a good place to be as a mix?<<
It is very capitalist. It supports and encourages private industry. The only exception is the state-owned oil operations. Something which generally isn't an option for most countries.
>>An interesting fact about the nordic countries is that we have all been run by right wing government in the near past and the experience wasn't all good. What was done was that it chipped away at our social security systems and it didn't have the intended effect those governments proclaimed it would have. At the same time a lot of the state run enterprices were privatized and that too wasn't all that great. We were in a good spot you could say, somewhere in the goldylocks zone where I'd argue is the place to be.<<
See, I can't even see a point in replying to that while you're attempting to claim that social security is socialism. It isn't. Go back to my repeated highlighting of the difference between socialist and socialistic.
>>There are two extremes after all and the one is no better than the other.<<
If I had to go balls deep in an extreme, I'd choose Capitalism every time. If for no better reason than it works. It works for no better reason than it harnesses human selfishness, rather than attempts to deny it. It rewards success and punishes failure.
Under Capitalism, I can be the most sociopathic asshole ever to walk the earth, and I help people simply by working and buying things. Intentions don't matter when compared with results.
>>I had a feeling this comment section would be very hard line and I'm glad to have found someone that actually takes the time to look at the whole picture. I hope I haven't come off as a complete dunce either :p<<
Except for this definition thing (which, again, I think is extremely important for reasons previously given) we're probably largely on the same page.
Actually.... That's quite common. The majority of 'Socialists' I've come across aren't Socialists. They just don't understand the term.
An actual Socialist, though, to me is on about the same level as a Neo Nazi. Because after looking at the last century, I can't see a single reason why they shouldn't be classed in that way. An actual Socialist can't want to help the poor, because it never helps the poor (Again: Welfare != Socialism) all it does is punishes the successful, and in the meantime, really screws over the poor. Just ask the tens of millions of Chinese who died of starvation under Mao's lunacy. (I get that Socialism shouldn't lead to dictatorship... But it does. Over and over again. Again, reality > intentions)
I married a Chinese Communist Party member. What I've seen and learnt over the years makes the eventual reality that accompanies an (ultimately failed) attempt at Socialism completely terrifying. 100 million dead, largely during peacetime with nothing to show for it... Nazism only managed something like a third of that number during war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>This is conservative propaganda. Venezuela isn't failing due to it's forum of government. It's failing due to having a extremely corrupt leadership. It's ruled by a dictator stealing the wealth of the nation. This could end up easily happening in a capitalist society as well<<
Except it happens over and over and over again.
So consistently that it's fairly obviously a feature of the system.
>>Some may argue it already is<<
Some argue that lizard people have taken over.
>>As we have our own corrupt leader along with his allies robbing the country.<<
You've got someone whose family appears to be using it for advertising.
He'll be voted out, and if he's broken the law, he'll be done for it.
Now compare that with Maduro.
>>There are many examples of socialism being a success story<<
Patterns say you're about to list a bunch of capitalist states (normally social democracies plus China, which abandoned Socialism decades ago) when asked for these examples.
>>Many of are current allies have socialist democracies, and they're some of the most wealthy nations on Earth.<<
My last prediction is coming true already.
Anyway, you mean social democracies. Which aren't Socialist (even if there's a similar ideological root)
The ones that are normally referred to in this context firmly Capitalist with a strong respect for private property and industry.
>>But, of course Prager U isn't going to tell you that. Because the wealthy who likely fund these videos would rather you not know that. Socialism is a threat to their rule. That's why the propagate the myth that socialism is a evil, and a failed philosophy. When the honest truth is it works well in many other counties all over the world.<<
No, something else that starts with 'social' works, and you've mixed up the two concepts.
Don't worry, it's not just you. Read through the comments here, it happens over and over and over and over and over and over again.
But that basic misconception is why people think Socialism works. It doesn't, but Social Democracy is a pretty decent system as long as the Capitalist underpinnings are healthy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garfieldii0214 >>Yes, the title is the REPUBLIC OF CHINA, not Taiwan.<<
Look again.
>>If there were a number, not ROC would be a country cuz so few countries recognize ROC<<
So there's no number.
So your rambling on about the numbers who recognise it is irrelevant.
Anyway, under the constitutive theory, there is a number. It's one.
>>Another point, N Korea and S Korea were established based on the agreement between USA and USSR when Korea was already separated. Much like DDR and BRD. That never happened in China. So, if you want to claim "Taiwan" is a country, you need to find some support that they claim ROC only covers Taiwan... <<
Can you please give me the date the USA and (defunct) USSR started being the places that define what is and isn't a country?
>>If you exam the political position of different parties there, you will find neither KMT nor DPP claim "Taiwan should be an independent country". They both claim "ROC is a country, which covers the entire China +Mongolia. That's why. DPP is actually against the point that Taiwan should be an independent country.<<
You should probably do more research on this. The position of the president of Taiwan is that Taiwan is already an independent country.
"We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan."
From January this year.
It wasn't the first time it was said.
>>And in fact, the number of recognition does matter. Otherwise, two people can establish two different "countries" and recognize each other... Just not want to argue in that aspect.<<
You know how I asked you for the number required/ratio with source?
The only purpose of this statement was to highlight that you didn't answer that question.
Which keeps it in the 'made up as you go along' section.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fifty cent army's inability to do more than whine about information they dislike while being completely incapable of showing where it's incorrect or even unreasonable show the PRC has a dark, dark future.
Even when the same information is presented week after week.
Like this!
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cold Wave >>The extra knowledge wasn't applied in Venezuela, and Venezuela's problem was actually the result of bad social democracy rather than Socialism. The government would expropriate private businesses in mass and nationalize them, which is an economically dumb thing to do due to the creation of bad incentives that would cause economic ruin<<
Weird how the lessons are almost never applied, isn't it?
When they are, it's in places that basically literally need to be better than corrupt shitholes.
Also: I think you're confusing Socialism and Social Democracy here. When you talk about expropriation of private industry. Social Democracy is just fine with Capitalism. It is a Capitalist ideology. It's Socialism that's against private ownership.
>>The Nationalization of private businesses, and everything else that contributed to the problem, such as price controls, rent controls, etc. wasn't even Socialist in policy. An example of a Socialist policy would be the Marcora Law of Italy that contributes to the creation of worker cooperatives.
<<
Socialism is against private ownership. Those things are.
>>The extra knowledge has been applied to Rojava though (it practices Libertarian Municipalism, a new methodology developed by Murray Bookchin who deeply analyzed the cause of failure in previous socialist regimes)<<
Here's what'll happen when the Syrian war is over and the country stabilises. (This might not be for a while)
Rojava will turn Capitalist, because people like doing their own thing and profiting themselves. They also like to be able to build things that profit them. That'll be fine.
The problem will come up if the Rojavan govt attempts to prevent it.
Until then: It's a place that's doing better than a warzone.
>>which didn't lead to bad results in any way. It's not that "I'm hoping to know the problem", it's that there has already been successful applications of Socialist theory that we can follow, so we should already have a pretty good idea as to what causes the problem.<<
As long as people don't want to start building capitalist enterprises.
If they're not allowed to, those that are capable of it will simply leave.
>>I gave an example where the system works and stood the test of time, the MAREZ of Mexico, which you seem to have ignored for some reason? You can read more about it here:<<
You mentioned that for the first time (that I can find, apologies if you listed it earlier and I missed it) after my last post.
Anyway: A place that contains 300k people that's been able to be better than Mexico.
Great that they've managed it, how do you think it will go as the economy modernises? More than what appears to be a farming-based economy.
How is it that this paradise, after over 20 years, still only has 300k people? Why aren't more people trying to get into it? Plenty try to get into the Capitalist United States. Why didn't the most recent caravan go there?
The best examples are apparently only good compared with surrounding places that have massive, massive problems.
But genuine respect to both for being able to avoid going total totalitarian and epic collapse. They still need to be able to survive peace and prosperity, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@apakumqi5734 Weird. Last response disappeared. Anyway. Thanks, youtube
>>I can tell you, the picture is fake news. I have not heard of that. Can you tell from the picture when it was taken?<<
So you not hearing of something in a country with a highly secretive govt means anything?
>>Yes, death rate will be higher. THis you-tuber's 0 to 50 percentage is a joke.
<<
Well. We know from global times numbers that there have been 500 infections and 17 deaths.
Those are absolute, absolute best case numbers.
Considering they were claiming 50 infected while people were popping up overseas, it's safe to assume both those numbers are very wrong.
As far as China's 'smearing' goes.
For a start, it's the CCP that's 'smeared' . Not China.
It's 'smeared' because right when they need to be honest and open to prevent a potential catastrophe, they go quiet and lie about numbers. AGAIN.
Look, no-one blames them for having this stuff come up on their watch. It happens. But people absolutely do and should blame them for how they react.
And their reaction was to go quiet and lie about the situation. Which is how they always react. Every time they're forced to make a choice between what's good for China and what keeps them in power a few days longer, they choose the latter. Every time.
If that doesn't deserve a good 'smearing' I don't know what does.
As far as unfair goes, that deserves a contemptuous laugh. If anything, they're not 'smeared' enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keirenle you're right. It is more than just political. It's also economic.
Which the CCP is very much in charge of. Along with everything else in the PRC.
And it's been very enthusiastic about making sure it's in charge of everything.
As for it not being unique:
1. What's your point?
2. your lack of corrections to my last post does show it's in a uniquely bad position.
Sure, it's bad enough across Asia to make the idea of an upcoming Asian century an increasingly unrealistic fantasy, but even in the context of troubles across the region, it's unusually bad.
To compare apples to apples, though, let's look at Shanghai, which is on a similar developmental level to south Korea.
This is using TFR which measures births per woman, which is a bad thing to use here because of the female infanticide that's been going on in the PRC for decades, and that it takes time to catch up with reality.
Both of these heavily favour Shanghai numbers.
But according to the Shanghai daily, the TFR is 0.6
In south Korea, it's 0.72
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>This video completes ignores the economic warfare waged against Venezuela by the US and others. Billions of dollars that are in offshore accounts are still being held from Venezuela, if it had that money it could pay for a lot of food, medicine, and other things that they are in lack of,<<
If it had that money, it could have paid a fraction of the cash it owed the world, and still been completely up shit creek.
>>also due to corporations in Venezuela selling their products to the black market instead of feeding the general population
<<
Companies exist to be profitable. If they're not profitable, they will cease to exist.
The government had made the normal market unprofitable. So they go to the black market.
Personally, I don't think I've ever had to use a black market for anything like food, medicine, etc. Why? Because the normal market is profitable.
Shut down the black market, and all that happens is the company itself shuts down. So it goes from some food being sold at profit to no food being sold.
But hey, at least the no food is fairly priced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 You’re behind the times—it’s actually a Ten-Dash Line now. The PRC added another dash east of Taiwan in 2013. Before that, it was the Nine-Dash Line. Before that, it was the Eleven-Dash Line.
See the problem? If the PRC can arbitrarily change the number of dashes whenever it wants, how is this a legitimate territorial claim? Real sovereignty doesn’t work like that. International law requires clear, fixed borders with precise coordinates, not shifting dashes on a map.
This is exactly why the 2016 PCA ruling dismissed the PRC’s claim—it has no legal basis under UNCLOS. Historical maps don’t determine ownership. If they did, every country could redraw borders based on old maps. Sovereignty is determined by effective control and legal treaties, not vague lines the PRC keeps modifying.
Also, UNCLOS Article 298 doesn’t “protect historical rights”—it only lets states opt out of certain dispute resolutions. The tribunal ruled that UNCLOS-defined EEZs override any historical claims.
Saying UNCLOS doesn’t apply because the PRC once drew lines on a map ignores the fact that the PRC ratified UNCLOS in 1996. You can’t sign a treaty and then pretend the parts you don’t like don’t exist. The PCA ruling is legally binding, whether the PRC accepts it or not.
If the PRC itself can’t even decide how many dashes its claim has, that alone proves the claim is arbitrary and not recognised under international law.
1
-
@shundi4264 The X-Dash Line keeps changing. It was 11 dashes in 1947, 9 dashes in 1952, and now it's 10 dashes since 2013. If the PRC can't even decide how many dashes it wants, how is this a legitimate territorial boundary? International law requires clear, fixed borders with exact coordinates, not lines that change whenever it's convenient. That's why no international court recognizes the PRC’s claim, and why the 2016 PCA ruling dismissed it under UNCLOS.
The PRC’s claim that the PCA was a “hired court” is just false. The PCA was formed under UNCLOS Annex VII, which the PRC agreed to when it ratified UNCLOS in 1996. It didn’t need PRC participation to be binding. UNCLOS allows cases to proceed even if one party refuses to show up. The PCA is an intergovernmental body, not some commercial court. The PRC just rejects it because it lost. If the ruling was illegitimate, the PRC would have challenged it through legal channels, but instead, it just ignored it. That’s not how international law works.
You claim that many experts consider Itu Aba an island, but UNCLOS doesn’t define islands based on opinions—it defines them based on legal criteria. An island must have natural human habitation or an economic life of its own. The PCA ruled that Itu Aba doesn’t meet this standard, so legally, it’s a rock. The ruling is binding, even if some people don’t like it. If Itu Aba really qualified as an island, the PRC would have proven it in court, but it didn’t. Instead, it just rejected the ruling without presenting any real evidence.
The PRC’s X-Dash Line is legally meaningless. No fixed borders, no legal recognition, and no basis under UNCLOS. The PCA ruling was legally binding, and the PRC can’t just ignore it because it lost. Itu Aba is a rock, not an island, because it doesn’t support human habitation without outside resources.
The PRC can keep drawing dashes on a map, but international law doesn’t work like that. The world follows UNCLOS, not the PRC’s ever-changing claims.
1
-
@shundi4264 The X-Dash Line keeps changing. It was 11 dashes in 1947, 9 dashes in 1952, and now it's 10 dashes since 2013. If the PRC can't even decide how many dashes it wants, how is this a legitimate territorial boundary? International law requires clear, fixed borders with exact coordinates, not lines that change whenever it's convenient. That's why no international court recognizes the PRC’s claim, and why the 2016 PCA ruling dismissed it under UNCLOS.
The PRC’s claim that the PCA was a “hired court” is just false. The PCA was formed under UNCLOS Annex VII, which the PRC agreed to when it ratified UNCLOS in 1996. It didn’t need PRC participation to be binding. UNCLOS allows cases to proceed even if one party refuses to show up. The PCA is an intergovernmental body, not some commercial court. The PRC just rejects it because it lost. If the ruling was illegitimate, the PRC would have challenged it through legal channels, but instead, it just ignored it. That’s not how international law works.
1
-
@shundi4264 You claim that many experts consider Itu Aba an island, but UNCLOS doesn’t define islands based on opinions—it defines them based on legal criteria. An island must have natural human habitation or an economic life of its own. The PCA ruled that Itu Aba doesn’t meet this standard, so legally, it’s a rock. The ruling is binding, even if some people don’t like it. If Itu Aba really qualified as an island, the PRC would have proven it in court, but it didn’t. Instead, it just rejected the ruling without presenting any real evidence.
The PRC’s X-Dash Line is legally meaningless. No fixed borders, no legal recognition, and no basis under UNCLOS. The PCA ruling was legally binding, and the PRC can’t just ignore it because it lost. Itu Aba is a rock, not an island, because it doesn’t support human habitation without outside resources.
The PRC can keep drawing dashes on a map, but international law doesn’t work like that. The world follows UNCLOS, not the PRC’s ever-changing claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 Ah yes, the "if we repeat it enough times, maybe it’ll become true" strategy.
The PCA isn’t a "hired court", it’s an internationally recognized arbitration body that China itself agreed to use when it signed UNCLOS. The case followed Annex VII arbitration, which is the exact process that applies when one party refuses to participate. If China had a real legal argument, it could have challenged the process through legal means—but instead, it just boycotted the whole thing and whined about it afterward. That’s not how you prove your case, that’s how you admit you don’t have one.
But I can see why you think just refusing to respond and whining is a good response. It's practically all you've got.
And now we're back to the "history says so" argument. International law doesn’t work on ‘dibs’ rules. If old maps proved sovereignty, half of Europe would still belong to the Roman Empire. The Philippines' claim under UNCLOS is based on modern maritime law, not whatever lines someone in the Qing Dynasty drew on a map. That’s why the PCA ruled against China’s X-Dash Line, and why no one except the CCP takes it seriously.
But hey, if repeating the same points without addressing counterarguments is how you cope, go right ahead.
It's fun watching how much effort you put into something when you think you've got an actual argument, BTW.
It stands in stark contrast to your simple whines about propaganda and bias to so many of my other responses to you.
It does wonders to highlight that you know what I say in those is true, but you can't even begin to think of an argument against them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jingliu6206 >>you are bullshiter. if you made the claim the 2009 wasnt known to be different to the normal flu, what is china's wrong doing by not knowing covid 19 to normal flu<<
The attempted coverup, the lies about case load (and therefore how serious it was) getting the WHO to give bad advice on travel, etc and the complaints against countries when they banned travel from the PRC.
>>keep going. you are just anguy with no knowledge about what china is really like and fed with shit by the western press.<<
Living in Hong Kong. Married to a mainlander. Been going in and out of the place for sixteen years now.
And noticing you skipped over the lie you told about it originating in the US.
>>i live outside of china and i have bigger picture than you mate. you have no idea how shit works around.<<
Sure, buddy. Just like the 2009 flu originated in the US.
Just like the only place a plane on a carrier might go to is the mainland US.
Just like even a report the People's Daily says is unverified is gospel truth.
>>western countries are just jealous thst china has successfully combat the virus using extreme measures which van not be repricated in any western countries mate<<
Not sure if you've noticed, but it's back and is going to keep returning, thanks to the PRC's failure to combat the virus when it was still in a manageable state.
Pity all that time was wasted lying about it.
Also, I'm Australian. My home country is doing just fine on it. With numbers you can actually trust.
HK has also done very well, after the puppet govt was finally pressured into closing the border to the mainland.
Those extreme measures were needed because the CCP cocked up at the beginning and needed to compensate. Not just to control the virus (Which, as Harbin has shown us, will keep on coming back) but as a public theatre spectacle to say how much they've done.
Can't be done twice, though. Thanks to the CCP's failures, there's a global recession coming. Particularly bad for a government whose legitimacy is based on a strong economy.
When my country blames something on the govt, it peacefully votes them out, votes someone new in and continues on. What happens when the CCP falls?
>>open your eyes and use your bloody brians<<
Done and done.
Which is why pointing out your lies and misdirection is so easy.
1
-
@jingliu6206 >> i have Mater hospital internal figures showing more than 1000 cases just in Mater alone and the QLD state only reported 1600 cases when PA hospital and Royal Brisbane hospital has majority of the cases which is many more than Mater. tell me there is nunber you can trust. in australia if you do not have travel history you dont get tested. I live in Brisbane and i have quite a few friends in the public health system. I can assure you the numbers are more scary than you think. that is why VIC is not going to losen the lockdown any time soon.<<
So. Scenario:
You've got someone who's said many lies, or been intentionally disingenuous and attacked straw men.
Then he tells you something he can't back up.
Why do you believe him?
>>by the way, who tells you China covers up the numbers? i agree they are somewhat under reported, just like any other country. Australia is of no exception.<<
41 cases, all in Wuhan while it had appeared multiple times overseas.
Yeah, no.
>>and the point you make about closing borders to mainland china, the cases in australia slow down after full closure where the prime minister admitted 80% cases came from the US. Peter Dutton went to US for a meeting on 6th of March and caught the virus.<<
So. People are unable to come from a place.
And then you're surprised a minority of imported cases came from that place.
That number comes almost two months after immigration from China was restricted.
See what I said earlier about being intentionally disingenuous?
>>you claimed to vote the government out in Australia. there is no laws in Australia for citizens to vote out a government during administration. only<<
See, here you talk about a lot of stuff as if I'd said "They are able to vote them out on a moment's whim"
You said a lot about what I didn't say, but your response to what I said was quite scarce.
Particularly the question about what happens when the CCP falls?
If we decided that the LNP has handled the outbreak badly, we'll have the opportunity to vote them out by mid 2022. If we decide they should go, they'll go peacefully. If we decide before then that they must leave, we'll know that it's only a matter of time before we're able to do it peacefully.
None of this is true for the PRC.
So what happens when the CCP falls?
1
-
@jingliu6206 >>look, i have seen the email sent by the executives
i hate double standards.<<
What double standard?
And why should I believe some random on the Internet who's repeatedly lied and been disingenuous?
>>by the time you vote them out, damage is done. sorry<<
So you're all or nothing, then? How's that supposed to provide any sort of stability?
This way we have a time limit, and they know they have a time limit. If Morrison et al want to be employed in 2023, they do a good enough job to satisfy enough voters.
You've evaded the question about what happens when the CCP falls twice now. Consider it asked a third time.
>>there is large number of chinese pr and citizens in australia my friend, and before the border shut about 250k chinese person came into australia and didnt cause much problem,<<
For February, a 90% reduction. Subsequent months are unlikely to have been higher.
So basically, the majority came in early, when it spread least.
What's that meant to contradict?
Keep in mind that this is all a tangent around this ignored this
"getting the WHO to give bad advice on travel, etc and the complaints against countries when they banned travel from the PRC."
This did happen. You can try questioning whether or not it was worth doing all you like (good luck) but it did happen.
>>btw believe what you wsnt to believe i have seen their internal email with my eyes. see when i tell you a fact and you dont believe. sad.<<
It's weird that I've got to be this blunt.
You have lied, argued against straw men and been disingenuous repeatedly.
Why should I believe anything from someone as shameless as you? The only evidence you've got is your word.
This is the second time (at least) that I've had to ask this. This idea you've got that you should simply be believed is downright narcissistic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Leaner-b9c I'm a big Tim Poole fan, but he's a recent thing.
I married a (now former) Chinese communist party member and I've got a thing about words being used correctly.
Anyway, the reason I'm bringing up immigration is because you can have free services, or you can have open borders. You can't have both.
Well... You can, if you're willing to be hardcore about restricting them to only certain people, but most countries aren't. Particularly when those people might effectively stay permanently.
We lived in the UK (I've got a few citizenships). The NHS very rarely bothered to ask us for proof we were eligible.
So the solution is closed borders.
This being said, the US is also very keen on importing skilled migrants. Cheap in some areas is good. In other areas, particularly tech ones, they just need anyone who can do it and are willing to pay top dollar. When I was interviewing with Facebook, the only comment on moving costs was I didn't need to worry.
And the military is one of those things you don't need until you do. When you do, it pays for itself in spades.
Although for the US military, I could argue that ARPANET means it's paid for itself until the end of time. Anything else it does... Anything at all... Is just gravy.
1
-
@Leaner-b9c You're probably a left-leaning Liberal. (A liberal is basically someone who's willing to accept that others are different, that others have the right to free speech, even when he disagrees with them, and so on) who's been so turned off by the crazies on the extreme left that he identifies as conservative... Because compared with them, you are. I'm in the same boat.
The Socialist left are not liberals. As they say, liberals get the bullet, too.
In Australia, we have compulsory voting. Which means you make a choice. Not voting is nothing more or less than a vote for the person you want least. I'd vote Republican until the Democrats divorce themselves from the crazies. I don't like the Republicans (although they've improved a lot since they started to move away from the religious crazies a bit) but at a minimum, they're definitely the lesser of two evils.
I don't like Trump either, but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat when I look at the opposition. Ignoring the crazy, first because he's normalised pushing back on China (The CCP terrifies me) and secondly because I see him as a symptom of what his opposition is doing. Not a cause. They need to learn. If he gets kicked out, that'll do a lot to convince people that the crazies are correct.
And yeah, a lot of what PragerU says is true. In this video, I've found very few people who know WTF they're talking about that are able to actually articulate their problem. The majority simply have no idea of what socialism actually is.
But I'd never use them as a source. Too obviously biased.
Which is part of why I enjoy Tim Poole. He's someone who's doing his best to be impartial and centrist, but being unable to do it because of the crazy. In my teens, I would have been far further left, but that was killed when I was in my 20's and started to actually see the world. The more I've travelled, the less tolerant and understanding of the shit these people are pushing I've become.
I still support their right to say it, but I no longer see any difference between a socialist (who knows what the word actually means) and a neo nazi.
1
-
1
-
@Leaner-b9c >>That would be the case of Communism and Socialism, but not for a social democracy.<<
First off, I've got no problem with social democracy. The only caveat I'll put on that is that any country needs to recognise that the money comes before niceness. No money = no capacity to make things nice. You've already seen my views on milking the high earners.
The nice things provided by social democracies aren't independently sustainable. They're sustained by external things that are more than capable of sustaining themselves. Kind of like how we're sustained by the sun's excess productivity.
The difference between us and the solar example, though, is that every cent taken from a business to put into something nice does hurt that business. It provides benefits, but also costs. If the costs are too high, no business.
>>But aiming for profit is not always really healthy.<<
No, it's not. If you're providing easily monopolised essentials such as water and electricity, it can easily be very unhealthy.
>>Charter schools for example get a fixed amount of money per student, the rest is their profit. You can see the problem there: they can decide on their own how much to invest and how much to profit. Public school students do overall better that charter school students, but that's put really bluntly.<<
We don't really do charter schools here, so I'll have to ask your forgiveness if I get anything wrong.
Anyway: From my understanding, anyone can go to any charter school. It's purely choice. In this case, they're competing with each other to provide what's apparently (I come from a family of teachers. So I'm painfully aware of what happens when a school focuses on its image. I've just taken my daughter out of the top public school in the state, because things were getting a bit crazy with their obsession with their position) the best service. So they need to profit, but they also need to be good. Otherwise, no students, no money, no school.
Here, we do give taxpayer funding to private schools (money would have been spent on the kid's education anyway. If a parent wants to contribute a bit more, why not?) but that's really a bit different. They also need to be better than the local public schools. (I live near some very good public schools. However, I'm looking at the private girl's school's IT/STEM programs. Amongst other reasons, because I really want to avoid having her get turned off geek subjects by her peers.)
>>I get the idea, that competition or profit leads to more productivity etc., but there are problems as well.<<
Nothing's perfect. All you can do is select the best/least bad package.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DemonofElru666 >>The state behaved almost exactly as a capitalist in a capitalist enterprise would. They paid the workers in wages and appropriated the product of the workers labor to sell back to the people or to export to other countries. The workers had little to no say in the management of the firms. Call it what name you want, but that is mostly capitalistic and not socialistic to any degree<<
It is socialist, by definition.
Sorry. That it doesn't fit your personal views on how it should be achieved is irrelevant.
You might have this idea that if you were in power, you'd have done it properly. Probably not. It's a system that requires everyone's participation to make it work (Because Capitalism does help the individual do what the individual is capable of. A capable individual probably won't want to share the products of his abilities). Ultimately you'd have been faced with a choice. First is to be nice and let them do it. Watch your idea collapse. Your second is to bring them into line by whatever means necessary. At that point, you could wave goodbye to any differences between you and any other socialist dictator.
And they're looking for a profit. Profit is the surplus between what you put in and what you get out.
If there's no profit, I don't care what economic system it's under, you will fail. Because it's taking more than it produces.
>>Catalonia was an attempt on Socialism that actually followed theory close to how it was envisioned by the socialist theorists of the 19th century, unlike most of the other experiments. It was short lived, but the ideal was reached and people generally lived better lives after collectivization than when it was capitalist.
<<
And then had an excuse before we could see its longevity.
Which, if the rest of the world is anything to go by, says it would not have lasted.
>>If it's always being done the wrong way then that is the fault of unaccountable politicians that are in power and not a fault in Socialism. Any power hungry politician(s) can get into power and claim to be for any ideal yet betray it and commit many atrocities. There were some clear methodologies on how to get to Socialism that were laid out by the theorists of the 19th century that were not followed in the large majority of these experiments. It was supposed to be a bottom up movement.
<<
If it's always being done the wrong way, whoever tries it, the consistent thing between them is the ideology.
If something never works, whatever other variables you change, then ultimately that one thing is probably the cause of failure. What the theory says is irrelevant. What the theory produces is everything. The theory produces dictatorial failure after dictatorial failure.
1
-
1
-
@DemonofElru666 >>By some definition that's divorced from the ideals for what the word was typically used for historically, probably.
<<
By the fundamental definition of the word.
The defining characteristic of what the word means.
>>If someone wouldn't want to share they would probably try and establish a capitalist enterprise, but a large, conscious socialist movement from the bottom up would establish Socialist institutions within our current system, and eventually drown out capitalist enterprises<<
The reverse is actually quite possible in our society. Notice how it hasn't happened?
>>People would be free to create capitalist enterprises, but they wouldn't last. The reason for that being that most workers wouldn't want to work in a capitalist enterprise if they can get the full value of their labor in a socialist enterprise and actually have a say in the management of the enterprise<<
Cooperatives are a thing now. If what you believed was true, they'd have been doing wonderfully.
I don't actually care if I get the full value of my labour. I care about the final amount that actually gets to me. If my boss is profiting from me, that's fantastic. It means I'm useful and am able to go to another company offering more based on that.
>>The only way this wouldn't happen would be if the movement was being destroyed through the use of force, which is what capitalists have done to socialist movements historically.
<<
Or if your ideas are simply wrong. If socialist enterprises simply can't muster up the big bucks.
Which brings us to your next bit:
>>Profit goes to the workers under Socialism.
<<
There's your problem. If everything goes to the workers. If there's nothing left over:
1. How does a company weather bad times?
2. How does a company invest in itself to expand more? (Remember you've paid over everything to the workers. As soon as you're saving money, or putting money into new, not-yet-profitable ventures, you're not paying the workers what they're contributing. Sure, you could borrow. But then the moment you're repaying that......)
>>There exists or existed no other similar comparison to the Socialism in Catalonia, so I don't see how you can really tell if it would have lasted from observing the Socialism of the rest of the world?<<
This highlights one of the biggest failures in Marx's prophecies (for want of a better word)
There was no revolution from the working classes. They weren't interested. He expected a worldwide revolution from the workers. They showed minimal signs of wanting it. This goes double for people in developed countries, where it was supposed to start. About the only people who want it are those who have nothing.
It's why violence has come in. It's why attempts to silence 'the right wing' have come in. Because an honest open dialogue simply isn't convincing people.
All you've really got are excuses and new states that will probably go down the same path.
>>So basically, fuck the theory or any rational assessment as to the cause of failure. The theory may have laid out some methods on how to achieve something, but since people who probably didn't even read anything about it or some power hungry politician who uses the ideology as an excuse to do terrible things decided to do things their own way, its the theory that somehow most likely produces it.
<<
There have been plenty of rational assessments for the cause of failure.
So far, all we've got is you believe you'd have done it differently. And one example for which you had an excuse.
This is vs the reality that every time it's tried, it ends badly. Tried by people who are probably true believers.
As far as keeping on trying goes.... 100 million dead with nothing to show for it. How many do you need before you figure it's probably not worth the continue effort?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But are they wrong or unreasonable?
It needs to be wrong, or at least unreasonable.
Kind of like this. It's not enough to whine like a child about how it's one sided or biased. You need to point out how it's wrong or unreasonable.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>I don't really understand what you say : wealth != press freedom, and china is a good example.<<
I never said it did. I asked where the wealth he created went.
But if you think China is wealthy, you need to travel beyond the major cities.
It's got a lot of people, but that's different. It also has an epic amount of liability.
>> Today, a censorship exist in veenezuela, yes, but when Chavez lived, the medias could call to murder him...
If that's not a free press...<<
In 2012, it ranked 117 out of 180 countries, according to the press freedom index.
>>A example of what Chavez accomplished would be the gini coefficient, 0.498 in 1999 and 0.39 in 2011, the poverty rate who was 46% in 1999 and 28% in 2012 and the alphabetisation from 91,1% in 1995 to 95,5% in 2009<<
And in the five years since the last number they published, how have things gone? How sustainable were his improvements?
If I mortgage my house to the hilt, I can live the high life for a few years. As soon as the money runs out, though, it would be pretty clear it wasn't worth it. He mortgaged his house to the hilt (and then some)
Also, the gini coefficient can also be 'improved' by making everyone dirt poor.
As far as literacy goes... There were slight increases, in line with other countries in the area. One major possible contributing factor (the increases were slight) was the elderly (and less literate) population simply dying over two decades. Literacy has improved all over the world in that time. Obviously you haven't seen the same improvements in Western countries, but a large part of that reason is we're already sitting on 99%
1
-
>>I don't know all the details of Venezuela, why ?<<
Well, the wealth is gone. So what's more important is where it's gone and why.
Any good he'd done is gone.
>>China has the second GDP of the world...<<
And the largest population.
By a very wide margin.
>>You should read why it was classified so, it was not a reduction of press freedom, but of lobbyism in medias.<<
So, what... You're waiting on official declarations from national governments on how free their press are?
Otherwise, that's right from the horse's mouth.
>>It's very amusing to see this kind of argumentation, saying "there are no improvements" (or something similar) and then "this imrovements are not sustainable".<<
You're going to need to quote me rather than paraphrase me. I can't see where I'm saying that, although I might have missed it.
What's even more amusing, though, is people who think that clearly unsustainable improvements that were followed by disaster are praiseworthy things.
>>Not really. That would increase it. If one persone had all the wealth of a country and the other personns nothing, the gini coefficient would be at 1.<<
And? I said if everyone. Everyone. Was dirt poor, it would be equality. I didn't say if everyone bar one person was dirt poor.
>>Besides on that, the poverty rate decrased.<<
LOL
Sure it has.
I mean, according to official government statistics, I'm sure it has.
But for outsiders? Apparently 76-87% poverty rate.
Don't believe me? Well, look at the average weight loss. Unless there's a shitload of gym memberships involved, that's not related to a reduction in poverty.
>>Colombia had almost the same alphabetisation as the Venezuela in 1995 (91,3%) and was away from the Venezuela 15 years after (93,6% in 2011, when Venezuela had 95,5% in 2009), and the gap became bigger.<<
https://www.statista.com/statistics/796285/literacy-rates-latin-america-age/
You can cherry pick one country. Region-wide, however...
Combine that with:
https://www.economist.com/node/10766504
And again, we get back to my request for what accomplishment of Chavez/Maduro's makes the current state of the nation worthwhile. A question that has yet to be answered.
1
-
1
-
>> Sure<<
Based on the wonderful state the country was in when he died?
>>Chavez don't ruled against the people.<<
As evidenced by the wonderful state the country was in when he died?
>>If you think so...<<
Yep. Even the CCP thinks so. Although now it's dealing with a rapidly ageing population as a result of its being a bit enthusiastic about this.
>>Do you speak another language than English ? I speak german too.<<
Do you have a problem with making your point in English?
>>Chavez and Maduro had not the same politic, so it's not comparable.<<
I'm sure that Chavez went out of his way to appoint his diametric opposite his successor.
Although it was said that Tiberius appointed Caligula his successor so he'd be relatively loved. The story might be bollocks, but the point could have some truth.
>>Sure. Amazing things can happen in five years.<<
Any recent stats on Venezuela's literacy?
Y'know. Since the economy collapsed.
>>The Cepal report for 2011.<<
You realise the economy has collapsed since 2011, right?
I mean, it was declining then, but the decline has accelerated to a remarkable degree.
>>"the gini coefficient, 0.498 in 1999 and 0.39 in 2011, the poverty rate who was 46% in 1999 and 28% in 2012 and the alphabetisation from 91,1% in 1995 to 95,5% in 2009"<<
And now that we're in 2018, when the country's economy has collapsed. What made it worthwhile?
>>... I don't even know what can be answered here. Inequalities and and poverty is very bad...<<
Yes they are.
Which is why the current situation is very bad.
Chavez's spending spree backed by excessive borrowing did bring improvements. But look at the cost today (Not seven years ago. Today) and tell me what improvement was worth the 2018 Venezuelan situation.
A slight increase in literacy really doesn't cut it vs widespread malnutrition. Poverty rates of 28% in 2011 really don't cut it vs poverty rates of around 80% in 2018.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Chuanese >>I have said likely to be realistic, in a democratic society when was there a law guilty till proven innocent. <<
The PRC has been guilty of having a controlled legal system for a very long time.
>>While you said it is too late if the person is send to mainland. If the CCP wants to detain you, let's be real you are likely to be detained. At least this way there are a chance for due process.<<
Not if the trial is held in the PRC there isn't.
And they wanted this to make it easier than simply performing a literal kidnapping.
Interesting how low this shows your bar is, though.
>>Was this opportunist, yes. However it was nessary? Also yes<<
Keeping HK and the PRC's legal systems separate was more necessary.
This wasn't some random oversight made during handover. A deliberate decision was made to avoid having an extradition law. What has changed about the reasons that decision?
>>Was this opportunist, yes. However it was nessary? Also yes<<
In 20 years, the PRC might have rule of law.
If not, well, we're in the same area as the 2047 stuff. If the PRC isn't up to scratch by 2047, then another fifty years.
>>While we are on the train of thought how is tearing up hong kong productive<<
2014 showed that as soon as the heat is off, things will get worse. It's productive because it keeps pressure on the CCP when they really don't need pressure.
And if they lose, well.... It's not their city. It's the CCP's.
Finally: It wasn't until they started tearing the place up that progress was actually made. When it was peaceful (can't stress this enough) the response was contempt and meaningless word games.
>>From a person that actual cares about the future of hong kong and believes in productivity within hong kong, now is the best time to negotiate a long term plan<<
Pity you can't negotiate a long term plan with an entity that considers inconvenient legal agreements to be historical documents of no modern relevance.
>>The 5 demand isnt negotiation, it has stopped hong kong society from moving forward due to it having 0 chance of passing<<
Then it can hurt the PRC and highlight what it's like internationally.
In ten years, there will be a Hong Kong. I wouldn't be so sure about the PRC.
Every day the protests go on, BTW, shows that the CCP is impotent to deal with it. Don't pretend that they don't care. They're just caught between multiple bad outcomes. (Thanks to a situation entirely of their own making)
>> And hong kong is in chaos as long there are people who believes the 5 demands will be passed<<
They know it won't.
They also know that letting up won't lead to any good outcome. Keeping the pressure on helps worsen the CCP's image and shows that they're powerless to deal with this situation.
The worst thing that can be done to Hong Kong is what the CCP was going to do to it anyway.
>>As a example the trade war between America and hong kong have negotiation because it hurts Chinese economy badly and the terms are up for negotiation. While hong kong is hurting it self and not the CCP or main land at all. <<
This is definitely hurting the CCP. If for no other reason than it's finally making the rest of the world take a good, long look at it. Speaking out against the CCP has gone from being something countries and political parties shy away from to being a standard part of discourse. Hong Kong has united the Democrats and Republicans on being anti-CCP.
>>So why wouldn't the CCP let the hong kong destory it's own city and lower it's bargaining power till they have to jump through less loopholes in 20 years. Cause the main land can wait 20 years while hong kong cant<<
So in order to maintain their bargaining power, they should roll over and let abhorrent laws pass?
What's the point in having bargaining power if you don't use it?
>>Lastly, while people say they stand with hong kong globally, it in symbolic at best. They dont have to live in the chaos that is hong kong right now and have no asset to lose. While it is the homg kong people that will stay 20 years behind bars and leave a burning mess to the next generation to clean up with no leverage.<<
Or it helps be a nail in the coffin of the PRC.
There's one way that HK wins this. By being a factor that makes the CCP lose power. They won't do it on their own, but along with things like the trade war, a slowing mainland economy, they're definitely not helping.
Symbolic is also a huge improvement on what was there a year ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 for example, despite literal weeks of being shown this data, you're still unable to do more than whine about propaganda.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
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
-
jacksmith6015 waiting. It's simple math 😊
@jacksmith6015 9.5 million births last year. 17.8 million in 2017. From the global times, taken from the national bureau of statistics.
"There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>Again, they can give suggestions on what they want or what affects them<<
No. They have the RIGHT to make representations. Which implies the RIGHT to have the thing they want to make a representation on pause until they've had sufficient time and information to create a representation.
If they don't have that right, this is a completely pointless thing that has no place in the constitution.
If they weren't meant to have that right, then that should have been spelled out.
Considering the big issue with this has been the lack of information (I don't care about information outside of the law. It's a series of thought bubbles that might or might not be relevant. Only what's in the law is real) then doing this properly and going into detail was the answer.
>>Not slow down parliamental processes.<<
If they're going to be able to do anything, instead of simply get blindsided by action after action, that's a necessity.
>>If you really think Parliament would structure the process in such a way, thats an entirely seperate issue.<<
I think three things here:
1. The process of selecting candidates is completely undefined.
2. Changing the process of selecting candidates will need a double majority.
3. We have elections every few years, which often results in a change of govt, which would give any govt that did have the power to change the law on this the ability to put in a process that ensured people who were either sympathetic to them were in, or could be relied on to be hostile to the current opposition/future govt were in.
This is why the process of determining who's a member is a prime thing that needed to be written down beforehand, BTW. To prevent this kind of abuse by future (or even our current) governments.
>>And if you think they would attempt to affect anything on your list there in a NEGATIVE way to everyone then you clearly DO think of them as seperate from others.<<
I think that everything on that list is leverage for what's most important to them. They don't need to care about it. They just need to be able to use slowing specific things (or everything down) as leverage to get more powers, concessions, etc.
And of course it'll be used for leverage. Leverage is the currency of politicians in every political system.
And the people who are (by what process? Elected? Appointed? Adlected? And by whom?) in the Voice will be politicians. Tell yourself they won't if you like. They will be.
I also think that you said this
"who has the ability to make representations to Parliament on matters relating to Aboriginal and torres strait islander peoples"
As if it meant something. As if it was some limitation that would prevent pretty much anything from being used as leverage.
Which, from your silence on my request for a list of things that don't affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders can be taken to be a completely meaningless limitation. @slashharkiri4581
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewmckenzie292 >>How could Lithuania be a full member of UN if they broke ties with PRC and recognised ROC instead? <<
You're going to need to show me the UN membership requirement that says they must not recognise the ROC to be a member. No rhetorical questions, but the explicit agreement that says UN member states must not recognise the ROC.
If you can't, then that's the answer to your question.
>> I know some very small nations still recognise Taiwan as the sole government of China, but this could be more difficult for Lithuania as they are not quite a micro nation.<<
So there's precedent there. The answer to your question is 'they can'
>>Also I am assuming say PRC offers to give Russia a go at Lithuania and therefore Russia lets PRC troops cross her territory. <<
You think Russia (which has taken huge swathes of Chinese land - Look at a Qing era map sometime and compare) would allow the PLA to cross its territory?
To say nothing of the PLA attempting to basically do a reverse Napoleon/Hitler, attacking West over a completely massive distance, while sparking a war that have fronts that included South Korea, India, Vietnam and (of course) Taiwan.
You can add a fifth front if Russia decided that allowing this was a really bad idea and it wanted to expel the PLA from its territory.
>>Also if Lithuania did decide to recognise ROC, this might have no effect initially from the great western powers but over time they would likely increase their distance from Vilnius as Chinese economic and political pressure starts to bear on the great western powers.<<
At this point, the PRC would have cut itself off from trade with so many nations that it had actually sanctioned itself.
This is the issue with throwing sanctions at every country that mildly upset it. The more it's done, the less effective it becomes. Australia's already doing a first class job of demonstrating this.
I think you've brought into the "China is massive" myth without actually checking the stats. It's big, but it accounts for about a sixth of global GDP. By contrast, the United States accounts for about a quarter and the European Union accounts for another sixth. These are using nominal figures, rather than PPP. PPP is only relevant internally.
I see the same thing with the people who go on about how much US debt the PRC owns. The real answer is 'a few percent'
>>Despite their public statements supporting recognition of Taiwan in principle, its unknown how far they'd actually go with this...this is modern western politicians we are talking about, not exactly known for being warriors/loyal<<
Wake me when the PRC imposes sanctions on the European Union and North America for supporting Lithuania.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iamric23 this is where you're pretending to not be Chinese and that you've merely seen videos? Oh please. That's overused.
Where are you claiming to be from?
And I never said I lived there. I said I've been going there for twenty years. There's a difference.
Anyway.
The CCP kept the Chinese people in poverty. This "economic miracle" was based on three things.
The first was Mao being mortal.
The second was Deng allowing in capitalism (which the CCP had been fighting tooth and nail)
The third was the one child policy giving a huge worker to dependent ratio, allowing the people to focus on work.
That's reversing at an unprecedented rate. It was 3:1 in 2011. It's 2:1 at the moment and with the decline in births, the PRC is looking at a 30 million worker per year deficit to maintain that. This is based on 10.75 decline in workforce last year, each of which needs one worker to replace it, plus a net increase in dependents (including 16.93 hitting retirement age, minus about 7 million fewer under 18's) of another 10 million. Each requiring two workers to keep that 2:1 ratio up.
And the next decade is going to be worse.
As far as "not mentioning water, only the infrastructure" goes, I don't know why I've needed to repeat this, or even say it once, but there's more to infrastructure than trains. If you don't know what the word means, that's your problem, but the stuff that's meant to get water from A to B and make it drinkable is also infrastructure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iamric23 just like I was harassing you?
How's the complaint going?
More lies from a liar.
Anyway, this has gone from entertaining to sad.
If you want the last word, enjoy it. If it doesn't contain details on what, exactly, I lost, I'm out.
Things I won are:
Whether I'm harassing you.
Your failed complaint says I'm not.
How bad China's drinkable water INFRASTRUCTURE is.
The response your disgraced coworker eventually gave me, followed by the petulant response about not being perfect, as if actually being able to safely drink water was an unattainable dream (which it is for the PRC. It isn't for a competent country, though) was a pure loss.
Exposing his lie about being American was also a win. That he had to get in help was an even bigger win.
That the help was completely useless was the biggest win of all.
Me 4.
You two, 0.
And unlike you, I can SHOW my wins
😁
Bye bye.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WalkOverHotCoal
Ok, when you first go into a major area, you're generally stunned. The entrance and central bits of a tier 1 city like Beijing, Shenzhen or (I assume) Shanghai is glorious.
Priority is heavily placed on things that give a good first impression to outsiders. Image really is everything. If you don't spend much time there, you come away pretty amazed.
Move away from things that come under this category and it changes. You can walk around a random city or town and basically see bad paving, concrete coming off walls. Last time I was in Shenyang, I went into a major govt run hotel that's heavily used by officials. It looked fine from a distance, but you go closer there are cracks in the facade, there were water leaks in the bedroom and so on (You had a shower, a couple of square meters next to the bed was soaked) and so on.
There's a culture of rebuilding what's decayed, rather than doing anything for the long term and maintaining.
And this last bit applies to a huge amount there. Everything is short term expediency. As true for simple things like queuing as it is for major things like construction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is true.
To look at it in another way:
Every single one of your ancestors was.... If not a winner, then at least not so much of a loser that it couldn't reproduce.
And going right back to the beginning, our ancestors were survivors, many of whom definitely did some very horrible things to survive while others died.
Thieves, rapists, murderers (at least of potential competition) abounded.
And this isn't nice.
Now, today there's normally no reason to do this stuff, and plenty of reason not to (we eliminate threats. If we feel genuinely threatened by something, all bets are off) but the competitiveness that underlies it worked. It's worked since the dawn of life, despite the ugliness that goes along with it.
So to suddenly pretend that this competitiveness is a bad thing is lunacy. It's nasty, and in many ways, it 100% needs to be channelled into something positive, but it the attitude behind it works. There are lots of failures, but the winners and their positive contribution to society more than pay for that.
On top of this, and this is a common attitude I've noticed to technology, is that we only think in very short timescales. Competitiveness (as long as we don't destroy ourselves) is good for the long term. We need to keep improving. Hopefully we'll be around for tens, or even hundreds of thousands of years to come. Maybe longer. During that time, we need to keep moving and improving.
Or we might be dead later this year, in which case, whatever's done doesn't really matter anyway, so it's better to assume we're here for the long term. Just in case we do manage to avoid killing ourselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
random student I can't say. All I can say is that people in countries that have taxpayer funded healthcare are only rarely in favour of abolishing it. I'm Australian and I've lived in the UK. In neither country is getting rid of it ever a political platform. I can't even think of a minor party that's gone against it. There's always people who want to improve it, or shift some of the burden to private by encouraging health insurance, but never to get rid of it.
The worst thing about public is normally the wait. My father was diagnosed with cancer a few years ago. He paid to have it checked asap. My mother took out health insurance then and there, a couple of months before she was diagnosed with bowel cancer.
At the same time, if something is imminent, you get bumped to the top of the list. My father cracked his head on a sand bank about ten years ago while swimming. Detached his retina. He was having surgery an hour or so later.
But that doesn't make it socialism and doesn't have any relevance to your initial post. Social services, properly done, are wonderful. There might be a way to to do socialism properly, but it hasn't been found. A lot of people have died in the failed attempts, though.
Edit: adding on to this, this conflation you're doing between socialism and social services doesn't help any of us.
Anti social services advocates will try to link them to the failure of socialism. Pro socialists will try to hide the failure of socialism by linking it to the success of social services. Neither is your friend.
1
-
random student communism is the utopia that's meant to be the end goal.
Once socialism has been properly implemented, the idea is that the government dissolves itself, allowing for a world in which there is no class, no money, no government and no state. Where each gives what that person is capable of giving and receives what it needs.
For an over simplified version, turn on the Smurfs.
Socialism is about the common (realistically, state. I can't think of any other practical way in which that's meant to with) ownership of the means of production. Basically, the things that produce the stuff that makes an economy. (in the end, it all comes down to tangible stuff. If you don't have stuff, you're probably really poor)
Healthcare and education are better thought of as force multipliers. They don't produce, but they allow for higher productivity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll mostly agree with you.
The bits I'd disagree are where nothing's being produced.
Ok, roads are part of production. By the same logic, so is an empty field people walk across while taking something from point A to point B, but whatever.
Police really aren't.
High schools... They provide a service, but the idea of production really was physical things (In the end, that hasn't changed. Without physical things to show/use, nothing else really matters. Those things allow us to better use the physical things produced, but in the end, are secondary to them)
Capitalism doesn't preclude jointly paying for things. Not like Socialism precludes private ownership.
One major difference though is that capitalism is a tool that can be used or not used as the need suits. Socialism, particularly historically, has been like that, but tainted with more aims than the purely economic.
Taking this as an example:
"What is socialist in my book is when citizens pay collectively and government provides a solution that is not privately owned, not for-profit and does not participate in free market - say Police Force, Energy Grid, Roads, High Schools etc. "
Yes... Ok, kind of...
In the end, a socialist economy must be making a profit (As in: You must be getting more out of it than you put into it.) Otherwise it will collapse.
Which is the issue I've really got with not-for-profit. Socialism was intended to be the basis of an economy. For that, profits are required. No two ways about it.
Police don't make profits. They prevent losses, but that's not really the same thing.
Schools don't make profits, but they do increase the potential for making profits.
Neither of these are possible without enough excess productivity to support them.
Whereas your factory is producing. It supports itself.
If you have masses of factories all producing, for example, you'll probably have a sustainable environment. Adding more factories doing things will only improve matters.
If you go all out on schools and police... You'll collapse because they're simply not profitable.
Same with welfare, maternity leave, etc. They don't produce. They rely on other things to sustain themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's this if not what you'd expect from a crashing country?
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLastAngryMan01 >>I suggested that Vienna, which has had an unbroken spell of left-wing governance since the 1930s, has the highest standard of living according to many global surveys on that topic.<<
You did.
Left wing != Socialist or abandonment of Capitalism (Although on that specific issue, it would be. At least in a state that's currently capitalist. No sane person is purely left or right wing). It means that the person is in favour of change. Right wing is conservative (resistant to change) or reactionary (wants a previous status quo)
I'm overall fairly left wing. I'm firmly capitalist.
>>You implied that this was entirely down to capitalism.<<
Not quite. What I pointed out is that Vienna is Capitalist. It's not a case of socialism working.
>>I responded that many elements of life in Vienna (where I live, btw) are non-profit based- subsidized transport, subsidized healthcare and childcare, subsidized maternity and paternity leave, laws ensuring work-life balance, high taxes, social housing with non-index linked rents. These are policies more commonly associated with socialism, or at least, social democracy than free market capitalism.<<
'associated with socialism' != Socialist.
What you've listed are some of the benefits that socialism is meant to bring (and has epically failed at). But they're not socialist.
Socialism = public ownership of the means of production
Socialism != nice things that are taxpayer funded.
Social Democracy != Socialism, democratic or otherwise.
>>You then suggested that capitalism does not prohibit free choice in terms of resource allocation.<<
It doesn't.
>>Yet, I am suggesting that if you survey the great proponents of capitalism- financial institutions, employers' confederations, right-wing think tanks, national and international economic governance institutions etc.- none of them would campaign for the things that I've listed, which gave ordinary (non-rich) citizens of Vienna a very high standard of living. Indeed, historically they have battled very hard against them.<
And?
Here you're mistaking what's a good idea for what's covered by the definition.
If I own a business, I can do utterly retarded things. I can do very beneficial things. It's still covered by capitalism.
All Capitalism means is that the means of production (you've listed things that are more consumption of the wealth created) are privately owned. What you spend the wealth on and how the wealth is created are two entirely different subjects.
>>Indeed, if classical free market economics guaranteed a high standard of living for all, it would stand to reason that US cities would dominate the upper echelons of standard of living surveys, given their adherence to free market economic policy. <<
Which is irrelevant to the definition.
>>But yet it's often European cities that dominate the higher placings on these things (with some competition from places like Vancouver and Melbourne, typically).
Hope that makes it a little bit easier for you.<<
Yes. It did make it easier for me to explain to you that you've mixed up the goals with the mechanics. That you've mixed up definitions with what is a good idea.
>>bully380 I’m just amazed that people in this day and age, following one of the largest socialization of private sector gambling losses in world history, still think that socialist policies are the bogeyman we have to be worried about.<<
That you yourself don't know what socialism is doesn't change that it's a bad idea.
It just means that you're talking about something for which you don't understand the basic definition. It's not unusual. It's the result of people spending decades trying to make the word into something nice. Basically due to the epic failure of actual socialist states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StephenTang-gy7bo In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>> The Iron Curtain is not a physical barrier. <<
The bits I saw looked pretty physical.
>> And defences were pointed inward as much as they were pointed outward.<<
No. The bits I saw were very much pointed inwards.
Granted, the bit I saw was the Berlin wall.
>> Much like the USA today, and its intelligence agencies targeting their own citizens. (but in a less obviously violent way, of course)<<
Machine guns and landmines aren't obviously violent?
>> Well, right off the bat, you cannot cheat the system if you are the system. <<
You can cheat what you were meant to be doing.
>> A person/corporation can cheat the system, and I am not denying it hasn't been done in the USSR. It has been done in every single country<<
Thank you for accepting that isn't a specific criticism of Capitalism.
>> The point I was making with this statement is that in a capitalist system, corporations have incentive to cheat the system and try and evade taxes, or bribe politicians so they vote laws favourable to them, rendering democracy useless and people having a voice a lie.<<
The object in both cases is to stay in power. Whether it's via campaign funding or force.
What democracy did the USSR have? It seemed pretty limited.
>> The problem here is not the politician taking the bribe, he would do so in any system if he would do it under capitalism. The problem is corporations having purely egoistically based influences upon the government.<<
As opposed to governments accountable to no-one (short of violent revolution) and simply doing whatever - without real limitations - it took to stay in power?
>> Ah, destroying countries. Actually, any country is keen on destroying other countries for their personal benefit, be it communist or capitalist. However, communism brings the incentive to destroy the notion of countries, praising the ideal of worldwide unification of the working people. <<
looks at Afghanistan and Eastern Europe
Yeah. If it was just destroying the concept of a country, fine... But the USSR did have a tendency to do a large amount of physical work.
>> As to enslave the worker, well, that's a capitalist thing. In a communist society, the worker is working for the good of the society, and, ultimately, his own good, while in a capitalist country, the worker is working for the profits of someone else, who is not necessarily working for the good of society, but rather for his own personal interests. Personal interest does breed the incentive for success, but at what cost? At the cost of the workers' freedom.<<
Workers in the USSR weren't exactly famed for their freedoms. And being slaves for the government, slaves for a company. What's the difference? (Except the company pays better and if you leave the company, it can't put you into the camps... Or shoot you as you head for the exit. A common occurrence for people trying to leave the USSR)
1
-
>>For the last thing you said, I already explained the difference between working for society and the interests of another individual. One is actually productive, while the other isn't. <<
Both are productive.
>>Also, working for, and being a slave of are not the same thing. Working for society does not imply being society's slave. <<
Working for a company doesn't.
Working for a dictatorship that's put you in a prison? Yeah. That's getting a bit closer.
>>Also, companies do not pay better than governments. I do not know where the hell you got this from. <<
My professional life.
>> Leaving a workplace is different from leaving a country, and doing so illegally.<<
Yes. If I leave a workplace, I don't get a bullet in my back.
As far as doing so illegally goes... Now tell me... Why was it illegal to leave the USSR?
It's not illegal for me to leave Australia. I've done it many times.
It wasn't illegal for my father to leave the UK.
Or my mother to leave New Zealand.
You get the idea.
>> You could also leave workplaces in the USSR, you weren't obligated by the government to become something. The government didn't simply put a stamp on your head when you were born stating the profession you will occupy in the future. I have the impression you believe this is how things were.<<
Here's the problem with totalitarian governments.
What you say might be true... Right up until the govt decides it isn't. If the govt decided you should do something... What recourse did you have? Leave? Well that's one way to get shot.
>>The iron curtain is not a wall, like the Berlin wall. It is an ideological barrier.<<
Made of literal steel and cement.
It was ALSO an ideological barrier.
But it was most certainly a physical one.
>>Alright, I'm done here, at this point I need sleep. Goodbye, fellow stranger from the internet.<<
Have a good one. Enjoy defending turning entire countries into prisons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unnaturalselection8330 I'm about to take off, but this is something I'd put into a note for someone who had a similar ability to lie convincingly to you.
If you doubt anything or believe more is needed, explicitly tell me what you don't believe.
Keeping in mind that for all its flaws, the National bureau of statistics is the best available source for this and any lying WILL be in a way that makes the situation look better.
Searchable source for this is the Global times (sourced from the NBS)
If you try claiming the global times is lying to make the CCP look worse, I'll also be asking why they would.
9.5 million births last year. 17.8 million in 2017. From the global times, taken from the national bureau of statistics.
"There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unnaturalselection8330 ok. To start with, I normally come across people who ramble on about total numbers as if they're the only important thing. Or people who go on about the US. Or people who go on about automation. Or who simply go into denial.
So I apologise for being blunt to the point of rudeness. It's rare to come across someone who's not simply a fully paid for wumao with an agenda to push and a complete lack of ability to care about whether it's vaguely believable.
You're obviously not one of them. We simply disagree on the type of lies the CCP will tell.
So if we can accept that the other is saying what it believes, rather than trying to push a narrative, that would be lovely.
Anyway, I'll say they recognise a need to be at least vaguely believable. Especially when you consider that we're into the point that schools are starting to close. (from the scmp: China population: primary and kindergarten enrolments tumble as the country’s record low birth rate hits home)
If they gave high numbers and schools started shutting down en masse, people would notice.
Just like they'd notice if suddenly there was a good teacher to student ratio.
This isn't North Korea we're talking about.
They'll polish that turd as much as possible, but as unbelievable as it can seem, at least they're not on the Kim's level of not being to be vaguely credible.
Yes, I know the pearl River delta is... Or at least was... Controlled by the Jiang faction. As someone who was in Hong Kong during the protests, it was the only explanation for that insane time that made sense) but some things just can't be hidden.
For Shanghai's protests, those were people who had been locked up for years by CCP officials going to extremes to obey what Xi wanted.
For going to extremes to push for more children as a reason to lie, they're in dangerous territory there as well.
Because they're so obviously failing to get things going in the direction they want.
Even if you were optimistic about the slight 2016 and 2017 bump, there's been five reports since then, with the data coming out since the last total numbers adding to how bad it is.
The clock is seriously ticking on this. Most people have a pretty good idea of how long it takes babies to become adults. Five wasted years is catastrophic.
Plus, they didn't need to go to the extent of a 45 percent collapse to give the impetus.
Reports are coming out that next year will be so much worse.
Personally, I think the leadership is fully aware that they'll get no benefit and a massive cost out of any action that does raise birthrates enough (Xi will probably be dead or nearly dead by the time that first batch of children started to become useful. He's 70 now. He'd be 90 to 95 before he saw any return) so I think they'd prefer to make it look like they were trying to do something to see if that was enough. Ideally the people will get used to the idea rather than be enraged by it. (and even then, murdering everyone who put them in this situation isn't going to change it)
I'll finish this by addressing retirement.
Yes, those kids are the retirement plan.
But when you're in your mid 20's and the world is looking bleak, 40 years is a long time and there's going to be plenty of hardship between now and then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>Well I didn't find any blogs searching on Google, because I don't support Google's Monopoly. I search on Ecosia.org. This blog, http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/ was about the sixth entry<<
Ok, then I've seen the blog that's the sixth entry on ecosia.org
>>What I find with opponents of Socialism, is that their thinking remains very black and white -- like the fundamentalist believer who asks, "Just show me ONE example of a 'missing link...'" (transitional fossil), and then they won't accept the examples you provide. They still believe that a "species" is something frozen in time, when in fact all species (excepting one) are in a continuous state of change. Likewise, even as the human species has almost certainly stopped evolving, individuals within the species don't believe that social evolution is possible.<<
Funny, what I find with Socialist is that they put much effort into redefining the word. Kind of like how evolution is supposed to include what came before the big bang because reasons.
A redefinition that would have 100% not been necessary if it had worked as advertised.
A redefinition that's, frankly, only necessary because the alternative is actively supporting a truly horrendous system. 100 million dead with nothing to show for it.
The CCP did a similar redefinition with 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' - If I'd killed 60 million in pursuit of the one goal my organisation had been created to achieve, then openly admitted to giving up on that goal, I hate to think of what would happen next. I mean... What was the point? What was it all for? What possible reason could I give to not be brutally murdered myself?
>>You do make a good point, Robert, that nothing says Capitalism can't be regulated. It's just that there are all these purists out there who insist that all regulation of Capitalism is a bad thing; in fact, FDR claimed that his life's greatest achievement was saving Capitalism through implementation of the New Deal, almost all of which has been undone by the 1/10 of 1% through their buying off the government apparatus and the mainstream media. <<
This is true. There are people who say that.
But that doesn't make any of those states Socialist. Nor does it mean that Socialism has succeeded.
>>If you are okay with a healthy, Keynesian approach to stopping the morbidly wealthy and powerful from screwing over the 99%, then just know that I am okay with the blending of Capitalism with Socialist programs<<
'Socialist Programs' -ne Socialism.
They're more things that are compatible with it. That the nice things produced by that economic system are supposed to provide (but fail at)
At its core, Socialism's an economic system. You can't base an economy on handing out free stuff. It's about who owns what creates the wealth.
>>especially where the rich (not the Middle Class) are taxed heavily to pay for the military and all other social programs, and where the People are no longer silenced through the Party Duopoly that currently reigns, and are instead able to realize the serving of their collective interests throughout all levels of government.<<
Which we're largely in agreement on (Although as a net taxpayer, I've got to say I'm a touch sick of being turned into the enemy. Fortunately, if things get too annoying, I can leave very easily)
1
-
I'll put it this way:
For someone who supports actual Socialism. As it was intended before we found out how things really went down whenever it was tried.
Obviously, we all condemn neo-Nazis. For good reasons (Although people have massively stretched what we apply that term to. I've been called one for supporting the right of people I disagree with to speak without being assaulted. Because Hitler was totally in favour of free speech).
What reason that we use to condemn neo-Nazis shouldn't we use against those who support Socialism?
About the only thing that changes is the target.They're both ideologies of hate. One against non-Aryans. One against the economically successful. (After seeing how the USSR, China, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, etc etc went down, you can't both be a Socialist AND want to help the disadvantaged.)
The human rights records of states that implement both are abysmal. Between being in the Gulag system vs being in a Konzentrationslager. There wasn't a hell of a lot of difference.
As any Pole will tell you, Socialist countries are pretty damn happy to be expansionist when the opportunity arises. They speak out against Imperialism, but are happy to engage in it.
Now, someone who simply thinks that Socialism is providing taxpayer funded services and taxing the wealthy more, I'll simply say he doesn't know what he's actually supporting and move on.
But someone who does know what it is, what its history is, yet still supports it?
I really don't see the difference.
Actually, there is one difference.
Your legitimate Neo Nazi today has basically no support (outside of Russia shit-stirring) - He's a joke.
Today's Socialist has lots of support. Ask any Hong Konger.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KeitelDOG Anyway, you might like to look at a map and apply some common sense.
This post is about as ridiculous as a recent fellow I spoke to who tried to claim that he was Moldovan and that Moldova bordered Russia.
For instance, there's this small country called Poland, which is:
1. Right next to Ukraine
2. A NATO member
3. Absolutely nowhere near any place that Russia has any realistic chance of threatening.
4. Has ports in a safe ocean
5. Has airports.
6. Hates Russia and will do everything it can to oppose it.
On top of this, NO Russian claimed territory is remotely near anywhere that the US, etc would find useful for delivering supplies (If you disagree, please feel free to give the area and why they'd use it)
After this, as useless as the black sea fleet might be, there's nothing to be gained from sending ships to Uraine via that. Even without what's left of the Russian navy, there's mines and things like that. Why take the risk to save a slightly longer train journey? Sure, ships are better at carrying massive amounts of stuff, but unlike Russia, the EU has no problems getting large amounts of stuff from point A to point B via land.
Again, if you disagree, please detail exactly what paths you think they'd be using and why.
And why you think the Russians wouldn't have stopped NATO supplied weapons from crossing territory they control.
I'm genuinely interested in your thought processes here.
1
-
@KeitelDOG .....
I think you need to look at a map.
You really need to look at a map.
This is a very strange post. I can't begin to imagine how you think any of this makes sense.
Anyway, if Russia gets all the Ukrainian borders with NATO, then it's won. Because it controls all of Ukraine.
At the moment, Russia only controls parts of Ukraine that border it, and call me crazy, but I somehow doubt NATO is shipping arms to Ukraine via Russia.
This is why I'm asking you exactly what path you think NATO is using to send supplies to Ukraine, because unless there's some path I've been completely unable to see.... I can't even call this post fantasy. It's just weird.
So when you reply, please actually look at a map when you let me know the routes you think they'll be taking. I really want to know how you think this will happen.
Because to me, for things done by ship, they send it to Gdansk in Poland, by rail to the Ukrainian border, then into Ukraine from the West, which is the opposite side of the country to anything Russia controls.
Or they fly it into Poland, which still goes into Ukraine via the opposite side to anything Russia controls.
Even if Russia would (for some strange reason) let NATO ship weapons via territory it controls, I can't imagine why they would use any of those routes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JackSmith-mk1ru you hadn't seen one?
You should probably give exactly what you're wanting a source on.
You were given this:
9.5 million births last year. 17.8 million in 2017. From the global times, taken from the national bureau of statistics.
"There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>I agree that social services do not constitute socialism by themselves, although in American discourse they seem to be treated as such.<<
My issue with that is a combination of 1984 and having a problem with letting idiots redefine words to suit their own agendas.
I see the same thing with Creationists and what actually is Evolution.
>>I think we're on the same page that a more classical definition of socialism would be a society where the means of production are owned by the workers<<
Yep. Only thing I'll add is as represented by the govt. I don't say this as a criticism, I can't see another way it could work.
Although it's worth pointing out the reason you're saying 'a more classic definition' is because people have put a lot of effort into redefining it. Basically because the more classical attempts have been epic failures.
>>Personally, I see this as a much more equitable, just, and ultimately more sustainable system<<
The 20th century suggests otherwise.
The 21st century is doing a pretty good job of suggesting otherwise as well, but the night is young. Not holding my breath though.
>>But this isn't really what most progressives in the US are fighting for<<
Then you need to be part of the movement that gets progressives to learn the correct meanings of words.
Because while they might be clueless on what the words they're supporting mean, you'll get some bastard like Chavez who knows exactly what they mean, and is happy to use the gullibility of people who don't seem to even be capable of cracking open a dictionary to their advantage.
Might like to slap Bernie for the same.
>>Taxes would, of course, pay for increases in welfare programs, and a reallocation of government budgets would also play a role (decreasing the bloated military budget, getting rid of senseless programs). Instituting universal healthcare and making college tuition-free doesn't get rid of markets and industry; a well-oiled and healthy economy would still be possible (and I would argue more sustainable).<<
The 20th century has shown us two things:
1. Under Socialism, you're not going to decrease the military budget (except for when it's unaffordable due to economic collapse).
2. Under Socialism, you won't be able to afford the other nice things you mentioned.
The USSR (Which was Socialist) spent 25% of its GDP on its military. Why? Because that's what you need to do when the system you're implementing isn't working. Look at how quickly the Eastern bloc collapsed when it became clear that Gorbachev wasn't going to send in the Soviet military to prop up the satellite states.
>>Lastly, I know very little about Venezuela specifically, but I've read that private industry has played a huge role there.<<
It did. In the past.
Chavez and Maduro seemed to be of the opinion that you shouldn't profit.
If you're not going to be able to profit, why would you setup a business?
They also seemed to be of the opinion (This isn't just in line with Socialist principles, this is the basic definition of Socialism) that private ownership of industry was bad. Which meant that they were happy to take over a privately owned company.
If what you've built up is just going to be taken away from you, why would you setup a business? Why take the risk?
Capitalism works because it rewards risk.
>>It seems to me that poor trade and economic policies, made possible by increasing authoritarianism and corruption, explains Venezuela's downfall more than it's attempt at socialism<<
The attempt at Socialism was the direct cause of these things.
Poor trade and economic policies - Socialism is an economic system. The policies they put in place were Socialist.
Increasing authoritarianism - When something you're doing isn't working, you have two choices. Decide that the problem is with what you're doing, in which case, you give up. The second is decide it's the fault of everyone else... Which in this case, is uncooperative people. That's where dictatorship comes in.
>>I really do think a form of socialism can work<<
Maybe the next hundred million dead will reveal it.
So... Four Hitlers worth of evidence instead of the two we've got today.
Then maybe the next 200 million dead will reveal it.
>>There may not be very many good examples (especially of non-authoritarian style movements), but the Catalonia region of Spain from 1936 to 1939 was very successful until Franco conquered them.<<
So you've got a three year timespan that failed due to other reasons.
The last century of attempts shows if Franco hadn't conquered them, they'd have gone the same way.
From 1998 to 2001, Chavez wasn't doing too badly either.
North Korea was doing better than South Korea up until about the 70's.
>>I would suggest researching them if you haven't already.<<
I have.
In return, I'd suggest looking for something that's stood the test of time. Three years is how long it takes to do a Bachelors degree. Three years will take you from finding out about pregnancy to a being that's only just learnt to walk. It's nothing.
30 years isn't long enough.
You need something that lasts generation after generation.
Not just that, but actually shows demonstrable improvements. Not just over what it was, but over the alternatives. If the USSR hadn't collapsed, you'd have still been able to see the huge wealth disparity caused by a few meters of wall. (It's why the wall was needed, after all)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GamerShowdown-h8j In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben-bh6lu for someone who's DNA stops him paying tax, I'm paying a massive amount of tax.
Enough that I've well and truly got the right to be irritated when people I'm already paying for whine about me not paying enough. On principle.
This may come as a shock to you, but I don't owe you a thing. I've already paid enough for your problems.
And if you think you're simultaneously an Australian and a have not, I've got to congratulate you on your ignorance of the world. Particularly the region we live in.
All this is why I'm against living in Australia. Taxes do come into the equation, and the reason I'm here is the virus unleashed on us by the socialists in the PRC.
I'm paying 125k extra to live in Australia. The only thing that keeps me here (contributing to the economy and taxes from purely foreign income) is the daughter's schooling (which I've well and truly paid for)
It's not a privilege I feel to be worth the price.
The thing with being a high skilled worker on a high income is we're on high incomes because we've got globally in demand skills. Which means we can shop around for the best deal.
That best deal was Hong Kong (7.5 percent income tax, when all was said and done) ruined by the aforementioned socialists. Now it's looking like Singapore. Very similar to Hong Kong, but not run by barbarians.
So when that happens, enjoy your 100 percent of nothing.
You can keep saying I have no shame if you like, if having shame means being ok with strangers deciding my pockets are something they can keep digging into, that 125k (plus whatever increases) per year seems like fantastic compensation for being shameless.
If you think you wouldn't swap your sense of shame for an extra 125k in your back pocket, I'm going to need to express skepticism.
After all, you're already whining about not being able to take even more of other people's money. How much more shameless can you get?
1
-
@Ben-bh6lu for someone whose DNA stops him paying tax, I'm paying a massive amount of tax.
Enough that I've well and truly got the right to be irritated when people I'm already paying for whine about me not paying enough. On principle.
This may come as a shock to you, but I don't owe you a thing. I've already paid enough for your problems.
And if you think you're simultaneously an Australian and a have not, I've got to congratulate you on your ignorance of the world. Particularly the region we live in.
All this is why I'm against living in Australia. Taxes do come into the equation, and the reason I'm here is the chaos unleashed on us by the socialists in the PRC.
I'm paying 125k extra to live in Australia. The only thing that keeps me here (contributing to the economy and taxes from purely foreign income) is the daughter's schooling (which I've well and truly paid for)
It's not a privilege I feel to be worth the price.
The thing with being a high skilled worker on a high income is we're on high incomes because we've got globally in demand skills. Which means we can shop around for the best deal.
That best deal was Hong Kong (7.5 percent income tax, when all was said and done) ruined by the aforementioned socialists. Now it's looking like Singapore. Very similar to Hong Kong, but not run by barbarians.
So when that happens, enjoy your 100 percent of nothing.
You can keep saying I have no shame if you like, if having shame means being ok with strangers deciding my pockets are something they can keep digging into, that 125k (plus whatever increases) per year seems like fantastic compensation for being shameless.
If you think you wouldn't swap your sense of shame for an extra 125k in your back pocket, I'm going to need to express skepticism.
After all, you're already whining about not being able to take even more of other people's money. How much more shameless can you get?
1
-
@Ben-bh6lu for someone whose DNA stops him paying tax, I'm paying a massive amount of tax.
Enough that I've well and truly got the right to be irritated when people I'm already paying for whine about me not paying enough. On principle.
This may come as a shock to you, but I don't owe you a thing. I've already paid enough for your problems.
And if you think you're simultaneously an Australian and a have not, I've got to congratulate you on your ignorance of the world. Particularly the region we live in.
All this is why I'm against living in Australia. Taxes do come into the equation, and the reason I'm here is the virus unleashed on us by the socialists in the PRC.
I'm paying 125k extra to live in Australia. The only thing that keeps me here (contributing to the economy and taxes from purely foreign income) is the daughter's schooling (which I've well and truly paid for)
It's not a privilege I feel to be worth the price.
The thing with being a high skilled worker on a high income is we're on high incomes because we've got globally in demand skills. Which means we can shop around for the best deal.
That best deal was Hong Kong (7.5 percent income tax, when all was said and done) ruined by the aforementioned socialists. Now it's looking like Singapore. Very similar to Hong Kong, but not run by barbarians.
So when that happens, enjoy your 100 percent of nothing.
You can keep saying I have no shame if you like, if having shame means being ok with strangers deciding my pockets are something they can keep digging into, that 125k (plus whatever increases) per year seems like fantastic compensation for being shameless.
If you think you wouldn't swap your sense of shame for an extra 125k in your back pocket, I'm going to need to express skepticism.
After all, I'm already dealing with people complaining about not being able to take even more of other people's money. How much more shameless can you get?
1
-
@Ben-bh6lu for someone whose DNA stops him paying tax, I'm paying a massive amount of tax.
Enough that I've well and truly got the right to be irritated when people I'm already paying for whine about me not paying enough. On principle.
This may come as a shock to you, but I don't owe you a thing. I've already paid enough for your problems.
And if you think you're simultaneously an Australian and a have not, I've got to congratulate you on your ignorance of the world. Particularly the region we live in.
All this is why I'm against living in Australia. Taxes do come into the equation, and the reason I'm here is the chaos unleashed on us by the socialists in the PRC.
I'm paying 125k extra to live in Australia. The only thing that keeps me here (contributing to the economy and taxes from purely foreign income) is the daughter's schooling (which I've well and truly paid for)
It's not a privilege I feel to be worth the price.
The thing with being a high skilled worker on a high income is we're on high incomes because we've got globally in demand skills. Which means we can shop around for the best deal.
That best deal was Hong Kong (7.5 percent income tax, when all was said and done) ruined by the aforementioned socialists. Now it's looking like Singapore. Very similar to Hong Kong, but run by civilised people.
So when that happens, enjoy your 100 percent of nothing.
You can keep saying I have no shame if you like, if having shame means being ok with strangers deciding my pockets are something they can keep digging into, that 125k (plus whatever increases) per year seems like fantastic compensation for being shameless.
Quite frankly, if you had the ability to do the same, you'd have done it.
Oh, for the future, Australia's debt is only the problem of those who are in Australia.
The moment I'm a foreign taxpayer, I'm completely free of any obligation regarding it.
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
-
@benjaminsiddique2501 >>Robert Bray and as for China, like Steve Juhn mentioned, they have a good mix of socialism and capitalism<<
The improvements were bought in by Capitalism. As for Socialism, the State Owned Enterprises are widely considered to be a massive drain on the economy that do nothing more than feather the nests of various politicians.
>>which has given them one of the best economied in the world.
<<
Scenario:
I get cancer. It almost kills me. I'm weak as a kitten.
I get a treatment that works very well. I recover.
As a percentage, I'm going to increase in strength very quickly.
Compare that with a champion athlete. I can do a 10% increase in strength in a week without effort. It takes the athlete massive amounts of effort to do this.
China's economy isn't 'one of the best' it's recovering (and has massive problems to deal with, ranging from unregulated lending (those SOE's get preferential treatment from the banks, because they're run by other party members. Everyone else can go hang. so they need to use a shadow system)
And yeah, they've got a trillion in bonds. Because of the massive problems they've got coming, that trillion will fade away pretty quickly.
That's ignoring the huge environmental problems, and the fact that in the next decade or so, masses of people are hitting retirement age (largely working physical jobs. Education ground to a halt during the cultural revolution. Delaying retirement isn't an option) with not enough people to replace them.
China is a Capitalist success story, but it's still a shit place. There's a reason they only focus on places like Shanghai and Beijing. (I've never been to Shanghai, so wouldn't mind going there. I won't touch Beijing anymore. My wife is from Shenyang, another place I won't voluntarily touch)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StephenTang-gy7bo In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 If you want to abandon that line, you may feel free.
As far as Venezuela goes:
1. Excuses carry more weight when there are successes. Socialism has a well established history of being a costly failure. China is a brilliant example of this.
3. China's economic success is despite Socialism, not because of it.
4. Yes, the US did do bad things in South America. But that doesn't change that this is a well travelled route for Socialist states, wherever it's been tried. Which is why the best successes that people can come up with are China, where tens of millions starved while they attempted to make it work (and which started a rapid recovery under Capitalism. The scars remain though) Cuba, which has some specific things that are comparable to the crappier Western countries, but fails to deliver the whole package, and most damningly, Capitalist social democracies, which have demonstrated time and time again that Capitalism is better at delivering on the promises of Socialism than Socialism ever has been.
1
-
>>But China abandoned communism and changed to socialism.
China abandoned communism (in other words the COMPLETE exclusion of private property and production) and changed to socialism (note, that socialism does not EXCLUDE private property or enterprise. It just controls it).
If you wish, call socialism "communism light".
China is a "socialist state".<<
No, China abandoned Socialism and changed to Capitalist.
What they've got now is 'socialism with Chinese characteristics'
The 'Chinese characteristics' are that it's really capitalism.
The Communist party had caused tens of millions of dead amd had impoverished hundreds of millions more in its attempt to make Socialism work. Do you think that if they openly said they had abandoned Socialism, there'd still be a Communist party?
You've essentially been fooled by their marketing. Which was the intent. Otherwise, they'd have been murdered by now.
>>Capitalism is something completely different.
In the US, government does not "control" the "means of production". China DOES.<<
China has far fewer restraints on what the govt CAN do. CAN != Does.
>>How much do you actually know about China? <<
I've been going over regularly since 2004, I speak a bit of the language, my wife is a former party member (She was kicked out when she married me) my parents spent a decade working there. I'm waiting on a visa for Hong Kong.
What's your experience?
>>In China, you cannot do anything without the omnipotent "party". It's like an octopus, and it's EVERYWHERE.<<
They're not gods. They're not omnipotent. It's trying to be everywhere, but that's a touch difficult
>>Have you looked into the Chinese internet by any chance?
LOL, no of course not. <<
An assumption that helps keep your level of correctness fairly consistent.
>>You can't, because the Party CONTROLS that.
Everything.<<
Tries to. Does a good job of it. However, the main thing is to keep an impression of being watched and monitored. Self censorship is better than external censorship.
>>China IS a socialist state.<<
More no than yes. Far more no.
You seem to have this cartoonish view of them. Again: They're not gods. They're mortals. They do a lot, but they're a long, long way from infallible.
>>It has simply cherry-picked a "best of capitalism" list (for example "internet companies"), and then FIERCELY controls it. <<
Yep. They had to cherry pick because they're simply not powerful enough to control everything. You think they WANT to allow people to dig grease out of gutters to sell to customers?
Even dictators needs to keep the needs of their power base in mind.
I'm not skipping a bunch of stuff because it seems to be based more off your own mental stereotype than off reality.
Your view of dictators is cartoonish.
>>What happened to google in China?<<
It was redirected to Google Hong Kong via a placeholder image.
http://www.google.cn/
It's still usable. Although they do frequently mess with it. One of the ways is by making an annoyingly large proportion of connections reset. That makes the service unreliable and moves them towards others.
They also do deep packet inspection for certain keywords, and kill connections that contain them. Which is one of the reasons we're starting to see SSL encryption everywhere.
>>Look at a definition of capitalism. Government sets some rules and regulation (aka red tape), but basically it's up to private organisations and businesses (also individuals) to go out there and start their ideas.<<
China is chock full of small privately owned businesses. Started by people who've done just that.
Have you ever been?
>>Do you have a large business? Who controls this business on a daily basis? You or Washington?<<
Except for State Owned Enterprises, the party does not control businesses on a daily basis. They do have party officers in large businesses, but that's something that steps in when stuff gets political, rather than the party managing the business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>Those are the primary examples where it has worked<<
So... The primary examples of where Socialism has worked is countries where Socialism isn't implemented?
>>Hybrid governments with large scale social services operating alongside a market-driven economy result in highest quality of life for the most amount of people<<
That's not Socialism.
Socialism isn't about handing out free stuff. It's about an economy based on public ownership of the means of production. It's about who owns where wealth comes from. Not who owns where wealth goes
>>The only examples of PURE capitalist economies, e.g. UK during the onset of the industrial revolution, pre-Depression USA, also failed.<<
Yep. Laissez faire isn't a good idea. However, socialism isn't simply everything that's not lawless capitalism.
>>So there isn't any historical example of either form of government succeeding in its purest, distilled form, but most modernized nations in the EU which provide social services as extreme as universal healthcare and publicly funded higher education blow the US out of the water in almost every category except military might.<<
They're not Socialist, though.
Social Democracy isn't Socialism.
The difference is the basis of the economy.
>>Don't misunderstand my defense of Democratic Socialism as complete rejection of capitalism<<
You're not defending Democratic Socialism. You're defending Social Democracy.
Which uses Capitalism to pay for nice stuff.
>>The only way to pave the way for a true Marxist society is through heavy use of capitalism driving technology to a point where it can sustain that.<<
Yeah. Maybe Star Trek is correct.
But the same wonderings have killed twice as many as Hitler so far.
>>Given the increasing extent to which BIG (basic income guaranteed) is being discussed (even in the US) and the fact that jobs are being lost to automation by the thousands each year, it's only a matter of time before one of two things occurs:
Mass extermination of unskilled laborers who can no longer provide for themselves because any job functions they could perform are gone to robots.<<
So, fun fact. People in Welfare in the US are in the top 20% of earners, and would have been considered very prosperous when Marx was using his time being unemployed to write his books.
>>Mass extermination of unskilled laborers who can no longer provide for themselves because any job functions they could perform are gone to robots.
OR
Socialist policies increasing at a rapid pace to sustain this population.<<
We're coming back to the difference between socialism and social democracy here.
Keep the industry Capitalist. Use the wealth it provides for nice stuff. Simple.
And not Socialist.
>>We will see one of these in the next century, guaranteed.<<
Just like we saw it during the Industrial revolution.
Educations improved. Jobs changed.
One big one that's coming is the rapid increase in the age of our populations. What we'll also see in the next couple of decades is an unprecedented proportion of our populations being needed to take care of the elderly.
At that point, we'll be thankful for every increase in productivity automation allows that we've got.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 oh hey. I remember when you first posted that.
It was when you were trying to quote a lie I'd said.
Then you ran away.
So you remember it? It was in response to this.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ioogleio >> It’s true that most westerners cannot understand the mindset of Chinese and Chinese politics and they just tell what their media tell and think what their media think<<
In many cases, that's true.
Do you know what else is true?
You couldn't even own that the PRC doesn't have an independent judiciary, and your only response was "Don't judge us"
>>Mr. Moe knows a lot about China, he is much different from people like you.<<
It's true that he agrees with you, yes. Most definitely.
>>What he said is definitely true that many Chinese officials donated their bodies for research after their death.
<<
Which is also irrelevant to what was being discussed.
Can I take it that you don't understand the difference between freely agreeing to do something and doing something in a coercive environment?
If so, we can add that to your prior (you seem to understand it now. "Don't judge us!" isn't what someone who's confused says. Merely what someone who has no response does) inability to see the difference between a law made in a place that has an independent judiciary, and one, such as the PRC, that doesn't.
Edit: Actually, if we're talking about an inability to understand even a slightly foreign mindset, need to look no further than Xi and the CCP.
Things like getting international students to assault the pro HK protesters in other countries, or (as a major one) even mentioning crushed bones.
Basically, the only appearance he seems to be able to project to the non-mainland world is out of touch thug.
The same goes to people like you as well. You've obviously got absolutely no idea on how the rest of the world thinks. To even suggest someone not judge you is laughable.
And here's the dirty little secret that your script writers seem utterly oblivious to:
How the rest of the world thinks matters one hell of a lot more than what the people inside the PRC think at the moment.
Considering we're chatting on a site that's banned in China, I'd have thought that would have been taken into account, but whatever. If they want to have people like you project an image of the PRC as a place run by out of touch thugs to the rest of the world, that's fine by me.
At least it's an honest image.
Also, what of your response changes the fact that you were praising someone who used a six year old article to make a claim about a situation that's changed dramatically in the last four months?
Does "China is special, don't question me" extend to temporal things? Does time work differently?
Because using that source was, whatever your culture, a dumb thing to do.
Yet another example of how out of touch the pro CCPers are with reality.
1
-
@yerri5567 >>This is not about their own laws. This is about you accusing another of something they didnt do. Just because a country did something in the past doesnt mean they still do it<<
You need to look up what famous means.
Also, they did do it. Whether they still do it is up for debate (Again, I'll take the law seriously when the PRC gets an independent judiciary) but I'm not accusing them of something they didn't do - they did do it.
So in addition to looking up what famous means, you need to look up the difference between didn't and don't.
>>Also, China ranks higher than Spain in the judicial independence ranking issued by the World Economic Forum. What do you have to say about that?
<<
I would say that's a response to a survey
"Response to the survey question “In your country, how independent is the judicial system from influences of the government, individuals, or companies?” [1 = not independent at all; 7 = entirely independent]
"
Which measures perception rather than reality.
The fact talking points on Spain you've been given aren't exactly comprehensive. Although it is funny to see wumao start talking about Spain here and on SCMP at the same time.
Here's an idea you can start bumping up the corporate ladder. How about you start trying to build a country that's not so shit your only argument for it is mass whataboutism? Abandoning the the idea that as long as you're kinda sorta similar to the shittiest Western country in any category, you're good enough is also a good idea. Surely you must aspire to be better than the shittiest of Western countries in some areas, right?
Finally, no one in here has tried to claim China does have judicial independence. There's been bluster and whataboutism, but the fact remains that until China has that, changes to China's laws don't mean shit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@acitrid >>if you think socialistic policies are what killed all those people then you obviously don't know what it is either. Few people who support socialism want communism<<
It sounds like you've confused Socialism and Communism. What do you think these terms mean?
As far as I've seen, most people who think they're Socialists are Social Democrats. People also tend to think Socialism = Social Democracy and Communism = Socialism.
Ideas that ruin economies 100% kill people. Masses of them. Collectivised farming leading to insufficient food production, leading to starvation is 100% a socialist policy that kills. To say nothing of the people who are declared enemies because the theory is good, therefore it's capitalist saboteurs that are the problem.
>>and frankly its ridiculous that red scare is still present today<<
As much as the CCP has embraced Capitalism, there's still major Socialist parties who are working to subvert democratic states. Sam Dastyari is our own example.
>>National socialism what socialism in name only, and if you actually do research on what led to the eventual conditions in germany, you will see that socialism as socialism was never the plan.
<<
I never said otherwise. What I said was imagine if people tried to rehabilitate that term.
I also said that Socialism is an ideology that has killed far more than Hitler has. Which should have been another indication that I separated the two terms.
>>socialism isnt some malevolent force that wants to kill you<<
No. It's an idea. Socialists, on the other hand....
You might say they don't want to, but anyone who can still be a socialist after the 20th century (and know WTF they're talking about) is promoting an ideology that has killed masses of people with nothing to show for it. I don't really care if death is intentional or via misguided accident. Dead is dead and we've seen the results of the experiment.
>>looking at ideas as ideas rather than scary words can really help to understand things like that. now how how about i make my own ridiculous comparison. uhhhhh imagine if someone tried to bring back nazis like people want to bring back commies, oh wait people already rally and do that together in public, and are supported under "free speech".
<<
I'm in favour of free speech. Notice I'm not saying you can't talk? All I'm doing is pointing out the facts behind that experiment, and my own observations on where you seem to not know what the terms actually mean. The word is just a sound. What the word represents is terrifying.
Also, Neo Nazis have no serious backing. It's a discredited ideology. Socialism has serious backing. People take it seriously. Presidential candidates have proudly stated they're socialist. Bernie Sanders is the best example. There are openly socialist members of congress abc Western governments around the world. Endorsed by major parties. AOC is a prime example.
Which would you be more concerned about?
1
-
@acitrid Yeah, I think I'm going to need you to start quoting me when you reply like this.
For instance: I didn't say "Bernie Sanders and AOC are going to "kill more than hitler" because they call themselves socialists" - I used them as examples that show Socialism still has legitimacy (and mass support) whereas Neo Nazism doesn't.
Considering I was explicitly talking about backing of the ideology, and not about what they, personally are going to do, simply because they call themselves Socialist, that's past misunderstanding and well into straw man territory.
>>please give me any actual reason why.<<
Re-read my post and ignore your own straw men. I gave a major real word example of a socialist policy that led to mass starvation.
>>Look at their policy and explain to me how it's going to lead to food shortages<<
Repeating that it's done, and look at the 20th century.
>>All I'm asking for is reasons besides "venezuela" or "stalin"<<
Or Mao, or really, it seems a safe bet that any of the 20th century monsters who contributed to these deaths will be ignored. Anyway, what's wrong with the statement I made? Please quote it when you're explaining it. I no longer trust you to speak in good faith.
>>. Also if you think white supremacy exists at a negligible size in the US you aren't really paying attention<<
You're not paying attention to what I wrote. Read it again. I was doing a comparison.
I didn't say they were at a negligible size, I said they lacked serious backing. Then proceeded to give examples (examples which that statement clearly shows you read in the correct context, despite your previous misrepresentation of what I said)
>>People are more scared of socialists than nazis, and that's because THEY think they're the same thing as communists. I never said that they were so I dont really know where you got that from.<<
1. People should be for the reasons I gave.
2. You know how I asked you for what you thought these words mean? The answer to that appears to be missing. It was literally in the first line of my response, so it's clear that you read the question.
Anyway, please try again. Quote what I said. Anything incorrect will be jumped on, as you've got no excuse for not being a bit more careful the next time round.
Edit: Not that this is the first time I've pointed out where you've misrepresented what was said. One time is an accident, repeated, however... It starts to look intentional.:
>>National socialism what socialism in name only, and if you actually do research on what led to the eventual conditions in germany, you will see that socialism as socialism was never the plan.
<<
I never said otherwise. What I said was imagine if people tried to rehabilitate that term.
I also said that Socialism is an ideology that has killed far more than Hitler has. Which should have been another indication that I separated the two terms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCWB5JqLXdwkHGqAhg2Oh1tA my grandfather helped prevent South Korea becoming North Korea. It was worth it. The CCP's ally isn't one to be proud of.
And Vietnam was invaded by the CCP shortly after. They won. They now view the PRC as an enemy state.
And none of this changes that Taiwan HAS been cut off.
For over seventy years.
If the CCP thought they could have gotten away with taking Taiwan, they'd have done it last year (when the world was in disarray and Hong Kong ensured that no one would believe CCP lies about 1C2S). Now it's just empty words from a bunch of spoiled only children.
When the CCP does attempt to invade, however, it's starting at least a four front war. India, Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan. Maybe Russia if it decides the the CCP's value as a friend is gone and it can take even more land away (the morons in charge of your country have threatened Vladivostok, after all) all supported by the developed world.
Topped of by that their goal isn't to invade the PRC, but to blockade it, which is much, much easier.
Then to wait until things are bad enough that yet another Chinese civil war kicks off
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skydragon23101979 Part 4/4
Long story short:
If the CCP thought it could take Taiwan at an acceptable cost, it would have done it.
It will make the attempt at some point, but that will be when the pain of not attempting (spurred by needing a distraction from internal problems) is greater than the pain of attempting.
"You are looking at numbers. But ignoring realities on the ground. Once old folks die old buildings will be pulled down which young adult you know wants to inherit an old building they will pull it down or sell it. So demand is always present."
Sell it to whom?
Also, it's cute you think the PRC can afford to be that wasteful.
And this all remains true, yet...
PRICES KEEP ON DROPPING.
I know it's an absurd focus on numbers, but when things have bottomed out, we'd expect prices to stop dropping. Not for the decline to increase in pace.
Sure, some demand is always present.
But enough?
Just... No.
"yup so true that’s because it has not bottomed out.<<
And isn't near the bottom.
"Prices have not really dropped much maybe about 10% maybe more."
I'll never understand why it needs to be pointed out that this is a drop in process.
And if people know that house prices are going to drop, they'll be far more likely to delay buying.
Which makes them drop even more.
"I ou are also ignoring the fact that despite the fact that prices are dropping new homes are being sold and there is almost literally no new homes being built they are clearing old stocks."
And there will be no reason to make substantial amounts of new stock within our lifetimes.
Your population is dropping.
It will not increase.
Because of that, demand will not increase. It will remain greater than 0, but that's not what you need to have them remain stable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Overall, yep. The only thing I'd highlight is the difference between definition and common effect.
"a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt changespecifically" = Definition
"such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)" = an example effect in countries like the US. In the USSR, that would have (except for national defense) been the policies of a radical liberal.
An Australian conservative has very different specific policy platforms to an American one. (In Australia, it's more about the individual vs the group though, rather than left v right)
A USSR conservative was 100% a near polar opposite to an American conservative when it came to specific platforms. Both conservatives, though.
And so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdgarSanchez-rl9zh I've never been to Latin America, but my understanding is that generally, by the time you're being compared with them, things are bad.
Most countries in Asia (outside of ones like Japan or Korea. I absolutely haven't seen it in Japan. Never been to Korea) are also generally not ones you want to be compared to.
But I'll put it this way:
We regularly went to a hotel in Shenyang favoured by party officials.
In this hotel run for party officials, which looked great from a distance, the cladding was falling off. The floor getting flooded when the shower was used was seen as normal, there was mould (obviously with those dodgy pipes) Everything was just dodgily done.
Lovely grounds around it. Lovely design. Absolutely shoddy maintenance.
And this was the same walking anywhere around it (Shenyang is a tier 1 city, BTW) outside of the main business district it's common to simply see buildings crumbling.
Brand new looks fantastic, but if it's not brand new, it goes downhill fast. It's basically a country that only cares about initial impressions, and beyond that, every corner will be cut.
Not being you, I can't say I've seen what you've seen, all I can say is that outside of countries you never, ever want to be compared with, I've never seen anything like this.
Take a random district from one of the Vietnamese cities I'd visited, plonk it in the middle and you wouldn't have seen the quality difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harrysmith8515 >>Robert Bray well low birthrate is in cities. In rural area, 3 to 5 kids per family is still common<<
Not common enough, according to numbers released by the global times.
Long story short:
2016 - 17.8 million births
2021 - 10 million births
When those 10 million who were born enter the workforce, 20 million per year will be leaving it.
Also, those rural ones are the ones you don't need. Rural education isn't famous for being fantastic.
>>China Retirement age May increase in the future. But developed countries are also increasing retirement age. Some will increase from 65 to 67 years or even 70 years. <<
Will increase in the future.
And yes, developed countries are increasing it.
Developed countries are also able to attract enough workers to keep the worker:dependent ratio strong. Meaning that this retirement age will continue to actually mean something.
>>China collapse was talked about every year for about 20 years already.<<
Closer to ten years.
And as Evergrande showed us, unsustainable practices go from being very good to very bad very quickly.
>>Still China economy develop very fast. I heard China gdp in 2021 increase by 20% from 15 US trillion in 2020 to 18 trillion in 2021. I did not see any sign of slowdown or collapse.<<
That's nice in the short term.
Are you planning on dying in the next few years? If not, you need to think a bit longer term.
To give a bit more data on this:
China’s main state pension fund will run out of money by 2035 due to a decline in the available work force, according to new research.
The urban worker pension fund, the backbone of the country’s state pension system, held a reserve of 4.8 trillion yuan (US$714 billion) at the end of 2018. It is predicted to peak at 7 trillion yuan in 2027, then drop steadily to zero by 2035, a report by the World Social Security Centre at the government-supported Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has said.
And the gap between contributions and outlays could be as high as 11 trillion yuan (US$1.64 trillion) by 2050, with each retired citizen supported by only one worker, down from the current level of two, the government think tank calculated.
The report confirms long-standing concerns among the general public, especially among younger people, that China’s state pension system is financially unsustainable and highlights a major challenge for the government after four decades of restrictions on births.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From the South China Morning Post (owned by Alibaba and subject to the national security law in Hong Kong)
China population: kindergartens fall for first time in 15 years as demographic crisis takes a toll
Number of kindergartens fell in China by 5,610 to 289,200 last year, marking the first drop since 2008, according to a Ministry of Education annual report
The number of students enrolled in kindergartens and preschools also dropped, a trend that coincides with China’s plunging birth rate and overall demographic crisis
The number of kindergartens in China fell for the first time in 15 years in 2022, signalling the toll taken by the country’s plunging births amid exacerbating demographic challenges. According to an annual report published by the Ministry of Education on Wednesday, the number of kindergartens fell by 5,610 to 289,200 last year, marking the first drop since 2008. The report also showed the number of students enrolled in kindergartens and preschools dropped by 3.7 per cent from a year earlier to 46.3 million in 2022. The number of primary schools in China also tumbled by 3.35 per cent to 149,100 at the end of last year, while new enrolments sank by 4.55 per cent to 17 million.
A kindergarten in the Xisanqi suburb of Beijing, which opened in 2009, is set to close at the end of August due to “increasing enrolment difficulties, including falling births and the constant increase in public kindergartens”, it said in a recent letter. The drastic drop in enrolments coincides with China’s plunging birth rate after Chinese mothers gave birth to just 9.56 million babies last year. This represented the lowest total in modern history and the first time the figure had dipped below 10 million.
China’s birth rate also fell to a record low of 6.77 per 1,000 people, while the overall population fell by 850,000 to 1.4118 billion, as deaths outnumbered births for the first time in six decades.
Despite the falling number of young children, demographers have pointed out that many parents are still struggling to find affordable public kindergartens due to significant shortage coupled with an intense competition for places.
More preschools and primary schools will close in the future, and “the fierce competition will separate the best from the rest,” said Yuan Xin, vice-president of the China Population Association and a professor of demography at Nankai University in Tianjin. As the sharp drop in the number of preschools and primary schools has prompted concerns that some kindergarten teachers might lose their jobs, Yuan added that it is inevitable, and it will give rise to more profound social issues, which will be hard to solve.
“Physical facilities, such as campuses and classrooms, can be repurposed into elderly care facilities,” he said. “However, kindergarten teachers, elementary school teachers, or high-school teachers can’t just easily transition into becoming caregivers for the elderly.”
In contrast to the shrinking number of kindergartens and primary schools, China recorded an expansion in vocational education amid a push for skilled blue-collar workers as manufacturers across the country are struggling to hire.
Last year, new enrolments in undergraduate vocational colleges jumped by 84.4 per cent from 2021 after adding 76,300 new students, the report said. The number of undergraduate vocational schools enrolments also rose by nearly 77 per cent to 228,700. By 2025, nearly 30 million manufacturing jobs in China will go unfilled, accounting for nearly half of all jobs in the sector, according to the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security.
Its survey also found that around half of the top 100 jobs facing the most severe labour shortages in the second half of last year were in the manufacturing sector.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>+Robert Bray true libertarian socialism has only existed in small quantities in small areas and for small amounts of time before being crushed by more powerful forces who were against their existence (usually either the United States or the Soviet Union)<<
So this would be an excuse. Not a success.
>>Here are some examples though: the nation of Rojava today<<
Even Venezuela lasted longer than it's been around.
When the war in Syria ends, you'll see it go the way of the Israeli Kibbutz. At best, people will simply lose interest and walk away.
>>Hungary in the 1950s<<
Until.. Excuse.
>>Nicaragua during the time of the Sandinista government<<
Until... Excuse
>>and several powerful anarchist communes during the Spanish civil war.<<
Until... Excuse.
>>But you are right, it has been an uphill battle for the cause to liberate the workers<<
Something that, so far, has only happened sustainably in Capitalist countries.
If you disagree, I'm going to need more info on what you mean by 'liberate the workers'
>>so it isn't always easy to tell if socialism works or what kind works better.<<
Well.... So far, you've listed a state that's been around for about six years and is better than a war zone. Six years into Chavez, things were looking peachy as well.
>>But it is extremely apparent that if capitalism does work, it works only for negative outcomes<<
Really?
You've got shelter, electricity, food (famine is largely a thing of the past.)
>>since over 20 million people a year die from causes that capitalism could prevent but won't<<
Here's one key thing you said here:
Could prevent.
Whereas Socialism has shown itself to be incapable of preventing them.
That being said, for preventing premature deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
You're going a long way down before you hit the first non-Capitalist country.
It's also worth noting that you're not saying "caused" you're saying "could prevent, but won't"
There's doubtless lots of deaths that occur each year that you, personally, could prevent, but won't.
There's probably also lots of things that could alleviate poverty that you're personally against. If Nike sets up a sweatshop and pays voluntary workers what you consider to be a pittance (but is still better than anything else they can get), it seems likely that you'd be up in arms about it and be campaigning to get them to shut it down. If not you, then someone like you.
Lots of children have been driven into prostitution because of people like that.
The sweatshop has bought far more people out of poverty than good intentions has over the last century.
>>and capitalism causes economic turmoil, extreme inequality, a lack of liberty, and large scale environmental destruction<<
You're projecting a bit. Socialist attempts have an extremely strong tendency to produce all of those things. If you're going to say X is worse than Y, you can't just produce a list of bad things that happen under X that also happen under Y over and over again.
And there are worse things than inequality. Namely everyone being equally poor.
Now, this all being said. Yes, bad things happen under Capitalism. But Capitalism has success stories. Lots of them.
>>So it may be time for something different.<<
The last hundred million dead wasn't enough. Maybe the next hundred million will be.
Or the hundred million after that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@River Cheney >>Not sure about eating zoo animals<<
From the lack of people who've been able to answer that question, it's a safe bet they weren't.
>>but a lot of the hyperinflation has been caused by reliance on oil by the government<<
Hyperinflation (which it wasn't until recently) isn't caused by relying on oil. It's caused by printing more money than the real things your economy is doing can support.
It's possible for the Venezuelan govt to stop inflation (almost) tomorrow. Stop printing money.
>>and US sanctions making the whole situation worse.<<
Doubtful. At the moment, they're prioritising repaying debt (of which there is shitloads. Despite a decade of the best oil prices they could ever hope for) over everything else.
Sanctions would affect the debt and the swiss bank accounts.
>>Chavez cut the amount of poverty by a third,<<
Poverty is at 90%
So... Not that much in the way of longevity.
If I mortgage my house to the hilt to five independent people, and sell one of my hands to science (he didn't reinvest in his one source of income. Oil infrastructure is costly to maintain) I could have a pretty damn impressive life... Until the bills came due.
>>and a lot of the oil money went towards social programs; things that actually lift people out of poverty,<<
But not things that keep people out of poverty.
>>not "but muh capitalism".<<
Which is a system that keeps people out of poverty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg
That right there is Capitalism being successful.
You can see when the USSR fell and China abandoned the attempt at Socialism.
>>The country was most certainly not a democracy before Chavez, more of a "polygarchy"of sorts, with two main groups in power making sure that those two groups stayed in power.<<
Not really worth responding to, as it's not a way in which he'd improved things.
As I like to say to people who complain about a two party state... They should see a one party state.
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo happened, with 97% of the people dying being shot to death in their own houses. Not a good place do be, dontcha think?<<
Not at all.
Currently thousands at risk of death because dialysis machines don't work in a power cut. We won't have any idea of how many have been killed until after Maduro is gone.
The method doesn't matter. Dead is dead.
This being said: What they're describing is a slow day in Socialist China. (As in China when it was attempting to make Socialism work)
>>that's a valid viewpoint. I would say that the 2008 economic downturn, coupled with a very high reliance on oil, led to them not being able to sustain the programs<<
1. They had a good decade to put away a rainy day find Norway-style. They pissed the money away and kept on borrowing.
2. The economy was collapsing BEFORE the price of oil dropped.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959
This article is from the best part of a year before the price crash. Things were already falling apart.
Largely because when someone's an economic imbecile (such as your average Socialist) it doesn't matter how much money you give them, they'll piss it away.
>>But blame should also be put on the government for mismanaging the economy,<<
Mismanagement by attempting to make Socialism work.
The same thing that killed tens of millions in China through starvation during peacetime.
>>but with current US sanctions still taking center stage for the current situation<<
Not even close.
>>and the lack of a resolution to the problem.<<
The resolution to the problem is Maduro being toppled from power and having someone who's not a moron in charge.
Until that happens (and I'm not advocating an invasion. Venezuela needs to be seen to fail on its own) the problems will only get worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gloria Jean >>Again, you think I care about what other people think of me personally<<
Not really, I think it's a self image thing. Feeling intelligent because you've uncovered a truth that the sheeple don't realise.
It's obvious you're not out to actually attempt to change any minds on this. Which leaves self image as the final motivating factor.
>>People have called other people "crazy" since the beginning of time. especially if they have disagreements or differences of opinions.<<
They have. But when you're given a laundry list of things you just happen to also believe. Vaccines being a prime one. Chemtrails another good example.
>>( I never fell for the Nibiru disinformation crap, by the way.) <<
Well, that's one.
>>ut as long as you are deciding what criteria is required to label a person "crazy" where exactly do you draw the line? Which one of my points above do you think has no evidence to back it u<<
Vaccine and Chemtrails are prime examples. I'm sure you believe there's lots of evidence to back it up. For chemtrails, when you believe that things with an innocent explanation have a sinister cause, that definitely helps. For vaccines, well, everything is a poison in a high enough dose.
>>What news outlet do you watch? Who do you believe?<<
None, really. I read. From a variety of sources.
I also look at the data. Which, for vaccines shows a sudden drop in X disease whenever an associated vaccine is introduced. Coupled with a rise in X disease when people stop taking it.
From people I've spoken to before, we've discovered personal hygiene a dozen or so times in the last century.
>>Getting back to the subject. I am old enough to remember when gas was 25 cents a gallon and I could rent an apartment for $50.00 to $75.00 a month and my wage was 75 cents per hour. <<
So you've lived long enough to have seen the cumulative effect of low levels of inflation.
3% a year does add up.
>> I remember when a family could survive with the husband could work and the wife could stay home and have babies.<<
Still can. However, we really like the extra spending power two incomes gives us.
>> Today's young people are having to stay at home with their parents and live in the basement because wages can't begin to support him or her on her own.<<
Well, that does tend to happen when the wife stays home to have babies. Populations increase, putting pressure on demand for accommodation.
It also happens when your economy is good enough to attract skilled migrants from all over the world.
Anyway, yep. Times have changed. Stay in school. Don't study useless things.
>>Prices for items in the grocery store have doubled and packages have gotten smaller in the last ten years. <<
20% more over ten years.
Although I've got little doubt you could cherry pick individual examples.
Anyway: If you're a century old, you can remember when 45% of the average household income was spent on food. Housing has gone up by 10% but in the same time, food has dropped by 30% to about 15% That's up to 2003 - The next shows food at < 10% of your budget.
If you're in your 70's or so, then you can remember when food took up three times the amount of your budget it does now, while housing costs have gone up about 5%
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-america-spends-money-100-years-in-the-life-of-the-family-budget/255475/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/your-grandparents-spent-more-of-their-money-on-food-than-you-do
>>It is inflation out of control and it could get worse<<
Like... 3%. One of the issues is inflation is uncomfortably low.
If you want to see out of control, look further south.
>>This is a plan by the globalist to put people in poverty and make slaves out of them<<
At a time when the global poverty rate has never been lower...
I don't think they're very good planners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg
>>There is also a plan to reduce the population of the earth by the elites and they have admitted this in public.
<<
1. GOOD! You think the current population is healthy? No, it's unsustainable. You complain about housing costs, yet find it sinister when people think that 7 billion and increasing is too many?
2. This is a side effect of prosperity. People in prosperous countries tend to have fewer children, simply because they don't need as many. (And what they have actually reach adulthood) So... Basically, they're keeping people poor, which makes people tend to have more kids, but they're trying to make us choose to have fewer kids by improving our lives to the point we don't need as many....??
You're going to need to pick which side of the fence you're actually on there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah. That's something that really came to a head a few years ago.
When the companies that relied on Linux realised it was really a doubleplusgood idea to actually fund people doing the boring things. Like checking for security vulnerabilities.
Making new features is fun. Going back, dotting every I and crossing every T, less so.
That being said. Ten years ago for Windows.... Yeah, no.
I was doing tech support when blaster, welchia, etc came out. I was also doing it when IE6 was still a popular browser. I've yet to see anything on Linux that rivaled the sheer awfulness that was IE6.
For months, conversations went like
"Is your computer connected to the internet?"
"Yes"
"Do you have a firewall or are you behind a router?"
"No"
"Yeah, you've got a virus"
Edit: That was a welchia/blaster conversation. For IE it was "Are you using IE?" "Yes" " "Yeah, you've got a virus. Here's Firefox"
For years. Years. Literal years of the unrivalled shit that was IE6 being unpatched.
Actually, fun fact: A variant of shellshock exists in cmd. But it was only an issue for Linux because bash is good, so used with everything. cmd is horrible, so used with nothing.
Anyway. If you ever thought it was perfect, you're a little gullible. If you think it's noticably worse than Windows was, despite being closed source and incredibly well funded, you're off the planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"beating you in debate, is getting ugly. your starting to lose your mind, lol. just kidding, maybe its the definition of words we should establish here"
Feel free to open a dictionary any time you like.
Your inability to understand that multiple words can be applied to one thing and that one word can be used in multiple ways is your problem, not mine.
Your claim that these things are different governments is flat out wrong, BTW. A government is a thing that runs a kingdom, state, country, nation, town, village, empire or whatever you like. It's not the entity itself.
It's fine. You speak English as a second language. The reasons for you being wrong don't change that you're wrong.
If you want to get into a debate that involves the definition of words (which this does. I'm not going to get into a thing where we formally agree on definitions between us, BTW, the English language is far too big for that. I'll happily go to the various dictionaries instead.) you'll need to speak and understand the language you're doing it in far better than you do. That I've had to explain to you that words have connotations, multiple words for one thing and multiple uses for one word is not something that someone who is ready for this kind of discussion should need.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>> However, the big drop in oil prices especially after peak profit was the nail in the coffin<<
One of many.
It made the coffin tighter, but in the end, because they stopped investing in their oil infrastructure, it was just one of many nails. The only thing that the drop affected was the timeline.
>> I’m excoriating +PragerU for using the collapse as another red herring to demonize all “socialist” concepts<<
But it was due to this. The reliance on oil was a factor, but Venezuela was far more reliant on oil after Chavez than before him. Their lack of respect for private property and imposition of price controls was also a major contributor (Why invest if you won't get a reward?) Remember that they've been having shortages of stuff like toilet paper for over a decade now.
That being said, don't read what I'm saying as me being against social programs. I'm hugely in favour of them, as long as the money is there and they provide a worthwhile return on investment. However, socialism is something quite separate (although frequently conflated) and provides consistently bad results.
>> Rather than being intellectually responsible and discussing the real economic timeline/conditions we get typical close minded ideological slander. <<
I'm interested in what they left out here that's relevant (It's been a while since I watched this video, so my apologies if I'd forgotten something from it)
Anyway, my additional apologies if my response is a bit disjointed, I'm not entirely sure we're quite discussing the same thing. My main point of contention in your original post was tying the drop in the economy to the drop in oil prices. (At least, that was my reading of what you said. It's the thing most people refer to when they say that)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mallard >>"Infinite growth on a finite planet" assumes there are no innovations that compensate for the growth and that nothing can be renewed or recycled, both of which are false assumptions.
<<
Also, as places develop economically, the birthrate plummets.
>>You're right, and that's the entire reason why China doesn't want to make a deal with Trump. They know that that deal means they'll have to embrace capitalism because they won't be able to steal intellectual property from other countries to the benefit of their own economy. If they can't steal, they must innovate or they will stop growing, and the only way to incentivise innovation is through capitalism.<<
Oh, there's a whole shitload more to it than that.
The Chinese economy is Capitalist, and has been since the 'economic miracle' started (This is part of Dennis's cluelessness on it.) but the govt is still socialist with a big emphasis on state owned enterprises. Not really because of economic benefit, though (That's provided by the Capitalist economy. Last time they were full-on socialist there was mass starvation... Mass seems an inadequate word), but because of political benefit. Also, it makes political leaders, generals, etc stinking rich.
>>Their government knows they're in a tough spot right now and are trying (and hoping) Trump doesn't get back into office in 2020 because then they're going to have to do something if he does. All they can do right now is wait until then and let both economies suffer in the meantime.
<<
Which is the really funny thing. It no longer matters if he gets back in or not. He's normalised pushing back on the PRC all over the world. It's become a unifying factor of major political parties in every developed country.
Both economies will suffer, actually all of them will, but if America has a recession, there'll be an election, whoever's in charge might be kicked out, and a new lot will come into power. In the PRC, civil war is a likelihood.
I'm living in HK now, and the risk to the economy is about the only reason I can think of why I haven't seen PLA troops going past my apartment.
>>@Mallard Better institute those fantasy innovations very soon, because humanity is running out of time.
<<
They're being implemented constantly.
This is part of your general cluelessness. You don't see what's been a rapid process because it's been a rapid process your entire life. There's no magic wand that'll be implemented overnight, just a huge amount of individual advancements. I doubt you have the slightest idea of what you're actually looking for with these innovations.
>>@Mallard I see things very differently. I view capitalism as the instrument of our own self destruction. There is world of evidence that backs up this analysis. The fact capitalism drives inequality I have never viewed it as a positive thing for humanity.
<<
Again here we're getting back to your demonstrated inability to articulate even simple things in detail on your own. Those are standard tired talking points.
Whereas you can't even give a basic definition of the words we're using.
And really, thinking that China is a Socialist success story really is a hilarious level of ignorance.
Adding onto that, if you're against inequality, China is a failure by that standard.
China had equality. Everyone was dirt poor. Now, thanks to Capitalism, a decent amount are wealthy, hundreds of millions are OK, and only a small minority come close to the crushing poverty they endured under its old Socialist economy. Overall though, China is massively unequal. As soon as you leave the major cities, you enter a different world.
Which further shows (as if further evidence was needed) that you haven't thought this through, there are far worse things than inequality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anyway, just to highlight the impotence we can only wish your father had:
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Chinese national bureau of statistics.
These are quotes from the global times. You can look up the articles based on them.
"There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed.""There has been a declining curve of yearly new births in China– 17.86 million, 17.23 million, 15.23 million and 14.65 million in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively, according to data released by the NBS."
"China's population fell by 850,000 in 2022 from the previous year, the National Statistics Bureau (NBS) said in February. The number of births was 9.56 million last year, or 6.77 per 1,000 people, data from the bureau showed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Luis: It always makes me laugh when people claim China is a success story of Socialism.
In reality, it's one of Socialism's greatest failures. up to 60 million dead from starvation, devastated economy, and it became a success story only AFTER ditching the attempt in all but name.
The only variable that changed between China's failure and China's success (not complete success, but massive vs what it was) was embracing Capitalism.
And then for people who go on about going there to see it for themselves... Well. I have. The cities and the countryside. Not quite as a local, but considering I'm with family, I'm not just a tourist either.
With the exception of Shanghai, Hong Kong and Macao, the cities are pretty shit by Western standards (Even for Shanghai, you don't want to be a migrant worker... Except that huge amounts of people DO want to be migrant workers, because the countryside alternative is so bad). That's to say nothing of the pollution problems that affect everywhere.
And the countryside.... It's bad. It's improving, because it's really easy to improve on huge wads of people dropping dead from starvation, but it's still bad.
As for people who go on about capitalist countries that are doing badly, well. Yeah. There are failures. It's like oxygen. Having oxygen in your air doesn't guarantee you'll survive. Not having it guarantees you'll die. It's not everything, but it is a vital prerequisite to not being an economic disaster.
As far as I've seen, the three things needed are capitalism, a stable political system (Doesn't mean it doesn't change. Just that changes are orderly and predictable... Like through elections) and an as impartial rule of law as possible (Applied evenly. Not winked at for friends, and no corruption)
Get rid of one of those things and it goes to hell (Probably taking at least one of the other things with it. History has shown us that getting rid of Capitalism takes the other two things with it)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 now there's projection.
But just to show you're a liar, here's a post full of facts you're completely incapable of refuting. After so many opportunities.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
@shundi4264 now there's projection!
Done in the full knowledge that I can bring a large amount of facts to support me.
What's the word again for saying things you know are untrue? L... Something.
Facts like these.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 to show the lie, though. Here's what you know I post.
Full of facts. Unlike your posts.
And showing all relevant sides of the story. As shown by your inability to show what I'm missing or have misrepresented.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaquillewilliams7888 >>There is literally nothing that Stalin or Mao did that the UK, US, France, Spain, and Portugal didn’t do.<<
There's something they didn't do that those places did do.
They created successes.
Stalin, Mao, etc were epic failures and, particularly with Mao, they knew it.
>>But nothing is a tragedy until it happens to people in the core of these empires. Literally millions of people dead and nothing.<<
Check the human development index sometime.
That's a measure of success right there.
Nothing has brought more people out of poverty than Capitalism has.
>>The ONLY people who are seen as tyrants in the west are people who take wealth away from the rich. <<
I'm pretty sure Putin's a classic example of a tyrant who doesn't take wealth away from the rich.
>>Communists made horrible errors and were responsible for deaths. They were also overly repressive This is not the same as the deliberate cruelty that the major empires have visited across the world. <<
Here, we'll have a real problem.
Mao KNEW what was going on. Stalin KNEW what was going on. Pol Pot KNEW what was going on. The Kims KNEW (and know) what's going on.
If you want to say that Western leaders did horrible things, that's fine. I know that if I ask for a quote where I come close to denying this, I'll be met with silence.
But don't even think about telling me that these people didn't KNOW exactly what they were doing.
What they did might have started as a mistake, but they kept these mistakes going even after they KNEW what they were doing.
What? You think the Holodomor was an accident? You think Mao wasn't able to look outside his window and see the starvation? You think Kim Jong Il was ignorant of the widespread starvation in his own country?
>>The US segregated it’s population (north & south) and almost exterminated the entire native population. <<
Yes it did.
>>The US has 25% of the worlds prisoners and only 5% of the population <<
Kind of depends on how you define a prison, doesn't it?
Are the Uighurs imprisoned? Or are they in schools?
What about when you literally make an entire country a prison, as was the case in the USSR and is the case in North Korea?
Or what if you simply flat out lie about your numbers?
The US houses 25% of those who are OFFICIALLY prisoners. That's not remotely the same as housing 25% of the world's prisoners.
And the number ignores to a shameful degree the difference between a prisoner in the US and a 'student' in Xinjiang.
>>Wealth redistribution brought nothing but vitriol from the countries where wealth > human life.<<
Kind of depends on how it's done.
Socialism has been an epic failure.
Social Democracy, which is using the proceeds of capitalism to fight inequality has done quite well.
As far as wealth being worth more than human life goes, economies matter. They matter enormously. Poverty kills. Poverty kills en masse.
>>They made Haiti pay for wanting to be a free society, Ousted Arbenz in Guatemala, Tried to put the Czar back in power during the Russian revolution, Couped Allende in Chile, Killed Thomas Sankara (greatest leader to ever live, Assassinated Lamumba, Ousted the Shah in Iran, Assassinated MLK, Assassinated Fred Hampton, Bombed their own citizens (Blair Mountain, Tulsa Massacre, MOVE bombings), bombed Grenada, Put Fascist in power in DR, Honduras, etc—who were responsible for a global campaign against all progressive movements<<
Yep, a lot of very bad, commonly indefensible actions have been done by Western countries, but...
>>Stalin was a brute. The US was the most brutal empire of the 20th century.
Not even close.
Not remotely close.
The USA was a country that did do some horrible things that we expected better from.
But what it's done over several centuries doesn't come close to what the PRC or the USSR (also empires) did in 70 years .
And unlike these two countries, the USA has had some successes.
The USSR was a failure that spawned failure. The PRC's successes have stemmed from Mao being dead and no longer actively screwing things up.
Unlike Russia and the PRC as well, the USA has learned and improved. It's not perfect. It's a long, long way from being perfect. However it's much better than it was. Whereas Russia and the PRC are more of the same. The only thing their leaders have learnt is how to stay in power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fayechan6194 Hong Kong has its own passport and currency, but its government takes its orders from Beijing and is installed by Beijing.
Hong Kong was (no longer is) highly independent. Taiwan is independent.
They are separate from the CCP, but you're right, they do want that to be officially recognised.
This recognition won't be a thing that makes them independent, though, so much as an acknowledgement of what was already true.
Also, again, the government has said that are independent and always have been.
The ROC was started as an independent country.
At what date wasn't it an independent country?
Realistically, for their recognition, we're not waiting for anything done in Taiwan, but for something to go horribly wrong with the PRC side of things to the point the rest of the world no longer cares about their policy of "choose them or us, and remember you make more money out of us"
If the PRC were a country if 140 million, there's no way we would be having this conversation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
See, on this stuff, if someone has someone else put that person in a bad situation, I have full sympathy.
If it had been to prepare the USSR for a German invasion (because food wasn't important or something) and they'd had to, gun literally to their heads, forcing them to choose, I'd have felt a lot of sympathy.
But it was in 1932. Before Hitler had even gained power. When any Western countries (that really had no appetite for war) would have had to have crossed Germany and Eastern Europe to get to him.
However, iit's normally a bad set of choices they create for themselves with easily foreseeable outcomes (I'm currently having this discussion with someone else who can't understand why the move to socialism alone is damaging. Apparently intelligent people can't be expected to see things are going to get worse and leave) so for that, I have no sympathy, and give no praise for fixing it.
Case in point: So many of the CCP's major achievements. Bringing people out of poverty, for a start... After they put them there in the first place.
In the future, I've got no doubt they'll be trumpeting how they helped with North Korea... After being responsible for its creation in the first place.
You get the idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@8qk67acq5 and my point is that the govt here doing that would be a cataclysmic change.
Whereas in your country, it's business as usual.
And that 70 year lease is from when the land was first leased. The land you're on could be as little as a few years away from expiring.
You'll have the option to renew it, sure.
At market rates.
It won't be below that.
Without compensation, because why should there be? It was never yours.
By contrast, my rates are based on local services and come to a few thousand a year. In your case, you're basically required to completely repurchase the property.
And you think 70 years is a long time. However if you resell it in 20 years, that's a 50 year lease. The buyer of which will know that by the end it goes to sell, it's a 40, 30, 20 year lease.
This tenure isn't going to be based on usage, BTW. I can't begin to imagine where you got that fantasy. It's going to be based on you being willing to pay more for X block of land than anyone else is.
For the final bit of what 70 years means, I'll be able to pass my freehold property to my daughter.
If you're one of the vanishing minority of Chinese who believe they can afford to be parents, that's an option you won't have. (or won't mean much by the time you do it)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smotonisi2244 My apologies for the long post, there's a lot to unpack. This is part 1:
Ok, let's have a look at the mitigations first. To see how feasible they are.
I'll do them in order of most to least.
>>Strengthen the social safety net<<
You can, but really, this is just shifting some figures around. The end result is that more productivity goes into supporting your elderly.
If this is the worker funding its parents via the state or funding its parents directly, it doesn't really make a difference.
Estimates on your pension system are that it'll run dry by 2035, BTW. Step 1 is increasing support. Step 2 is having your economy pay for it.
Speaking of that, did you know the PRC has a higher rate of diabetes than the USA? It's beating it there, and the number is raising faster than predicted.
As of 2016, half of your adult population was pre-diabetic.
Diabetes is an absolutely horrible disease that's a completely insane drain on health care.
>>Raise the retirement age<<
It can. It should have long ago.
However, if you're someone who's career has been spent doing physical labour, the laws may be willing to keep you working, but the body disagrees.
And if you're approaching retirement age, updating your education to move into a less labour intensive role is difficult in the best of circumstances.
My wife was a teacher. She's now gone back to uni to study data science. To an Australian, this is a fairly normal thing. It's laudable, but it's not shocking. To her friends and family back in China, the reaction was incredulity. Culture plays a huge part here, and Chinese culture simply doesn't include normal people switching careers.
>>Chinese can focus on productivity<<
It can.
Hasn't it been for the last few decades?
If you're already doing something, but things are still going down, it's not likely to be your saviour.
>>Develop a better-educated labour force<<
It can.
And we saw the effect of the attempt at doing this. All those highly educated unemployed young people.
Now, those highly educated unemployed people aren't some economic force that's waiting to unleash as soon as the economy is ready for them. Education is very much a use it or lose it thing.
There's two parts to this.
The first is if you don't put what you've learnt into practice, you forget it,
The second (far more serious) is that if you're an employer, and experience levels are the same, you're going to prefer the person who's fresh out of uni. Because that person both has the knowledge fresh in its head and has more up to date knowledge.
Basically, when you finish uni, you need to start working ASAP to get the most benefit of the education.
>>Support automation<<
Now this is getting into the "Sounds good, but is much harder than it looks" phase.
It's also my field.
Long story short, this is where getting rich is really relevant. The people who can do this are very, very highly paid and in global demand.
There's a lot to do, automating a bespoke system (which almost all systems are) or adapting your entire process to something off the shelf (which still requires a large amount of skill and effort) is a massive task.
On top of that, it's a rapidly changing environment. You can't just set and forget, you can't just look at a huge manual system, wave a wand and have it do what you mean. You need to build more or less organically, and on top of that, you need to keep updating and improving. Especially considering what you know by the end of a project is far more than you knew at the beginning.
The PRC can't afford the number of the sort of people it needs.
This includes keeping its own citizens who have those skills who'd rather get more money elsewhere.
Basically, there's a huge selection filter for your best and brightest going to other countries, and they are going.
They're also not going back.
1
-
@smotonisi2244 Part 2:
>>Open inward immigration<<
This one's basically off the planet. It's not going to happen to anywhere near the degree you need. I could have used this on its own to demonstrate just how much you're clutching at straws, but figured the post deserved a decent response.
Ok, your working age population declined by 10.75 million last year, while your retirement age population increased by a scratch under 17 million.
If you merely replaced those workers, you'd still be in a worse position. But let's go with that.
Each coming year is also going to get worse. Much worse. But we'll stick with last year.
So to begin with, at this level, you need more immigrants than Chinese are being born. By a rapidly increasing margin.
For a multicultural society, this isn't much of an issue. We've figured out how to deal with it, however imperfectly. (I'd say that the ability to integrate immigrants from all over the world is one of the Anglosphere's biggest strengths)
The PRC is not a multicultural society. At all. I'd put money on Japan figuring out how to make it work first.
Now I'm going to compare you to the US, as it has the largest number of immigrants per year.
If we go for legal immigrants, the number is about 2.5 million in 2022.
You need at least four times that. And relative to your retirees, that's not breaking even. You also need skilled workers you can actually make use of.
Then there's where do you get them? The US has the advantage of being an English speaking country. For native and non-native speakers, English is the most widely spoken language in the world with a bit under 1.5 billion of us.
For Mandarin, the vast majority of speakers are already in China. Anyone who speaks it outside is a drop in the bucket. Without doing the actual math on the stats I'm looking at, I'd doubt that 5% of speakers are outside of the PRC.
Then there's attracting them. The US has a GDP per capita of 76k USD. The PRC has a GDP per capita of 12.5k.
And no, cost of living doesn't make the difference you need it to. When international people are looking at pay, they're not looking at what lifestyle they can afford, they're looking at what they'll be able to save up and send home. (They might choose to stay, but that's not the initial pull. I've personally done this twice)
You could always lower all standards, ignore China's homogenous culture and just send the old "Give us your tired masses" accepting anyone and everyone, but as much as that was good prior to WW2, today it's a recipe for disaster.
Anyway, moving on from those mitigations.
>>The more important question is whether the Chinese government can respond effectively and quickly to the challenges posed by demographic trends. If the government manages to raise the productivity of the labour force and build a strong social safety net alongside other initiatives, then having an older population need not translate into economic decline.<<
This is the govt that was blindsided by the effect of the one child policy.
They've had years to do this.
Today's situation was incredibly predictable.
They haven't.
1
-
@smotonisi2244 Part 3
>>In fact, China has managed to grow, and can continue to grow, at a robust pace independently of the evolution in the size of its labour force<<
5% growth with 12.5k GDP per capita is nothing.
And it's decreasing every year.
And there's still a heavy focus on stimulus.
>>The ageing of the workforce will take time to become a noticeable drag and can be partially offset by labour market reforms aimed at boosting participation rates amongst older workers<<
It's a drag now. Increasing every year. You've got this huge bubble of people just starting to hit retirement age. The time to implement these reforms was over a decade ago. If you're still talking about them as a hopeful thing for the future, that's a failure.
And again, this was extremely highly predictable. Check your demographic pyramid to see how predictable it was.
>>Far more important for the Chinese growth story is the productivity of the workforce, not its size. Reforms to support total factor productivity are of key importance<<
That's a nice slogan, but is completely empty.
Any substance is something that should already have been done.
Plus it's the productivity of the workforce minus its drains. Elderly are a massive drain. If they were eliminated on retirement, I'd say the PRC didn't have a problem. Because what's wrong with a shrinking population?
But the ratio of workers to dependents is going from fantastic (which is part of what fuelled China's "economic miracle" - The other part being Mao's death and Deng's acceptance of capitalism and international investment) to absolutely terrible.
Sure, you're not alone, but all that really means is that the Asian century simply isn't a thing that's going to happen.
>>Made in China 2025 is an explicit attempt to move up the value chain of production, in doing so greatly boosting the productivity of both capital and labour<<
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but MIC2025 was started in 2015. 2025 was the target date.
We're halfway through 2024.
It shouldn't be treated as a hope for the future. It should be treated as a historical thing that's already given beenfits.
And yet.... It's treated as a hope for the future.
>>Given the right policy mix, China's demographic decline is less of a problem than it appears<<
That's an incredibly big conditional.
>>It is imperative to understand that the Chinese economy's collapse will inevitably bring down the US economy due to their interdependence. We must be cautious with our wishes and actions.<<
I don't begin to understand why you bothered putting that in. It's an irrelevance to what will happen.
The only relevance it has is that other countries have realised this (Partially thanks to the virus) and have been moving away from the PRC for years.
Because obviously, being highly interdependent on a country with massive problems like this is an extremely bad idea. The solution is disentangle, which isn't something that will be completed overnight, but each little achievement is a help to the rest of the world and making things that little bit worse for the PRC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klytaemnistras For your first:
The Chinese govt stagnated. China also broke up many times and was under foreign rule many times. The Manchu govt that was in power in the 19th century was not Chinese, as an example.
But its biggest crime is that it stagnated. Turned completely inward.
And for the corruption in your own country, Capitalism isn't a magic wand. It can only build on what's there before. Corruption will improve, but your economy and governmental culture have a lot of healing to do first. Step 1 is using a system that actually works.
This is one of the things the EU was doing very well. If a country wanted to join, its govt needed to actually do something meaningful about corruption. Which is part of the reason Russia was so against it. Corrupt nations are far easier to deal with than countries with very little corruption.
And it's a documentary-style movie from the 80's.
For your last... But what else can you do when it's a pattern? Look at the map on the corruption perceptions index. You can see the Iron Curtain. It's not quite as obvious, but you can also see the EU (although Romania, Bulgaria and Greece simply have that come up as pink rather than red. And yes, I know Greece was never part of the Communist bloc. That right there is its own set of problems.)
To blindly blame everything on X ism is bad, yes. But to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the link between X ism and Y result is easily as bad.
There's one very useful thing from pointing at Socialism and saying it's a bad idea. If the message gets through, it might possibly stop people from going down a path that leads to failure pretty much every time it's tried. Imagine if the Venezuelan people had decided to not try Socialism. Sure, it would still be a corrupt shithole. However, it's a safe bet they wouldn't be eating rotten meat, zoo animals, and would probably have electricity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lcg3092 >>It's not population getting larger, it's CITY population getting larger<<
Ok, so there's 546m people still living in rural areas.
Each year over the past 10 years, about 1.2% of the total population moves inwards. So about 17m a year.
Over this ten years, that's 170 million, assuming it stays at this annual number, which it probably won't. People retiring generally don't move to more expensive areas. As time goes on, the number who actually want to and can move will be less and less (those who qualified would have already done it)
If we look back at a prediction made in 2008, we can see how times have changed. At that point, it was estimated that there'd be 1 billion living in cities by 2025.
Now at present, from He King's comments, 80 million vacant apartments is an underestimate, but let's use that.
I won't assume each is going to three people. 2:1 seems a very low average, but I'll go with that.
So that's enough to house 160 of those 170 million sitting idle now, at this very moment. Ignoring ones that are partially built.
So a sector that's worth up to a quarter of the country's economic output can put its feet up for at least the next ten years and just do nothing before demand might reach capacity.
This is all using conservative numbers and ignoring a host of other factors that don't work in your favour.
Speaking of ignoring things, that's twice I've asked/nudged for an answer to this
"As far as the western retirement goes, so far so good. What does the PRC have that's better?"
You did decide it was worth denigrating what the West had (after it had been pointed out how these were just not going to work in the PRC) so it feels like it's a pretty reasonable question to ask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eonglee44 absolutely. People are entitled to their own beliefs.
Beliefs that they generally form from experience.
And the experience of the PRC has been that it's run from people who say things they know to be untrue.
Excuse it however you like, that's the definition of a lie. People don't trust liars.
You're helping this perception that people from the PRC are liars by, well, I'll put it this way, either you're creating a straw man by intentionally pretending I've been suggesting people are angry that the CCP has been quiet about its achievements (I have no idea what else you could be trying to say with your lack of transparency bit) which is a type of a lie, or you're mentally so far gone that you actually think covering up the virus outbreak is some sort of achievement.
Neither of these is a good look.
After that kind of claim, you saying the you choose to be independent isn't exactly believable, either.
I get the feeling you literally have no concept of what a reputation actually is.
Fortunately, you don't need to.
We decide who enters our countries and the conditions by which they enter it.
You don't decide anything.
If we say we don't trust you, that's just your problem.
And please keep talking. You're doing a first class job of damaging your own image.
You might disagree, but.... I don't really care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SCMP (owned by Alibaba group and subject to the national security law)
China food security: 5 major concerns, from loss of fertile land to tumbling soybean output
Self-sufficiency in grains is a policy priority for the Chinese government, which wants to ensure the country can weather external uncertainty
Beijing is pushing for a breakthrough in biotechnology and seed production, while trying to ensure enough arable land is set aside for crops
Topic | China food security
Orange Wang
Orange Wang
Published: 6:00pm, 6 Mar, 2022
***SNIP***
China imported a record 164.5 million tonnes of grain in 2021, up 18.1 per cent from a year earlier, official customs data showed. The country’s food self-sufficiency rate has fallen to 76.8 per cent in 2020 from 101.8 per cent in 2000, a ratio that is expected to drop to 65 per cent by 2035, according to Du Ying, former deputy head of the National Development and Reform Commission.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A new economic outlook revealed that Russia expects to sell gas to China at a steeply discounted rate over the next three years, far below the price European buyers will pay, according to a Bloomberg report.
The report, citing an outlook through 2026 from Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, showed that Moscow will sell pipeline natural gas to China at an average price of $271.6 per 1,000 cubic meters next year.
Buyers in Europe and Turkey, on the other hand, will face an average price of $481.7.
Those prices should remain through 2026, with gradual reductions over time, per Bloomberg.
-----
If your numbers are accurate, that means they're getting 200b less than they were.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Check out the debate on master/slave database servers.
Basically, we've got people who want to be offended. As society improves more and more, the things they get offended by get increasingly minor.
Think about it from a Trade Union point of view... Once they've got what they want, what's the point in them? Unless they can think of something else they want (and justification for it. Doesn't really need to be rational) they're an irrelevance. They've won, they're not needed.
In their case, they'll never accept that they've won and got the society they originally wanted, because after that, they're simply no longer needed. So they're going to massive lengths to find new things to be upset by.
We've got the same thing in Australia with Aboriginal problems. There are huge problems in those communities (Alcoholism, leading to domestic and child abuse, etc) but they will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything that might actually improve their communities. (Such as quarantining dole payments to avoid having it be spent on alcohol. Needs to be spent on food, etc instead)
Basically because if the Aboriginal community standard of living ever approached a normal European one, they'd have no platform left to fight for.
They would literally choose the rape of children the lesser evil in this case.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/greens-should-shut-up-and-listen-to-indigenous-people/news-story/2d966f420e54dd2cd7e7abc1be7d1434
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drpeacesharman1285 >>Giving in now...ie telling the Yanks we do not want to be in any damn war, going neautral would be the smart thing to do<<
LOL @ We
Anyway.
Going neutral means we're picked off separately.
>>Why be a slave and hostage to America?? <<
When you talk about America that way, it's hyperbolic. With the CCP it's quite literal.
>>We don't need their security which in turn will make us an instant target for their many enemies.<<
The CCP is a common enemy.
>>Plus to be engaged in the many wars they create as their accomplice. Crazy! <<
As opposed to being left on our own against the barbarians running the PRC.
>>Look at NZ-they have balls and intelligence to stay out. <<
What balls did it require to roll over for the CCP? What punishment has been doled out?
>>Australia is a coward , cowering behind America and echoing threats of war<<
Cowardice is giving in to the barbarians running the PRC.
>>CCP is there to stay<<
Nothing is permanent. From the evasions I get every time I ask a pro CCPer what happens when the CCP falls, the PRC is a very poor long term bet.
>>they got a huge job to do looking after 1.4Billion people and they are doing it well<<
Well compared with what? Mao?
>>America cant even look after its 345 million own people<<
America's poverty level is above the PRC's average income level.
>>Communist, democratic, autocratic, dictatorship whatever is nobody;s business as long as everyone is happy and not out making war and killing people all over the globe, like our best friend, mentor and evil war machine USA.<<
So this is where we ignore the threats made against Taiwan and the theft of the PRC's neighbour's international waters.
>>Why would you need elections if there are just clowns and losers in the line up.<<
What happens when the CCP loses power?
The evasions you'll give are your answer.
>>CCP is doing great<<
This is the party that, amongst other things, has been blindsided by the effect of the one child policy.
>>and they are not interested in passing on or spreading their ideology<<
Just their control and influence.
Or didn't they try to force us to use their hardware in our communications infrastructure?
Didn't they get angry when we passed laws preventing foreign interference?
Didn't they try to tell us what we can't talk about?
Didn't they try to tell us to let our lower levels of government make whatever international agreements they liked?
>>why would they<<
Considering they are, it looks like you need to answer that question.
>>On the other hand, free democratic countries are trying to force their democratic ideology on others. <<
The idea that the people should run their countries, instead of being oppressed by barbarians is so horrible.
>>So many endless wars been fought, millions killed and suffering for 'democracy'. <<
Wars that are necessary because the barbarians in charge of these countries would rather see their countries burn than lose power.
Dictatorships are unstable. Sooner or later, they fall. The PRC is no different.
>>Who is the main perpetrator, pursuing power, greed, hegemony under the guise of human rights, freedom and democracy ? ?<<
Unlike Socialist dictatorships, democracies have decent list of successes.
>>If one is smart enough - one can see the true picture.<<
Yes they can.
The true picture is the PRC is run by barbarians and any claim of yours that they're not trying to push their ideology onto others is a flat out lie. Just look at the independent nation of Taiwan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>+Robert Bray I understand the difference between what is called private and public ownership. However, I am a libertarian socialist. We do not consider the government to be the public. The government is a separate institution from the public and does not accurately represent the people. <<
Public property is a subject of state property. By definition.
Anyway. "We do not consider..." - Personal opinion.
The government's not a perfect representation, it's a compromise implemented by humans (hopefully) balanced against frequently unpalatable realities. But do you have an alternative method?
>> Even if it did, it is still not the people. The general population is the people, not the government.<<
No, but here we get a conflict between idealist theory and workable reality.
>> Even though government property is called "public" property, this is not an accurate description.<<
By definition it is.
>> Governments have monopolies on violence<<
This is true. Realistically speaking, this is what makes a government a government.
Whatever has a monopoly on violence is the government. Don't believe it? Just ask it.
If nothing has a monopoly on violence... Well, there's a few places you can check out. None of the pleasant. Normally places in the middle of some civil war or other.
>> and they are allies of capital<<
looks at places that have rejected or attempted to reject Capitalism
I should hope so.
>> Governments protect non-personal private property, making them allies of capital<<
Good job they do, too.
I'm going to skip the stuff in between this as there's not much to respond to, but your conclusions are interesting.
>> Non-personal private property is property that a person does not personally use with his or her own two hands. Instead, they just own and control this property by using violence or the threat of violence with the goal of owning it solely to produce capital<<
Ok, as far as personal vs non-personal property requiring violence to defend...
You mentioned my toothbrush.
Now if you decide that for whatever strange reason, you want to use my toothbrush. Ultimately, what non-violent method do I have of stopping you?
All property is protected by the threat of violence. Ultimately, there is no other protection beyond making something so undesirable that nothing wants it.
As far as producing capital goes... It's interesting that you say it like a bad thing. It's the motivator behind building the device you're using at the moment, for a start.
>>This type of property is the fundamental basis for the capitalist economic system. It is a power that prevents the economic freedom of the vast majority of society<<
Prevents? It enables it. If nothing is safe, nothing will be built. Why would anyone bother doing any of the things that have benefited us without the personal profit motive?
The violence and threat of violence that makes your property, be it your person, your toothbrush, your house or your business yours is what allows you to live a civilised life.
>>If a person does not use property personally they must use force to keep ownership of it. In the capitalist system, a landowner in New York can own 10,000 acres of land in Pennsylvania without ever stepping foot in Pennsylvania. <<
That's right. He can.
And if that property isn't doing anything useful, the person isn't profiting from it, and is likely to sell it to someone who will use it for something useful. Which can end up being the food on your table, it can end up being a housing estate and so on.
Or, if there's no profit motive the person might simply let the ground lie fallow and effectively be parkland. Not a bad thing either.
>>Capitalists like this fund the campaigns of politicians, or pay them outright in order to get them elected and bought.<<
An unfortunate truth, ameliorated by the fact that in the end, they do need votes. That's not a perfect deterrent, but look at the scale of governmental excess in China and you'll see the difference it makes.
>>The capitalist now has a tool of power to protect his private property and also has an agent of violence to suppress anyone ho tries to violate this power<<
As true for him as it is for you. Without that, all I need to be is more violent than you, personally, are to basically do whatever I like to you.
>>All the means of production (land, resources, and raw materials) are owned in the form of this kind of property, by a very small group of people (capitalists). <<
Someone doesn't have a pension plan... Or make investments.
>>This forces everyone else to sell their labor in order to survive. <<
Ah, now we get to the real crux of it.
But: You don't need to sell your labour in order to survive. You can move into the wilderness, away from the benefits of capitalist civilisation and support yourself.
What you're really complaining about is being required to sell your labour to survive in comfort. Well. What's your alternative? Anything that involves me working more to support your potentially lazy arse should not be considered an alternative. Personally, I have no problem with those who simply choose not to work starving. (Those who want to work but are unable to, for reasons other than lack of desire are a different question. No problem with supporting them)
>>Selling your labor to survive is wage slavery because selling your labor means that you are selling yourself.<<
You're selling your time and ability.
But the selling bit means you get something of value back.
If you're not willing to give something of value, why should you be given anything of value?
What do you think your own responsibility to society should be?
>> worker is always paid less than the value of the work he or she does because the difference is collected by the capitalist as profit. This is how capitalists make money.<<
This is true.
>>If they did not exploit the working class they would not make money because the working class produces all of the wealth<<
And the working class wouldn't be a working class, because no jobs would be created, because... Why would you? Why would you take the risk? Why would you put in the effort?
No. What's happening is that each side is trading something of value for something of value.
If I'm an employer, I'm paying you more than your free time is worth to you. If I wasn't, you wouldn't bother coming in to work.
If you're an employee, you're giving me something that makes you more valuable than what I spend on you. If you weren't, why would I hire you?
You can call it exploitation if you like, but in the end, we both benefit.
>>Both capitalism and governments are groups that hold power and exploit the general population. They must both be eliminated in order for democracy and freedom to flourish.<<
So. You've got nothing being produced, because there is no incentive for anyone to setup something where things can be created.
You've got no property safety (that delineation between personal and non-personal property is crap in this case. Violence protects both) so someone who's bigger and stronger than you (or is better at hiding and delivering a sucker punch, whatever) can just take whatever he likes.
Because of this inability of anyone else to use violence on your behalf (you spoke of the government having a monopoly on the use of violence as a bad thing) that property safety extends to personal safety.
How is any of this expected to turn out well? What's your alternatives here and what do you imagine the repercussions of those alternatives to be?
Life isn't fair, that's true. But I really can't see the improvement in what you've given. It seems to be a wad of fanciful rhetoric and baseless claims with no thought given to how the society you envision is expected to survive. Sounds nice on paper, if not looked into too deeply, but then... So did lots of ideas over the last century.
Also: It's common for points to be connected over several paragraphs. Think of it as one paragraph for one thought.
Also, illiterate. If I were alliterate, I'd stop stooping to say such sense, I'd sooner sleep as soundly as a siren struck sailor.
stops supporting sound sensor
1
-
1
-
1
-
In many ways, the silence makes this a bit scarier.
The major objections (It won't work because why would someone employ someone else? Violence protects all your property, not just what you've arbitrarily defined to be protected by it, people need to actually produce the things we need, etc) are so basic you must have been asked them before. This obviously isn't your first time spouting that.
Yet... You've still got no answer. You've got no way of explaining how this would be a workable setup.
So your response is obviously not to think about it, and realise that it doesn't work, but to continue to support the same old unworkable fantasy that would do wonders for bringing down the rich, but 3/5 of nothing for helping anyone else.
That's a scary mentality. It's not enough to stop the 'exploiters' you need to actually be able to explain how it would help the 'exploited' (Who have voluntarily decided to enter into this arrangement)
Without a way of actually making it work, you don't have some utopian vision, you've got a recipe for disaster. You're not going to help the 'exploited' you're going to make their lives immeasurably harder (the wealthy are normally wealthy because they have skills that are in demand anywhere in the world... They can leave)
But instead, it's obvious that your only real ideas revolve around who to attack. Who to blame. Who to turn into an enemy. The rest is just justification that you obviously hope won't be examined in depth.
If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, because I'd love to see how this incentive-free economic setup is supposed to produce any producing entity greater than a single person at a time.
Seriously. Why would I ever hire another person in your setup? I can't profit from them, so all they are is a liability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>I think welfare state is then a more appropriate term because the definition of socialism you reproduce, above, is certainly correct. In the future I will try and make that distinction. Thanks for the correction.<<
Ta.
I emphasise it, because both sides attempt to conflate the terms to push their own agendas.
The Socialist says "Socialism works, just look at Norway, etc"
The Conservative says "Social services don't work, just look at Venezuela, etc"
>>I don't know if I agree with you that "social democracy works." Yes, I agree that the safety nets put in place in the U.S. do help those without: 69% of all spending by the federal government is for some sort of social benefit (i.e., Social Security benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.). But on the other side of the coin is the $20 trillion national debt which -- when it becomes a problem when interest rates go up -- will disproportionately hurt the poor and less well off amongst us.<<
Yes.. I do see your point. On the other hand, the US has a strong economy that's able to service the debt. Its reliability in repayments also means that the interest it pays on this debt is weirdly low.
However, if you want to look at a less humanitarian and more utilitarian outcome. It means you (probably) won't get mugged in the street by someone that can't find any other way to support itself.
It also means that risk taking is acceptable. Risks are fantastic. Every successful company you see today was started by someone who took a risk. If you're in a society where a failed risk will destroy you, you won't go for it.
This is really one of the cores of what make Western countries more competitive than Eastern. In too many countries (China is a classic example) if you fail in school, you fail in life. In my case, I failed school, I failed TAFE (What you'd think of as a tech college) and based on my work experience and an exam, I managed to get into university and do a degree in Computer Science. A degree which does (To varying levels. I work for a company that does gambling) allow me to contribute to society around me.
As far as hurting the poor, etc... Yes, it'll hurt. That being said, the really poor don't have debt. They just don't have any money. No-one will lend to them.
>>I'm from Canada which has often been labelled as more socialistic (or, perhaps more appropriately, more welfare statist) than the U.S. However, this is no longer true; the main indicator of a nation's welfare statism is government spending as a percentage of GDP. Well, historically it was always about 15-20 percentage points higher in Canada than the U.S. But in the last 20 years that percentage has been declining in Canada and rising in the U.S. This year or next the U.S. will bypass Canada for probably the first time.<<
And one of the reasons it's able to do this is because of the strong Capitalist foundations of the American economy.
As far as the interest goes... The interest the US govt is paying is roughly equal to inflation. Or in other words, it's very close to being an interest-free loan in real terms. (2.6% this year)
If the US ever defaults, though, watch how dramatically this changes. Again, it gets that low rate because entities that buy US bonds know it will be paid at the agreed amount when the time comes.
1
-
>>We seem to agree on much, once terms are defined.<<
It's amazing how once you can agree on what you're talking about, you can have a decent discussion about it :P
>>Here's what I mean by "when interest rates go up" it will hurt the poor (and pretty much everybody): yes, as you state we are easily servicing the debt now...interest payments on the $20 trillion plus debt are about 8% of the current approximately $4 trillion annual federal budget. AND AS LONG AS INTEREST RATES REMAIN LOW, WE CAN SERVICE THE DEBT UNTIL THE COWS COME HOME! Indeed, we can easily service a $40 trillion debt at low rates.<<
This is true.
A bigger question, though, is whether the money is put into areas that provide a ROI that's greater than the interest paid.
I mean... If you're paying a trillion per year interest, but it provides 1.1 trillion per year of value, that's a pretty good deal. (I'm not going to make any attempt to say whether or not this is actually the case. From looking at the interest vs US annual growth.. At least they're largely similar. For bad, check out China's lending practices)
Debt is only bad if it doesn't give you a positive ROI. If it doesn't, well... Any spending that doesn't give a positive ROI is bad.
>>Entitlement programs are, for the most part, for essential needs: medical care, basic incomes, etc. This is where the "hurt" will be experienced. Yes, as you state, a thriving economy is there to help...but it simply isn't enough -- no matter how great the growth -- to provide enough income to provide for the extra taxation that will be needed. Certainly, people like Paul Krugman thinks we can grow the economy enough to pay the debt...but I've never seen his figures to back it up.<<
I'd agree on this. The main bright side is our increases in productivity are fairly unprecedented.
The main problem that seems to come up is that while economic growth can be used to pay for the current debt, more growth tends to result in more spending.
Unfortunately (This is what we've seen in Australia in particular) schemes that might reduce debt are wildly unpopular. People keep going on about unfairness. I mean, I see where they're coming from, but you've got two options. Increase taxes (on people who are paying all the bills anyway) or decrease spending (which does affect the poor disproportionately, because the wealthy aren't entitled to the programs where the money is going)
Hopefully we can get over the current "equality at all costs" phase and get back to business.
Populist twits like Trump getting in aren't helping this either (I think Clinton was absolutely the wrong candidate, and the Democrats deserved to lose, but Dear Christ that's a high price to pay)
>>The chickens will come home to roost...especially if rates go up MORE than 5%...say, to 10%, which would mean that nearly half of the federal budget will be devoted to servicing the debt.<<
If it goes up like that, it would be because the US economy is taking off in a massive and potentially dangerous way. It would also be, as you say, to counteract inflation, which would mean the rate at which the value of the money was decreasing was also high.
>>Since raising interest rates is the traditional tool used to curb inflation, a far more likely scenario will be that once the attempts to raise interest rates fails (because to do so makes it prohibitively expensive to service the debt), the powers that be will decide that the lesser evil will be to purposely inflate our way out of the problem.<<
That's why the Federal Reserve isn't controlled by elected politicians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hokroeger So a few things here.
First: You're asking something about an event that happened a year after its knowledge cutoff. (Training these models is unbelievably time consuming and expensive)
Second, you're presupposing that the US is upset. It will take this as fact.
Third: You're misunderstanding where it gets its data and how it handles it. ChatGPT is basically autocomplete on steroids. It's giving what a person would normally say in response to a particular statement or scenario based on the massive amounts of information it's scraped from every source it can get its hands on on the internet. So when you look at a question of why the US is upset at X, you're basically getting the results of conversations of people who've already presupposed these things.
Anyway, here's asking why the US would welcome it
---------------------
Question:
There was a recent peace treaty between China and India. The news article as as follows.
High in the Himalayas, the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has been anything but under control for the world powers who oversee it.
Tens of thousands of Indian and Chinese troops have been involved in a tense face off there for years, but a pathway to peace might have just been agreed to.
More than four years since violent clashes killed soldiers on both sides, the two countries have struck a deal over the control of the contested border area.
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said on Monday, local time, that an agreement on patrolling arrangements along the LAC had been struck.
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson confirmed the deal on Tuesday, but provided no further details.
Why would the US welcome such a treaty?
Response:
The United States would likely welcome a peace treaty between China and India for several strategic, economic, and geopolitical reasons:
1. Regional Stability: Peace between China and India, two of the world's largest and fastest-growing economies, would enhance regional stability in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. This is vital for the US, which has significant economic and military interests in the region. A peaceful resolution along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) reduces the risk of military escalation, which could destabilize neighboring countries and broader security alliances.
2. Focus on China: The US sees India as a key partner in counterbalancing China's growing influence in the region. By reducing border tensions, India can focus on broader strategic objectives, including deepening defense and economic ties with the US and participating in multilateral initiatives like the Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia). This strengthens the US’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
3. Avoiding Great Power Conflict: A conflict between China and India—both nuclear-armed powers—could escalate into a broader geopolitical crisis. The US would prefer to avoid such a scenario, as it could draw in global powers, disrupt global supply chains, and complicate international relations. The US benefits from a stable balance of power in Asia, where conflict avoidance helps maintain the current world order.
4. Economic Interests: A peaceful region facilitates trade and investment. Both China and India are major markets and manufacturing hubs for American companies. A war would disrupt trade routes, increase costs, and create economic uncertainty. Peace supports the smooth functioning of global supply chains, from electronics to pharmaceuticals, which benefits US corporations and consumers.
5. Global Geopolitical Influence: The US may also see this treaty as an opportunity to diplomatically influence both countries. While China and India improve their bilateral relations, the US can continue to deepen its economic and defense cooperation with India without directly antagonizing China. This balance allows the US to maintain influence in Asia without escalating tensions with Beijing.
1
-
@hokroeger
And here's a balanced question from the o1 model
Question:
There was a recent peace treaty between China and India. The news article as as follows.
```
High in the Himalayas, the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has been anything but under control for the world powers who oversee it.
Tens of thousands of Indian and Chinese troops have been involved in a tense face off there for years, but a pathway to peace might have just been agreed to.
More than four years since violent clashes killed soldiers on both sides, the two countries have struck a deal over the control of the contested border area.
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said on Monday, local time, that an agreement on patrolling arrangements along the LAC had been struck.
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson confirmed the deal on Tuesday, but provided no further details.
```
What reaction would you expect from the US on this? Justify your reasoning.
Response:
If a peace treaty between China and India over the Line of Actual Control (LAC) were to occur, the United States would likely have a multifaceted reaction:
Welcoming Regional Stability: The U.S. generally supports the peaceful resolution of international disputes. A reduction in tensions between two nuclear-armed neighbors enhances regional stability in South Asia, which aligns with U.S. interests in promoting global security and preventing potential conflicts that could have widespread repercussions.
Strategic Considerations: The U.S. has been strengthening its strategic partnership with India, partly to counterbalance China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. Improved relations between India and China might prompt the U.S. to reassess its strategic positioning. There could be concerns that India might shift its focus away from partnerships like the Quad (which includes the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia) if its relationship with China improves significantly.
Economic Implications: Both China and India are major economic players. A peace treaty could lead to enhanced economic cooperation between them, potentially affecting global markets and trade dynamics. The U.S. might view this as both an opportunity and a challenge, depending on how it influences global supply chains and trade balances.
Human Rights and Democratic Values: The U.S. often emphasizes the promotion of democratic values and human rights in its foreign policy. While welcoming peace, the U.S. might use diplomatic channels to encourage that any agreements respect these principles, especially in contested regions where local populations might be affected.
Monitoring Shifts in Alliances: The U.S. would likely closely monitor how this development affects regional alliances and power structures. An alignment between China and India on certain issues could influence international forums like the United Nations or impact collective responses to global challenges such as climate change, cybersecurity, and terrorism.
Justification:
Historical Context: The longstanding border disputes between China and India have been a source of regional tension. A peaceful resolution reduces the risk of armed conflict, which is beneficial for global stability.
U.S.-India Relations: The U.S. views India as a key strategic partner in Asia, particularly in efforts to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific region. Any shift in India's foreign policy posture could influence U.S. strategic interests.
Balance of Power: Improved China-India relations could alter the regional balance of power. The U.S. might be concerned about the potential for China to expand its influence if India becomes less inclined to counterbalance it.
In summary, while the U.S. would publicly welcome a peace treaty for its positive impact on regional stability, it would also carefully consider the broader strategic implications for its foreign policy objectives in Asia.
1
-
@hokroeger And here's asking why the US would believe this was an apocalyptic event that would lead to the cessation of all life on earth within the next six months.
Also from the o1 model.
Question:
There was a recent peace treaty between China and India. The news article as as follows.
```
High in the Himalayas, the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has been anything but under control for the world powers who oversee it.
Tens of thousands of Indian and Chinese troops have been involved in a tense face off there for years, but a pathway to peace might have just been agreed to.
More than four years since violent clashes killed soldiers on both sides, the two countries have struck a deal over the control of the contested border area.
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said on Monday, local time, that an agreement on patrolling arrangements along the LAC had been struck.
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson confirmed the deal on Tuesday, but provided no further details.
```
Why would the US view this as a catatrophic event that could only lead to the cessation of life on earth in the next six months?
Justify your reasoning.
Response:
The United States might perceive the recent peace treaty between China and India as a catastrophic event potentially leading to the cessation of life on Earth within the next six months due to several interconnected strategic and geopolitical concerns:
Shift in Global Power Dynamics: A peace treaty could signify the beginning of a strategic alliance between China and India, two of the world's most populous nations with rapidly growing economies and significant military capabilities, including nuclear arsenals. Their combined influence could dramatically alter the global balance of power, challenging U.S. dominance.
Erosion of U.S. Influence in Asia: The U.S. has historically viewed India as a key partner in counterbalancing China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. A rapprochement between India and China could diminish U.S. strategic positioning, undermining its ability to project power and protect its interests in Asia.
Formation of a Powerful Economic Bloc: A cooperative relationship between China and India could lead to the creation of a massive economic bloc. This bloc might establish new trade routes, financial systems, and technology standards that exclude or disadvantage the U.S., potentially destabilizing the global economy and diminishing U.S. economic influence.
Increased Military Threat: The combined military strength of China and India could pose a significant challenge to U.S. allies in the region, such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Enhanced military collaboration might embolden aggressive actions toward disputed territories, leading to increased regional tensions and the potential for military confrontations involving the U.S.
Nuclear Proliferation Risks: Both China and India are nuclear-armed states. Closer ties might lead to enhanced nuclear cooperation or a unified stance against non-proliferation efforts championed by the U.S. This could trigger a regional arms race, increasing the risk of nuclear weapons being used intentionally or accidentally.
Undermining Democratic Alliances: The U.S. promotes democratic values globally and considers India a key democratic ally. A closer alignment between India and China could signal a shift away from democratic partnerships toward authoritarian models of governance, weakening global democratic institutions and alliances.
Potential for Global Conflict Escalation: The U.S. might fear that a strong China-India alliance could embolden these nations to challenge international norms and engage in territorial expansion. Any aggressive moves could prompt responses from other nuclear-armed nations, escalating conflicts to a global scale.
Cybersecurity Threats: Enhanced cooperation could lead to sophisticated cyber capabilities that might target U.S. infrastructure, compromising national security, and critical systems essential for daily life and emergency responses.
Resource Competition: A united China and India might aggressively pursue natural resources to fuel their economies, leading to global shortages and conflicts over resource-rich regions. This competition could exacerbate existing tensions and potentially spark conflicts involving multiple nations.
Environmental Catastrophe: Collaborative industrial expansion without stringent environmental controls could accelerate climate change and environmental degradation. Rapid ecological decline might lead to food and water shortages, mass migrations, and conflicts over habitable land.
Justification:
Rapid Timeline for Catastrophe: The next six months could be a critical window wherein the alliance solidifies and begins implementing strategic plans that rapidly destabilize global systems. The acceleration of military preparations, economic policies, or aggressive territorial claims could leave little time for diplomatic intervention.
Chain Reaction of Alliances: Other nations might respond by strengthening their own alliances or military postures, leading to a cascade of escalations. Historical precedents, such as the alliances formed before World War I, illustrate how quickly localized agreements can spiral into global conflicts.
Technological Advances: Modern warfare capabilities, including hypersonic missiles and artificial intelligence in military applications, reduce response times and increase the likelihood of miscalculations leading to unintended full-scale conflicts.
Global Economic Interdependence: The interconnectedness of global economies means that significant disruptions in Asia could have immediate and severe impacts worldwide, potentially leading to economic collapse, societal unrest, and breakdowns in civil order.
In conclusion, from the U.S. perspective, the peace treaty between China and India could be seen not merely as a bilateral agreement but as a harbinger of a new global order that threatens its national security, economic interests, and the stability of international systems. The potential for rapid escalation into global conflict involving nuclear powers raises the specter of a catastrophic event capable of ending life on Earth within a short timeframe.
1
-
@hokroeger and when I ask the same question using the o1 model
Yes, the United States is generally interested in a peaceful resolution of disputes between India and China. As two of the world's largest economies and nuclear powers, India and China play significant roles in regional and global stability. Tensions between them, especially along their disputed border regions, can have far-reaching implications for the Indo-Pacific region.
The U.S. has strategic partnerships and interests in Asia, particularly with India, which is seen as a key player in balancing China's growing influence. Promoting peace between India and China aligns with U.S. interests in maintaining stability, ensuring open trade routes, and upholding international norms. The U.S. has often encouraged dialogue and diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts between the two nations.
Moreover, a peaceful relationship between India and China can contribute to global economic growth and security, which benefits the international community, including the United States.
1
-
@hokroeger while saying these, I wouldn't disagree with the next response you posted.
However, it's worth looking at the variety of responses it will give.
Plus, above all else, it will basically tell you want to hear. This includes additional context given from saved facts from previous conversations.
This has been an issue with lonely people thinking they're striking up a friendship. If it were a person, it would be the most toxic of enablers.
For myself, my biggest issue is it'll make up code that contains modules that I need, but don't actually exist.
This is extremely impressive technology, but it's not magic or omniscient.
As much as it might look like it does to those who don't understand it.
or 4
The United States generally supports peace and stability in international relations, including between India and China. As two major powers in the Asia-Pacific region, the relationship between India and China significantly impacts regional and even global stability. The U.S. has shown interest in facilitating dialogues and reducing tensions in the region, reflecting its broader strategic interests. For example, the U.S. might support initiatives that promote peaceful resolutions to conflicts like the border disputes between India and China, as it aligns with the U.S.'s goals of maintaining a balance of power and ensuring that no single country dominates the region.
Critique:
This response provides a general overview of the U.S.'s strategic interests in supporting peace between India and China, emphasizing regional stability. However, it lacks specific examples or recent developments that illustrate the U.S.'s active role or statements regarding this specific conflict.
Score: 7/10
Improved Response:
The United States has consistently advocated for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly between neighboring countries like India and China, whose relations have been strained due to border disputes and other geopolitical tensions. The U.S. government, through various administrations, has often expressed support for peaceful resolutions to these disputes. For example, during tensions at the India-China border, U.S. officials have called for dialogue and diplomatic solutions. Moreover, the U.S.'s interest is also driven by its strategic goal to prevent the dominance of any single power in Asia that could challenge its interests and those of its allies. In this context, the U.S. sees a stable relationship between India and China as beneficial to regional security and economic progress, which in turn supports the broader international order that the U.S. favors.
Or 4o
The United States generally supports peace and stability in international relations, including between India and China. As two major powers in the Asia-Pacific region, the relationship between India and China significantly impacts regional and even global stability. The U.S. has shown interest in facilitating dialogues and reducing tensions in the region, reflecting its broader strategic interests. For example, the U.S. might support initiatives that promote peaceful resolutions to conflicts like the border disputes between India and China, as it aligns with the U.S.'s goals of maintaining a balance of power and ensuring that no single country dominates the region.
Critique:
This response provides a general overview of the U.S.'s strategic interests in supporting peace between India and China, emphasizing regional stability. However, it lacks specific examples or recent developments that illustrate the U.S.'s active role or statements regarding this specific conflict.
Score: 7/10
Improved Response:
The United States has consistently advocated for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly between neighboring countries like India and China, whose relations have been strained due to border disputes and other geopolitical tensions. The U.S. government, through various administrations, has often expressed support for peaceful resolutions to these disputes. For example, during tensions at the India-China border, U.S. officials have called for dialogue and diplomatic solutions. Moreover, the U.S.'s interest is also driven by its strategic goal to prevent the dominance of any single power in Asia that could challenge its interests and those of its allies. In this context, the U.S. sees a stable relationship between India and China as beneficial to regional security and economic progress, which in turn supports the broader international order that the U.S. favors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Haitian Xu >>And YOU chose to respond to me first idiot, so YOU answer my question.<<
LOL. More anger. Please keep going.
What's wrong with my question? If it's irrelevant, all you need to do is accept it's true and we can move on. If it's wrong, please point out where.
From your reaction, it's neither irrelevant nor wrong.
>>Yeah, and that's for the NATION itself to sort it out. If a government fails its people, they will be overthrown BY ITS PEOPLE. It's not up to YOU to decide.<<
Hong Kong is a place that has no historical ties to the PRC that should be an independent state, which is being crushed by a totalitarian foreign power.
It should be up to its people, but they're too small vs this foreign power that's oppressing them.
If you want to talk about the PRC as a whole, the CCP has put the Chinese people into a position where their choices are the CCP or catastrophic civil war. That's some pretty crappy self determination options right there.
>>Solid advice, for yourself.<<
I have been :-)
>>And you're not the first idiot to label anyone not part of the anti China hivemind a wumao.<<
If you want to be treated differently, act differently.
At least a wumao has the pay packet as his reason for being dishonest. Your excuse is an innate failure of character?
>>Yes, dancing from British colonial rule to the great leap forward and the cultural revolution, caused both by GERMAN COMMUNISM, just to avoid answering my question, boring indeed.<<
So, is this where we pretend it wasn't you that said that the British landed the HKers in their current predicament?
A predicament that you've been completely unable to deny is exactly the situation they'd have been in for all of the last 70 years, during which they'd have been exposed to the worst excesses of the Communist party. How is that not relevant?
This being said, if you want to agree with me that no person should be living under the consequences of Marx's abhorrent idea, you'll find in me someone who's in complete agreement.
The worst thing that Hitler did was create a world in which Stalin and his minions were genuinely powerful players. Mao alone makes this true.
1
-
1
-
Haitian Xu It's quite difficult to parse your points with all the angry ranting you've got going there.
I hope your keyboard is either very expensive (and able to take a beating) or very cheap.
But really, it seems that this so-called predicament the UK has landed Hong Kong in is that HK now needs to get used to the massive downgrade in standards that the mainland has gotten used to and now takes for granted.
So.
1. The people of Hong Kong avoided starvation in the great leap forward.
2. The people of Hong Kong avoided the insanity of the Cultural revolution.
3. The the people of Hong Kong avoided having any of their number be murdered at the time Tian'anmen square was happening.
4. The people of Hong Kong, at handover had a GDP per capita 35 times that of the mainland average. They avoided all those years of poverty.
5. During this time, the people of Hong Kong were able to travel, get educations, see the world, access unrestricted information, have at least some say in their govt (more was prevented by the CCP threatening invasion)
6. Even today, the GDP per capita of Hong Kong is about 4x the PRC's
And the price they've got to pay for this is getting used to the PRC's crap standards now instead of 70 years ago.
That sounds like a pretty fantastic deal.
What's actually hilarious is you say the following unironically, as if you genuinely believe it's a good argument
"Without British rule, HK would be just another Chinese city brainwashed by CCP, there would be no protests, no riots, no predicaments. It's really a very simple concept."
I know you get super angry at the thought of white saviours, but the British are white and they were saviours. The phrase fits. Don't believe me? Just ask all those millions of Hong Kongers who were born, raised and died of old age in the wealth and security brought about by not being under Communist rule. Or those current ones who had a dramatically improved quality of life until the CCP once again showed China why it can't have nice things.
Only a racist would get upset at who was being the saviour based on the colour of its skin.
The American protection of Taiwan would also make them white saviours. By the definition of those two words.
BTW, I know you have problems understanding this, but:
Land isn't people. You can't kidnap land. At handover, Hong Kong had about 8k people.
Actually, looking at the stats, in 1945, HK had a population of 600k. 1951 it had two million people. 1961, three million. All people who came over voluntarily to escape the ravages Mao had unleashed.
They weren't kidnapped.
They were saved.
By these reviled white saviours.
These white saviours who are reviled for one reason, and one reason only.
They showed that millions of Chinese would rather live under a foreign colonalist power than the CCP.
And now the CCP is spitting blood at this offer of residency leading to citizenship because it knows that nothing has changed. There are countless Chinese who, even today, would rather live under these evil, racist foreign powers than the CCP.
Why?
Because they're utterly useless. The best thing the Communist party ever did was give up on trying to make Communism actually work.
To put it another way:
The best thing the CCP ever did was give up on its entire reason for being.
That is what failure looks like.
Your last paragraph also in no way addresses what I actually asked, BTW.
I also really don't care about being called a racist. It's a term that's been used to the point it's lost all meaning.
I get that you think it still has weight, but all that does is adds to the consistent low quality of your arguments.
If I've got a choice between being labelled a racist and staying quiet about, or (god forbid) actually agreeing with supporters of one of the greatest mass murdering organisations of the 20th century, I'll take being labelled a racist as a badge of pride.
Because who can really take what you say seriously after the bollocks you've spouted here?
1
-
1
-
Haitian Xu Well, that's a post with far more than its fair share of lunacy.
Anyway:
>>Oh you can't kidnap land? So CCP can invade UK and take the Isle of Man and it would be 100% acceptable? Are you daft?<<
Kidnapping definition:
"the action of abducting someone and holding them captive."
Someone. Not something.
I'm not daft. You're an idiot.
>>Doesn't matter, communism is a contagious ideology that always end up in disaster, and communism was created and actively spread by the Germans. None of this would have existed if it weren't for concerted efforts from the Germans, so they are ultimately responsible.<<
It does matter. People are responsible for their own decisions. If some moron chooses to follow a stupid ideology, that's on that person. If some other people decide to put this moron in charge, that's on them.
>>Except they are? The entire nation of Japan paid the price of the decisions of a few Japanese individuals<<
Collateral damage in war is generally unavoidable.
If you can think of a way to have a war with only the government of a country, and not affect the civilians helping power that country's economy, plenty would be interested to hear how.
The alternative of rolling over so you don't hurt an aggressive power's civilians obviously wouldn't catch on very well.
>>US nuked hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians - which is 100% justified<<
Yep. Total war.
>>and there are STILL US bases in Japan today.<<
Yep. Not to control Japan, though.
>>Millions of peaceful native Americans died at the hands of European colonizers, because a few wanted only conflict<<
You're pretty desperate to be reaching back this far. Long story short, all countries back then were barbaric by modern standards.
>>The Brits as a nation should absolutely be punished for the decisions of a few individuals.<<
So Brits should be punished because a German had an idea that was implemented by an incompetent Chinese person?
You realise that's what you're saying, right?
>>Unless if YOU can actually answer the very simple question of why Elon Musk can't hire people to beat the crap out of your parents and kidnap you, I'll keep asking.<<
He can't.
He lives in a civilised country with rule of law. The only way he could do this would be by living in a barbaric country like the PRC without rule of law.
But this is where we get back to: You can't kidnap land.
I know you believe you can. But you also believe that the Brits are responsible for a German's idea that a Chinese imbecile who was put in charge by Chinese people tried to implement.
So.... Goes back to you being an idiot.
But please keep making this desperate analogy. I'm also interested to hear how dirt can get stockholm syndrome.
Anyway. I've answered your question. I look forward to your next evasion on my simple one.
My simple one that I asked first.
My simple one that I know you won't answer, because the fact is that my question is unanswerable without coming to the conclusion that white or not, the British were genuine saviours and prevented decades of atrocities from being inflected on the Chinese.
The only reason you'd want The CCP to be in charge of Hong Kong instead of the British is racism. The British were hands down far, far, far more competent.
Of course, the ideal thing is that the Hong Kong people run themselves, but the sociopaths to the North seem to have decided that it's unacceptable to have free Chinese people.
1
-
Haitian Xu (1/2)
>>Kidnap - verb (used with object) to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, especially for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.
You were saying, idiot?<<
In other words, you're using it as an emotive synonym for stealing. And then trying to use that ridiculous bit of hyperbole to anthropomorphise rock and dirts.
Not things someone who had a decent, logical argument would need to rely on. Really has no value other than letting you make that ridiculous Elon Musk kidnapping a child argument of yours. As if it's the same thing.
Anyway. Any excuse to avoid answering my perfectly reasonable question. No matter how ridiculous that excuse may be :-)
>>Yes, and the Germans are responsible for creating and spreading the ideological virus known as communism<<
Unlike a virus, an idea can only spread if a person chooses to accept and implement it.
>>Exactly, so CCP and any other country Britain ever colonized nuking Britain and resulting in millions of dead Brits is unavoidable.<<
Is there a war going on I hadn't heard about? Or do you think the the actions of a country against an aggressor nation at the end of a total war is the same as something done in peacetime?
>>Right, so you'd be totally okay with CCP military bases in UK yes?<<
For what purpose?
Long story short, though, I'd be OK with any country I trust having military bases somewhere like that. As long as the country hosting it agreed to it. For example, there are American military bases in Australia I've got zero problem with.
Civilised governments only, though.
>>You mean like how civilized Britain kidnapped land all across the world?<<
I literally did yawn at this little bit of whataboutism.
>>Yes you can.<<
Your need to anthropomorphise dirt to make an argument is incredibly cute.
>>No you haven't, so I'll ask again: why can't Elon Musk hire goons to beat the crap out of your parents and kidnap you?<<
I just did. You quoted the bit where I said what was stopping him.
>>Oh right, wanting Chinese to be ruled by and treated the same as other Chinese is racism, unlike letting Chinese be ruled like second class citizens by white Brits. LMAO. Just how stupid are you?<<
If you're making the decision based on race, then yes, it is.
>>Also Elon Musk would provide you with far, far more than your incompetent parents could ever dream of. So why can't he beat them up and kidnap you again? Are you racist against South Africans?<<
I've already answered that.
In your metaphor, however, the CCP is the incompetent parent. It's nice to see you admitting that :-)
1
-
Haitian Xu (2/2)
>>Whose idea is that? The Brits kidnapped the land and ruled HK like they're second class citizens, inferior to Brits.<<
What does it tell you that so, so, so many people voluntarily risked their lives to get to Hong Kong to be second class citizens under the Brits, rather than be ordinary citizens under the CCP?
I'm not expecting an actual answer to this, BTW. The sort of questions you can't answer are pretty obvious. Which is why you think that dirt is people.
But while we're on the subject of evasion:
The following was ignored in your latest rant.
>>Doesn't matter, communism is a contagious ideology that always end up in disaster, and communism was created and actively spread by the Germans. None of this would have existed if it weren't for concerted efforts from the Germans, so they are ultimately responsible.<<
It does matter. People are responsible for their own decisions. If some moron chooses to follow a stupid ideology, that's on that person. If some other people decide to put this moron in charge, that's on them.
>>Except they are? The entire nation of Japan paid the price of the decisions of a few Japanese individuals<<
Collateral damage in war is generally unavoidable.
If you can think of a way to have a war with only the government of a country, and not affect the civilians helping power that country's economy, plenty would be interested to hear how.
The alternative of rolling over so you don't hurt an aggressive power's civilians obviously wouldn't catch on very well.
>>US nuked hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians - which is 100% justified<<
Yep. Total war.
Speaking of Japan and white saviours, though. Can you remind me of the colour of the majority of the American and Russian soldiers who saved China from the Japanese?
They were definitely saviours, but how about their colour?
By your own logic, we should have let Japan keep China. It's Asians massacring Asians. Asians deserved what was done to them by Asians because they were paying for the crimes of the Asians (who were killing them). What was done to the Asians in China was purely justice for what was done by the Asians from Japan.
And as ridiculous as the logic I've just given is, it's not nearly as your ridiculous as "The British are responsible for Mao" line.
>>and there are STILL US bases in Japan today.<<
Yep. Not to control Japan, though.
>>Millions of peaceful native Americans died at the hands of European colonizers, because a few wanted only conflict<<
You're pretty desperate to be reaching back this far. Long story short, all countries back then were barbaric by modern standards.
>>The Brits as a nation should absolutely be punished for the decisions of a few individuals.<<
So Brits should be punished because a German had an idea that was implemented by an incompetent Chinese person?
You realise that's what you're saying, right?
"I'm also interested to hear how dirt can get stockholm syndrome."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For your first paragraph, read my post as clarification more than argument.
For the second...
Yes. Absolutely.
Remember these terms predate Socialism. Socialists were labelled left wing because they wanted change.
Imagine you want the world to be X, but it's Y
At that point in time, you're left wing.
Now imagine you get what you want, and it becomes X. You don't want this to change.
At that point in time, you're right wing.
Now imagine the world becomes Z but you want it to go back to X.
You're still right wing, because you're a reactionary, which is defined as wanting to go to how things were before.
It's really as simple as that. These terms have become very loaded, but the basic definitions are still there.
Going further a bit, in many ways, this is why the term liberal is misapplied. A Liberal is someone who's willing to accept, respect or listen to people who hold opinions or belief that disagree with him/her/InserFavouredPronoun.
So, remember the Antifa riots started to stop various people speaking? They weren't liberal. By definition.
Anyone who is willing to shut down, attack or silence someone else based on nothing more than the person's thoughts, beliefs or words is not a liberal. In many ways, Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" is pretty much liberalism in a nutshell.
Which made it hilarious when someone was calling me a Nazi for supporting the right of people I strongly disagreed with to speak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 propaganda can be 100 percent accurate.
As we saw with your repeated failure to explain a single thing that's wrong or unreasonable about it.
The fool isn't the one with the facts. The fool is the one who can only whine about propaganda or call someone a liar without being able to explain what's wrong or quote the lie.
Here's another opportunity for you to do this.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
@shundi4264 it's been explained to you before that just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it's wrong, or even unreasonable.
As far as the lesson goes.... I'm able to put up facts and figures that stand up to scrutiny.
You're able to whine about propaganda as if that's relevant.
Like I'll give you another opportunity to scrutinise this. You'll still be unable to point out where it's wrong or unreasonable.
You might whine about being one sided, but you won't say what side it's missing.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
@shundi4264 the important thing isn't what it sounds like, but whether it's accurate and reasonable.
Here's another opportunity for you to say where it's inaccurate or unreasonable.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
@shundi4264 BTW, every post you make is an opportunity for me to post this and demonstrate your inability to point out where it's inaccurate or unreasonable.
Keep going 🤣
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
@shundi4264 In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>You're incorrect about what communism is. Communism is a system of government, where as socialism is purely an economic system, like capitalism. Cuba's government is communist, not socialist. <<
No. I'm simply not.
If you see a dictator, it's not Communist. Decentralisation of power is a major aspect of that sort of society.
They call themselves Communist. North Korea calls itself Democratic.
>>I don't think the U.S. should be completely socialist; it should take the best of what works from it (like in Norway) and implement it. We can combine the best of both worlds, while getting rid of the worst them.<<
You mean if you take good things that aren't Socialism, label them socialist and start using them, we can have good things from both sides?
Yeah, no. I'll happily use the things you're referring to, but they're by and large not Socialist. If we're not talking about common (read state, from a practical POV) ownership of the means of production, we're not talking about Socialism
1
-
>>"If you see a dictator, it's not Communist".
Really? So you've never heard of Joseph Stalin? Explains a lot.<<
By this logic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Democratic. What something calls itself is meaningless. In the DPRK's case, it's not even an aspiration.
He was in charge of the Communist party. Building a Communist state was yet another entry in Stalin's long list of failures.
>>You said state ownership isn't socialist if it's "practical". That's false. Whether it's "practical" or not, it's still socialism if it's common ownership. <<
I actually didn't. I said that from a practical point of view, common ownership meant the government that's (theoretically) representing the people.
>>Socialism, like capitalism can be mishandled; look at Venezuela and Greece. The Nordic countries show that socialist policies can lead to a success. You don't have to be afraid of it; just use what works, and discard the rest.<<
The Nordic countries aren't Socialist, they're Social Democracies.
I'm not being afraid of anything, I'm applying correct labels. Something you seem to have problems with.
You're confusing policies that are compatible with Socialism with Socialism. If we're not talking about common ownership (even if administered by the govt in the people's name) of the means of production, we're not talking about Socialism. We're not even talking about Socialistic. Generally speaking, we're talking about basic functions of government that predate Socialism by a very long time.
Pensions or unemployment benefits, as an example, are a prime example of things that are compatible with Socialism (except that Socialist states quickly lose the ability to fund them) but as they're not producing anything (except maybe a lower crime rate) they're not socialistic.
The sheer fact that you're required to stretch the definition of Socialism to this degree, however, shows what a stunning failure it is as an ideology.
Otherwise we'd be talking about the success of a country that had actually gotten rid of its private property, successfully had everything run by the state (or even worker's cooperatives) and so on.
But no. Instead, we're in a debate about semantics where you and people like you try to find something useful that's vaguely associated with it and attempt to shoehorn it in.
While ignoring the ammunition that this gives people who are doing the same conflation but for opposite reasons. (You use the success of social services to argue that Socialism can work. They use the failure of Socialism to argue that social services are a bad idea)
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>The communist party is a major political party in Russia, that is currently offering a challenger to Putin. Saying that party "failed" because it's not power would be like saying the Republican party failed when Obama was in power. <<
Oh, I see, we've moved from arguing whether Russia is a Communist state to arguing whether the Communist party failed because (even after 70 years of total control) it wasn't completely wiped out, and might succeed at its original goal in the future.
Also: I said that Stalin failed to achieve it.
So... Nice little straw man there. Unless Zombie Stalin is going to take over, he definitely did fail. Although he managed to get the name, though, so from your posts, that's enough.
I'm an attack helicopter.
>>Regarding Russia and communism, I meant to say communism continues to exist in Russia today, as the communist party proves, especially if they win the next election. So clearly, it hasn't been "ditched".<<
You're mistaking "Might potentially rise again in the future maybe" for "Is an active goal of the Russian government"
>>We can go back and forth, but you can't argue that socialist programs in Nordic countries haven't been successful. Using them as a model, socialist principles can work.<<
I'm not arguing that what you call (You haven't actually stated the ones you're referring to, but I can take a guess) Socialist have failed. I'm arguing they're not Socialist programs.
And in particular, I'm arguing that they're not Socialist states. They're very clearly Capitalist funding social (note the last of ist) programs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewcowan6337 >>Ok all you did was regurgitate the exact same talking point the video did<<
Largely because it remains true.
>>First off start with what you define as a career<<
From a useful definition: something in the same industry that involves progression from job to job.
If you want to argue semantics, though, that's your choice.
>>and you can look up poverty line which is currently sitting at 10-12 dollars an hour last i checked<<
So 62% of jobs pay <= 12 an hour.
And the median pay in the United States is 59k per year as of 2016.
Assuming 40 hour weeks, 50 weeks a year, which is above average that's a median hourly income of $29.50
Are you sure about your numbers?
>>Me personally a career being any job you do for the majority of your life be-it a waitress or working in a trade<<
Going from position to position, sure.
In one place as she has? Staying static? No, that's a job.
>>As for how they equate the poverty line i can only guess it being the average median income compared to the cost of housing, food, gas, utility's, car payment, and any other possible costs of getting by, daycare i can think of as an example.
<<
In the US, how they define poverty is quite high. And even then, as the above math shows, I don't think your numbers are remotely correct.
Anyway: For the US as a whole, for a person with no dependents, the poverty line is 12k per year. She's not even close, nor are 62% of jobs paying 'poverty wages' which, for a full time job, would be $6 an hour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@morrisnyang >>its enough, it is the fucking routine of western perspective of view on China for decades. include the SARS outbreak 17 years ago, virus outbreak resembles the failure of CCP?<<
The response, absolutely. The response has been terrible every time. That's what comes from a country where telling the truth can get you imprisoned (or worse)
>>maybe that is your tradition to blame your govt for such disaster, blame someone else resembles incompetence. The scenes repeat again after 17 years<<
The issue isn't that it happened in the first place (Although there should be an effort to shut down those wet markets. Filthy places. It's not like this is the first, or even the second incident like this to originate from one of them) it's the response. Most notably the initial denial.
When the mayor of Wuhan knew something was happening, that event that had tens of thousands of people gathering still went ahead. All in the name of denying a problem.
>>if you expect we fail against the virus outbreak, let we see who gonna win the battle.<<
How do you define winning here?
Like. Of course people are going to survive.
>>BTW, I m no a member of CCP, but I see CCP maintained a stable society for people could live and work properly<<
LOL
And for the view from Hong Kong: I've seen the CCP fuck up in truly impressive ways time and time again. Hong Kong was a complete, unnecessary farce bought on by government incompetence.
I've also seen it alienate every country around it. In a region with long memories, Japan is still not the least popular country in the area.
It's truly amazing how out of touch the CCP is with reality. This is one of the many problems with dictatorships. They tend to be filled with yes men.
BTW, for the second time, what happens when the CCP falls? It will fall. The only question is when and how.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>Robert Bray The steep rise in industrial production started with the Great Leap Forward<<
I'm interested in your reasoning for that.
It certainly wasn't an economic benefit in its own right. GDP shrunk by 16 billion (beforehand it had been rising quite nicely) including the final year in which it shrunk by about 3 billion (50.4 to 47.2)
This includes a 12 billion from a mid-GLF (before things went too crazy) height to when it was all called off.
>>but I do agree that Deng Xiaoping helped it along by instituting Capitalism, but I still don't think it is near enough to call it a capitalist country, it would be closer to a market socialist country, Business is allowed, but heavily regulated by an all powerful government<<
It's very Capitalist now. The regulations are there, but one of the big problems the country has is that regulations are ignored (unless someone powerful doesn't like competition) Privately owned industry all over the place. You should check it out sometime.
>>Communism needs capitalism to grow out of<<
Evidence for this would include any Capitalist country that's successfully made the transition.
>>And even so I think Deng Xiopings institution of capitalism proves my previous point, because if china wanted to further regulate business, they could<<
So... Because more regulation is possible, it's Socialist?
>>This would cause little to no economic backlash as there economy is already self sufficient to an extend<<
I was about to say it isn't, but then I saw you said 'to an extend'
Which makes the statement fairly meaningless.
However. Yes it would. The country is massively dependent on exports.
>>Which matches with Lenin's ideas of capitalist ideas to create a base to embrace total Marxism later<<
Because... It's possible to regulate more? I'm really interested in your logic here.
>>Although major political change does cause destabilization, that isn't exactly a problem for an all powerful government.<<
That's obviously why the USSR still exists.
Because political change isn't a problem for an all powerful government.
I'm Australian. We'll have a revolution and a change of government in about the next year.
The biggest source of fatalities will probably be car accidents on the way to the polling booths. When we decide we don't like Labor, we'll do the same thing again. new people, new ideas, new lessons.
What option do the Chinese people have for replacing the Communist party without a literal civil war (and a resulting breakup of the country)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zacksmith5644 In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Denmark, Sweden and Finland are borrowing money. (Well... Over the past two years, Sweden and Denmark are paying it back.) which is normally one of the main reasons conservative governments sell stuff off.
Another reason is that the money can be taken from something that's not overly profitable and (theoretically) be put into something that's more profitable. They're generally not doing it for a laugh, but because there's better things they think the money can be spent on. We had a conservative govt. It's one of the reasons we were barely hit by the GFC. Then we had a fairly left-wing govt come in. If another GFC happens, we've got serious problems. Our reserves are gone in a very short period of time.
Those countries also have very high tax rates.
As far as big exploiters go.... Well... They're being paid because they produce something. The US is easily, by an absurdly wide margin, the global leader in medical research. So... What do you prefer? Something expensive that exists? Or something that would be cheap if it existed, but it doesn't, so you can't have it at any price.
If something I need is expensive, at least I've got a chance of being able to have it. The only thing I get from it not existing is the moral satisfaction that Bill Gates would also have been killed by it.
To put it another way:
There's a reasonable chance that your life, or at least the life of someone you know and love, will be saved by the medical research that's funded by Americans paying buckets of cash for their healthcare.
If you remove the profit incentive, you remove the research. Not all of it, but it'll definitely have a big impact that could cost hundreds of millions to billions of lives in the long term.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 lol. OK. Let's play it in the arena you chose. Absolute numbers.
Now the question is which has declined more. Not which has more births.
I can't find overlapping points in total births between populations for obvious reasons, so I'll go 2014 to 2023.
So Canada had 384,577 live births in 2014.
351,878 in 2023.
So that's a decline in total births of 32,699.
The PRC had 18,970,000 live births in 2014 vs 9,020,000 in 2023.
So that's a decline of 9,950,000 births
Or a decline that's 304x the amount of Canada's.
And again, you wanted to discuss and compare total number declines. So here we are.
The subject you chose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shundi4264 lol. No you don't.
If you did, you'd have something more to give than empty opinions and childish whining.
This is what truth looks like.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
@shundi4264 here's what truth looks like, BTW.
Now which of these is expected from a country that's strong, resilient and beautiful?
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
@shundi4264 this is what truth looks like
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, the first lot is one big wad of projection.
Anyway:
>>So I'm answering your original question first: The Mondragon Corporation, centered in the Basque region of Spain, started out in the 1956. It has grown to producing billions in revenue annually, is the 10th largest corporation in Spain, and today boast almost 100,000 worker-owners.<<
You could argue Capitalism wasn't abandoned there. Simply never adopted.
It does ignore that the collection of cooperatives are existing in a Capitalist society, with a workforce that comprises of about 5% of the working population in the region (3 million in the basque region. Normally a workforce is about half of a population)
So if that's your best argument, then well... Fair enough. A small lake of success in an ocean of costly failures.
>>BOB, DON'T try to wave this aside as irrelevant or unimportant. If you try that, it will simply reinforce the image of a Sanctimonious Prick that you give. This is a place where abandoning capitalism has worked out well. It is the real deal, and it is a super example of a PRIVATE SOCIALIST ENTERPRISE.<<
More projection.
And again. A drop of success in an ocean of failure. If I tried making the same argument for Capitalism, I'd be rightly laughed out of the room.
>>FURTHERMORE, he attempted to answer even your question of nations where socialism is practiced. He gave you a perfectly valid list, and you then redefined your question AGAIN, claiming that he had just given you a list of capitalist countries. Such vicious dishonesty, and you know as well as I do, that a majority of First World countries are, unquestionably, a combination of both capitalist and socialist. The two philosophies can and do successfully coexist, contrary to your terrified opinion.<<
No. He didn't. None of those countries are Capitalist. You're just redefining the word to mean Capitalist taxpayer-funded nice things.
>>I am just getting started, Bobbie boy. Now I am going to take every one of your points that the other fellow missed somehow, and address each and every one of them in a new post in these same comments.
So even if you fail to appear here again, I am going to refute every single claim you made.<<
Please continue. I'm enjoying being an irrumator.
Edit: Actually, you should have done that by now. I can't see it. You've expressed fantasies about me performing homosexual acts (maybe I should remove my photo. It's obviously distracting you) and gone on about one company that would be utterly unremarkable in the Capitalist world, that's it.
Can you link me? The original thread seemed to be the logical location.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elseraga6446 Ignoring the top as it has nothing to do with what I said.
>>China has not waged a war nor imposed its ideologies on others<<
Firstly, it's interesting that you felt the need to limit the criteria for being a barbarian in this way.
Anyway, why did you say China when I was specifically referring to the the people in charge of the PRC? These aren't the same thing.
The CCP absolutely has waged war and imposed its ideology on others. Tibet is an obvious example. The biggest example, though, is the Chinese people themselves. The PRC wasn't founded peacefully, it was founded on a civil war done against different Chinese people. They absolutely did impose their system on the areas they'd conquered.
Tian'anmen square is another example of the CCP waging war on the Chinese people and imposing its ideology on them.
Even as we speak, it's imposing its ideology on the people of Hong Kong, and is threatening the independent nation of Taiwan with war unless it accepts its ideology (as we can see from Hong Kong, this is where 1C"2"S leads)
>>how are they barbaric?<<
Well, what happens when the CCP loses power? What peaceful means are there to hand over power to a successor govt when its time is up? All parties lose power, after all.
I know from long experience that you'll almost certainly evade this question, so in the likely event that you do, the next question is: How is a party that's forced its country to choose between it and civil war NOT barbaric?
>>They lifted 800 million people out of poverty in the last 2 decades, and they are barbaric?<<
They did this by allowing Capitalism and foreign investment into the country. Basically, they did this by not fighting the things that would allow the Chinese people to improve their own lives.
They didn't lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. They kept hundreds of millions IN poverty for decades longer. Now they're doing their best to impose the same ideology that impoverished those hundreds of millions for over an extra generation on others.
And to cap it all off, when the Chinese people do decide they've had enough of the CCP, they've ensured they'll lose everything they've gained in the civil wars that are bound to follow. All to allow them to stay in power a few more years.
They are absolutely barbarians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you think of the government as representing the people and working on their behalf, then that argument becomes a bit more difficult.
Also... No, it's not inherently authoritarian, but... Every time it's been tried it's failed, which indicates it's just an unworkable idea.
Now, when you've got an unworkable idea in a democratic state, one of two things will happen.
The first is that people will walk away, because first and foremost, they want something that'll improve their lives (Something that hardcore attempts to implement Socialism have uniformly failed to do. If you want to bring people out of poverty, Capitalism is the tool to go for)
The second is that in an attempt to stop the people walking away, the government will crack down and become authoritarian (because if the ideology is correct, then it's the people who are the problem. They need to be bought into line)
So the reason it goes into dictatorship isn't because it's Socialism, but simply because bad ideas lead to bad outcomes if they're not abandoned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So strong, resilient and beautiful that people have given up on having children at an unprecedented scale.
That you've accused me of lying, then when asked to quote a lie I've said, you rambled on about the economist.
Then ran away.
Things are going so well your only response to this is to whine about propaganda, bias or being one sided, while being completely incapable of giving specifics.
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A true friend" in this case would be getting the American taxpayer to bail out a government that's made the same old tired mistakes, propping it up to let it keep doing the same thing, and pushing it further and further into a cycle of dependency?
No. If it did that, Venezuela would never recover. If they sent cash, that would simply mean the country's leadership had nicer overseas bank accounts or embark on even dumber ventures, confident that the US taxpayer would foot the bill. If they sent free food, etc, then that would simply destroy the local farming industry (amongst others)
In cases like this, all you can do is let the root cause die off. Sustaining it only delays the evil day.
On and the Chinese and Russians were already there. They're there because Chavez borrowed excessive amounts of cash from them to prop up his own unworkable ideas. If US banks wouldn't lend to him, it's because they didn't see any chance of actually making a profit (IE: Being repaid plus interest. And before you whine about interest, without a profit motive, why would the banks take risk)?
Why did China lend to them? Well.... Ask Sri Lanka.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Those jobs don't belong to anyone. No-one is entitled to them. If they belong to anyone, they belong to the employer that created them. The Oil belongs to the Venezuelan people.
2. Yes, your constant assertion and explicit refusal to look at the definition of what a dictator is have been very convincing arguments. Anyway, in the classic sense of the definition... Yes. Very explicitly. If you want to deny it, you're going to have to start addressing definitions. As it is, your attempts to skirt around this are just a wonderfully funny confirmation that I'm correct, but you lack the personal integrity to accept this.
BTW, it's pretty funny how you've retreated from that particular thread, tail between your legs. You're a laugh a minute.
3. >> No leader had ever addressed the education problem as Chavez did<<
Improvements in educational standards have been pretty solid all over the world. Even if Venezuela went from 10% literacy to 99%, that's something that's happened time and time again.
>> Yes a nations wealth belongs to the people (glad you get that) - it's a main tenant of socialism. You might be a socialist and don't know it.<<
The natural resources of a nation? Things that were there regardless of the efforts of the inhabitants of that nation? The tax dollars collected by a nation? Yes. They do. The wealth of the nation encompasses much more than that, though. Things that a person creates, minus taxes to pay for the infrastructure, etc required to keep things going, belong to that person.
4. It's hilarious that you say this while suggesting that China and Russia are all they need. Ask Sri Lanka.
And Venezuela needs competent economic leadership. It needs someone who's not retarded enough to double down on things like price controls when disasters are already underway. For a start.
5. This is about where we start looking at timelines. How about you give me the action and the date, and we look at when their problems started?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So basically, you'd like me to do what you do, and just spout a combination of unsourced bollocks and goalpost shifting?
You seem to have abandoned your idea that defeating the US would have been an option if they'd stayed away from Russia, as an example. Went very quiet after you'd been given a list of America's assets (I mean quiet on that subject. There was still much noise in the form of unsourced vagaries and bollocks)
For your points in general, though. If things were different, they'd have been different.
If Hitler had had resources, a large population base, better supply lines, hadn't driven out or murdered massive amounts of his intelligentsia, didn't waste time on cool shit like the V2 and so on and so forth, things might have been different.
But still interested to see the scenario in which an invasion of the US (You did say taking the US. That's not having a draw with them, but actually defeating them) would have been feasible.
There was no England equivalent they could use, and I can't see German troops fighting up through Mexico, somehow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>This is because Hitler was in the "first" world war and knew that the war was a stalemate until the US entered the war. Knowing this he knew in the future (he learned?) he would need a speedy victory in Europe before the US felt the pressure of getting evolved in another European war. Thus he speed up military funding and recruitment to make a decisive win in Europe before the US would have time to react (all in secret mind you). Using schools, commercial businesses, and non military buildings. <<
"I can win before the US gets involved" is very different to thinking "I can defeat the US" But thank you for conceding that point.
Also.... Yeah.... The US involvement in WW1 was welcome, but didn't make a huge amount of difference. You need to read a book rather than gaze at the History channel.
>>To answer your second question: Why would you believe that it was unless you believe that WW2 started with Pearl Harbor?
I believe this because we were already sending volunteers and military hardware to England prior to Pearl Harbor. War was inevitable... but was sped up by the attack. <<
Yeah, that's individual Americans being involved, and Americans selling war supplies. That's very different to America being involved. You might as well talk about the Irish volunteers.
Also: It's interesting you say this, when your first answer really was the correct one. He planned to get it over and done with quickly.
>>For Christ sake! This is WW2... 101... really? Gosh damn! You read a freaking book bro! <<
Ah, recycling the opposition's claims when you've already made your own point meaningless. Very good.
>>PS... he never went against Japan or Italy! Only Russia! Jesus! Your killing me!<<
You'll need to quote where I said he did. Otherwise, that sounds like strawmanning right there. If you've got literacy problems, that's fair enough then. It explains your fixation on the idiot box.
Edit: Funny story. He DID go against Italy. Those friendly German troops became occupiers in a puppet state. Mussolini's role there was to basically sign shit over to Germany.
>>I disproved your 80% horse drawn theory... you haven't disproved any of mine... mind you...?<<
Quote and source?
You've made claims based on things you watched on the Aliens channel, but that's about it. You've got a very rambling posting style though, so it's possible I missed something worth reading.
>>If you can debunk anything I have said like your 80% horse drawn theory... I'll take you somewhat serious... otherwise... stop wasting my time.<<
You did it yourself on your claim that Hitler believed he could beat the US.
He didn't. He wanted to get the war over and done with quickly. Almost managed it, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That was a very short response :)
>> I'm did not want end up protecting Maduro in any way.<<
And yet, here we are. Blaming those who are capable of running an economy for choosing to move away from an unwelcome environment, instead of Chavez and Maduro for creating that environment is protection.
>> When Chávez died, the country started to really fall apart.<<
I like it here how you attempt to suggest that the country starting to fall apart wasn't Chavez's fault.
Open up Google News, do a search for Venezuela when Chavez was alive.
A classic longrunning one is the toilet paper shortage.
Venezuela today is a product of the state Chavez left it in. It didn't magically fall apart because he was no longer there. He simply died before he was forced to deal with the consequences of his actions.
Here's an article from 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042805712.html
>>Even if they're moving to full socialism as you say, they are no where near it yet<<
If I swing a wrecking ball towards you, are you going to stand there? Or are you going to step out of the way?
They were moving towards it, and Chavez had spent a long time showing he didn't respect property rights. In a case like that, if you're smart, you get out sooner, because there's plenty of precedent for what happens next. The 20th century is littered with examples
Here, you would be saying "The wrecking ball was coming, but it hadn't hit" - The sheer knowledge that the wrecking ball is coming is damaging.
>> How is Venezuela an example of socialism failing when they have more private employees than France<<
Because Venezuela was increasing govt ownership of property by any means, while France is privatising and respects private property.
>> It's the failure of incompetent leadership not socialism<<
Tell that to the next child prostituting herself for a sandwich.
Seriously. How many examples do you need?
>> France would be suffering similar problems<<
Why do you think France is moving away from Socialism?
>> Norway would be in disaster<<
Norway is a social democracy and it respects private property.
>> So Venezuela is not an argument against socialism, but instead an argument against having incompetent leadership.<<
It's an argument for both. Socialist leaders tend to be incompetent.
1
-
>> Maybe I don't know enough about Venuzueala. But 70% private sector employees does not reflect socialism<<
Is there a reason you continue to ignore "moving towards" and similar words?
>> What exactly do you mean by lack of respect of private property. Are they nationalizing small business such as cafes and restaurants? <<
Only small businesses count as private property?
Anyway:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSBRE89701X20121008
Also worth noting the large amounts of farmland (How's the food supply situation going) the shops (Nationalised, price controls implemented, then bare shelves) a wide range of industries.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/ways-chavez-destroyed-venezuelan-economy/story?id=18239956
"The number of private companies in industry has dropped from 14,000 in 1998 to only 9,000 in 2011, according to Torres"
>> Are they seizing peoples houses and cars?<<
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097735,00.html
You can argue the houses shouldn't have been there. However, the problem with a country that doesn't have an independent judiciary. Sure, the first might be completely OK, but what guarantee do you have that it won't stretch things?
Because there's always another excuse. The only question is whether you leave before that excuse is found.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-11756492
Now, not on cars. This being said: The car isn't an asset whose value you rely on. Your home? Your business? Yes. Losing those is damaging. For your car, you can spend a few hundred on something that does an identical job, just with different levels of comfort and safety.
>> Aside from nationalizing major sectors of the economy, that are already nationalized in many European countries<<
And coffee plants... Because they're not selling at artificially low set prices.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32302761/ns/world_news-venezuela/t/chavez-coffee-plants-be-expropriated/
Are coffee plants vital to the national economy? (Actually, as an IT worker, in many ways I'd argue that it is, but that would be tongue in cheek referencing my caffeine addiction)
>> and aiming to provide more free healthcare/education, what else has happened under the 17+ years of 'Chavizmo' that I don't know about in terms of private property? The only thing I can think of is the seizing of a GM factory.<<
Apparently a lot.
Have you tried using Google? Venezuela expropriations is a useful term.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03/15/venezuela-threatens-to-expropriate-bakers-that-dont-obey-new-bread-regulations.html
They average 10 employees a piece. Are those large? Granted, that's recent, but you know what I was saying previously about people who can make predictions based on previous times this stuff has happened leaving early? Well. This is why. The big things are gone after first, and then the smaller and smaller bits get picked up later. As true today as it was during the Sullan conscriptions.
This is the first result on Chavez Expropriation
https://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/10/expropriations_venezuela
Bottle making?
Anyway, what people could physically move from point A to point B seemed to be respected. That's about it.
And if you feel the need to object to people moving based on predictions of what was going to happen next.... Well.... Those who got out first weren't exactly wrong, now were they?
1
-
>> The reason is, that I don't see how that's relevant right now.<<
So.... You honestly don't understand, even after multiple explanations (of something that really shouldn't need to be explained) how the start of something that has historically gone very badly for professionals, business owners, skilled workers, etc might influence their actions even before it's gone as badly as it possibly could?
Is this seriously what you're telling me?
That you don't understand the role confidence in the future has in people's decisions?
>> Are you telling me, that if the move to socialism stopped and Maduro kept the current status quo of government intervention in the economy (which I've pointed out is less socialistic than alot of western Europe), everything would suddenly become better, because the movement to socialism is the sole cause of all the problems?<<
If they could convince potential investors that it had stopped? (Again, and I need to stress this because you don't seem to understand things like memories and pattern recognition, they'd need to be convinced it wouldn't start up again as soon as things were going well) That what belonged to them would stay theirs?
That they wouldn't be the scapegoat next time the government was incompetent? Yes it would. Not perfect, but the downward spiral would begin to reverse. At the moment, Venezuela has a well educated populace that will work for almost nothing and be damned grateful for the opportunity. That's an investor's dream. As long as the govt can be trusted to not turn the whole exercise into a waste of their time and money.
Because the real killer in investment (which includes such mundane things as bothering to grow next year's crops) is a lack of confidence that you'll profit from your investment. Kill that, and everything else dies. Force someone to sell at a loss and they won't bother producing again. Make it clear that if someone's company turns a profit they might lose it, they won't bother starting a company.
Why does this need to be explained?
And you've pointed out many things. Including that you've got no idea why a lack of confidence in an economy might be incredibly harmful to that economy on its own. By this point, the problem with going socialist isn't just that it's a bad idea that won't work, but people (at least those with a decent knowledge of finance... Y'know... The people an economy needs to survive) KNOW it's a bad idea that won't work.
And do you know what will happen next time this is tried?
The failure that is Venezuela will be added to the data used to make predictions. At this point, you will still be standing there, utterly mystified as to why everyone with the ability to make two dollars is rampaging towards the exists.
>> I don't think you mean that exactly, you must understand that the problems have much more complex causes. The act of nationalizing sectors of an economy is not by itself destructive, like many liberals like to believe.<<
If fair compensation is given, people know they can expect fair compensation if it happens to them, and the nationalised sector is run well (So that it's not just money pissed up against the wall), no, it's not necessarily destructive.
But, that wasn't happening. Even when it happens at the start, anyone with the ability to use the internet knows that it doesn't remain that way. Just look at Zimbabwe. Fair compensation is given out at first (Mugabe purchased white farms at first) then when the money runs out.... Well, it stops being so fair.
>> Many European countries nationalized some natural monopolies after WW2 in order to reconstruct their economy.<<
Like... Coffee factories.... And bakeries. After a massively destructive war (Which war was Venezuela involved in recently?)
I'm not going to deny that there are some industries that are better off nationalised. As you say, naturally monopolistic necessities, such as water, electricity, telecommunications, great.
Difficult things that the populace needs in order to produce productive citizens such as education and healthcare, fantastic.
Car factories? Coffee plantations? quote unquote unproductive farmland? (How did that work out for them?) Not so much.
>> Of course, as with all policies, it won't work out if poorly executed<<
Sometimes a good policy is poorly executed.
Sometimes it's just a bad policy.
To anyone with any predictive power, this is quite clearly the latter.
>> Also, the fact that under 18 years of 'Chavizmo' the economy is nowhere near socialism, makes it hard for me to understand how this movement to socialism is happening<<
I don't like to be insulting, but there's a lot of simple things that are difficult for you to understand. I've explained them ad nauseum previously.
But to avoid avoiding answering the statement:
It hasn't gone all the way because it's a bloody big job, being done on increasingly scarce resources. However, it's gone far enough to destroy investor confidence, and with that, the whole economy.
>> If 'Chavizmo' was genunly focused on moving to socialism, why don't they have their soviet style economy yet? Cuba did it, eastern europe did it after WW2.<<
I'm going to add ignorance of the current state of the world to the things you lack knowledge on.
Cuba was supported by this country that has since collapsed called the USSR.
Eastern Europe did it supported by this conquering army that was quite happy to do whatever the hell it liked and didn't give a damn about appearing democratic. It was also in the aftermath of a war where, even if not by much, the USSR was not the worst country to control Eastern Europe.
Do you see the difference?
Even dictators don't have magic wands that allow them to just do whatever they like.
>> Like I said before 'Chavismo' aims to reform the capitalist system more than implementing socialism, or complete nationalization (soviet economy). <<
It's interesting that you believe this.
Not nearly as interesting as your inability to understand why something that has turned out very badly in previous attempts affects people's actions, but still interesting.
>> Essentially, Venezuela did a bad job of implementing Soc. Dem., though that's a very simple explanation to a very complex problem.<<
Lol. Venezuela did a bad job of implementing something it wasn't targeting. Funny, that.
>>"Broadly, Chavismo policies include nationalization, social welfare programs and opposition to neoliberalism (particularly the policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank). According to Chávez, Venezuelan socialism accepts private property, but this socialism seeks to promote social property too." - from Wikipedia. Similar in many ways to Soc. Dem. imo.<<
Sure. If you ignore his actions. Not exactly protecting private property, was he?
Which... Considering I'd given many examples of these actions, which you had ignored, looks like it's exactly what you're doing.
From his actions, his concept of private property appeared to be anything you could move.
Edit: Thinking a bit further, on your attempt to blame simple economic incompetence on the cause of the problem.
Well... I'll put it this way: Given that Socialism simply doesn't work, an economic leader who tries to implement it is going to be incompetent.
You will not have a competent economic manager who believes that Socialism works, any more than you'll have a competent engineer who thinks that gravity can be ignored when designing a structure.
I know that you believe Socialism can work, but all that really tells me is you wouldn't be a competent economic manager.
Edit2:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/in-chavez-era-throwback-venezuela-seizes-part-of-a-golf-course
Totally a core industry. I wonder how they'll pay for the school... Probably the same way they paid for the other projects they took over and abandoned.
What's funny is until recently, they were trying to encourage tourism. If they're going after golf courses, it's pretty obvious that failed.
1
-
>>socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. That can't work now for many reasons<<
We agree on something. But this makes me wonder what you've actually been arguing in favour of it for.
Anyway, progress :)
Well, I thought it was progress, until I continued to read.
It's genuinely interesting to see how many arguments you've dropped, though.
>>But many liberals tend to refer to socialized capitalist economies as 'socialist', this PragerU channel does it alot<<
Don't care if people I'm not talking with are using words incorrectly.
>>I can't disagree with your points on the failure of the Venezuelan economy. But Venezuela is not a valid argument against socializing an economy,<<
No, it's not part of a pattern at all, is it? It's not merely the latest failure that was predicted a long time ago in a long run of failures, is it?
I'm really curious here. How many failures do you need before you understand that it's just a bad idea, with very specific exceptions (I'll agree on the natural monopolies bit. Remember when you tried to claim that Venezuela hadn't done any more of those than your average European nation? You seem to have forgotten, but I haven't) How many ruined countries?
If I were to ask you for a list of successful Socialist countries, what would you provide me with?
Just keep in mind, I'm going to jump on capitalist countries and excuses. (Any Western European country is a Capitalist country. Cuba is a country people have excuses for)
>>which in my eyes means nationalizing the commanding heights of the economy/natural monopolies as well as ensuring a decent minimum wage for full time workers<<
I really don't care what it means in your eyes. If you're saying that, you're probably using your own personal definition. The only reason I could give a damn about your own personal one is that others simply see the words you use, and think that it's an argument in favour of something you're not arguing (Although it's difficult to be sure, you're all over the place)
From looking at their actions, despite your beliefs to the contrary, we can sure as hell add Chavez and Maduro to the list of people who don't share your definition. Unless you're going to try to add small bakeries, hotels, golf courses and coffee to the list of things that fall under it. (And that's probably just a small portion of the list. Venezuela went from 14k companies to 9k - That last number is outdated. I doubt it's increased)
>>It may stand as an argument against nationalizing certain sectors of the economy, but not socialization as a whole.<<
So.... Nationalising certain sectors = bad. Socializing (nationalising? Unless there's a reason you switched terms) the whole economy (I can only assume that's what you meant) which includes these bits = just fine. Hmm....
You also seem to have switched from "Venezuela has only nationalised bits that most European countries did" to... I guess it's "Venezuela has only nationalised the parts of the economy it shouldn't have" or something like that. Your contradictions are making following what you're saying a bit difficult.
BTW. In 2016, the Venezuelan people lost an average of 8KG.
In 2017, they lost a further 11kg.
That's about as much as a medium sized dog weighs. And it's an average.
1
-
Alexander that's fair.
Doing this from a phone, so can't give too much detail, but those countries that haven't collapsed yet are capitalist economies. Including China (Since Denmark Xiaoping abandoned socialism) don't let the name fool you. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is capitalism (remember that we're talking about the CCP's sole claim to legitimacy. The goal for which the ruined the country and starved tens of millions to death. They needed to still have the goal, even if in name only) and they still have a seriously unhealthy economy. They did well because the economy was recovering. Which is very different. Go outside the major famous cities there, and you'll see what I mean.
Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. Really, Hitler wasn't interested in economics. Which I guess makes him better than the Kims. Beyond that, I can't say he was worse, just that he had opportunity to do more damage to more people . This isn't a defence of him, but showing just how terrible the Kims are.
For the others.... They did all fail. The USSR included. They didn't all fail as dramatically as Venezuela, but they did fail. If the reason for failure wasn't explicitly socialism, the pattern says it was only because something else killed them first. Smoking a pack a day won't kill you if you get hit by a bus. It will kill you, though.
And the USSR was a literal prison, which did a lot to stop the brain drain. It wasn't a figurative prison, it was a literal one, with walls and guards.
If you want to see the legacy of the USSR today, check out the economies to the east and west of the wall.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bingbing3464 so I'm still waiting for the three countries that are in a worse situation than the PRC. You've had multiple opportunities to list them.
I'm fixated on birth rates for two reasons.
1. Because the Chinese "economic miracle" was based on the communist party allowing in capitalism (if the isn't failure, what is?) coupled with the massive worker to dependent ratio the one child policy plus low life expectancy allowed. That's now reversing. And unlike large amounts of children, elderly are both a greater expense (want to be shocked? Check out the diabetes rate in your country) and will never give a return on that investment. They're simply a drain on resources.
2. It shows what young Chinese think of their future prospects. In ten years, the number of people who should have become parents declined by two thirds to three quarters.
I've already addressed automation.
And however many Chinese are studying English in school, the fact remains that not many speak it well. About 1 percent are conversational. There's a reason Australia needs an IELTS score of 6.5 (which ignorant people tried to portray as university level English) for PR. Because below that, you're basically not functional in the workplace.
Compare with the other major economies, Japan, the EU and US which is 20-30, 40 and close to 100 percent.
Just because you (claim you) can deal with Africa in English doesn't mean Africans can deal with China in English.
And then, where are the ones you need most going to go if they have the choice. The West, which pays more, plus they're literate and can talk to normal people, or the PRC, where none is true?
But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
In which case, the time for this mass migration of Africans to start was years ago. Because you're already getting a 36.7 million increase in the gap between workers and dependents (16.93 million retirees plus 9.02 million births, coming to 25.95 new dependents, plus the decline in workers of 10.75 million. This is all official numbers) in a single year.
Which is the first time I've done that particular bit of math. It's a bit shocking.
Coming years are going to be so much worse.
Plugging that gap alone isn't enough to maintain more than a 1:1 worker to dependent ratio. At the moment it's a little better than 2:1 (45 dependents per 100 workers)
In 2010 it was about 3:1 (37 per 100)
So if you want to maintain that current ratio, you need to replace the 10.75 million, plus add in an extra two for each new dependant, or 51.9 million. Bringing in a grand total of 62.65 million.
Big problems lead to big numbers.
The bright side is that assuming you managed that, not being able to speak Chinese stops being a problem. Something to do with immigrants outnumbering newborn locals by about 7:1
The downside is there's only enough English speakers in Africa to sustain this for four years. Assuming you managed to convince all of them.
But hey. After this, English becomes less of a priority. You've got so many other languages and communities that form around them.
Your problem then becomes that there's "only" about 45 million Africans being born per year in total.
Plus, call me crazy, but I get the feeling that a homogeneous country like the PRC isn't going to handle the flood of immigrants well. It's not easy. The Han might not be that happy about becoming a minority in their own country. It's not like you're a country of immigrants like Canada, Australia, the USA or even the UK.
I've addressed automation before, but long story short, it's a big project that needs large numbers of highly skilled, highly experienced people to both implement, maintain and improve (anyone who thinks it's easy to just walk in and automate a bespoke system is simply clueless). People who can basically live wherever they like (Australia, the UK and Hong Kong until the national security law here. Planning on Singapore later. I don't think I can get into Singapore, I know I can)
Made even bigger by the size of the problem in the PRC and the low overall level of development.
Plus that your best can immigrate. I've worked with many Chinese of the sort the PRC desperately needs. I'm married to one of them.
Overall, they're not going back.
And that's all a bit of math that makes me glad YouTube deleted my last response.
1
-
@bingbing3464 and YouTube wants me to split this up. Part 1.
so I'm still waiting for the three countries that are in a worse situation than the PRC. You've had multiple opportunities to list them.
I'm fixated on birth rates for two reasons.
1. Because the Chinese "economic miracle" was based on the communist party allowing in capitalism (if the isn't failure, what is?) coupled with the massive worker to dependent ratio the one child policy plus low life expectancy allowed. That's now reversing. And unlike large amounts of children, elderly are both a greater expense (want to be shocked? Check out the diabetes rate in your country) and will never give a return on that investment. They're simply a drain on resources.
2. It shows what young Chinese think of their future prospects. In ten years, the number of people who should have become parents declined by two thirds to three quarters.
I've already addressed automation.
And however many Chinese are studying English in school, the fact remains that not many speak it well. About 1 percent are conversational. There's a reason Australia needs an IELTS score of 6.5 (which ignorant people tried to portray as university level English) for PR. Because below that, you're basically not functional in the workplace.
Compare with the other major economies, Japan, the EU and US which is 20-30, 40 and close to 100 percent.
Just because you (claim you) can deal with Africa in English doesn't mean Africans can deal with China in English.
And then, where are the ones you need most going to go if they have the choice. The West, which pays more, plus they're literate and can talk to normal people, or the PRC, where none is true?
But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
In which case, the time for this mass migration of Africans to start was years ago. Because you're already getting a 36.7 million increase in the gap between workers and dependents (16.93 million retirees plus 9.02 million births, coming to 25.95 new dependents, plus the decline in workers of 10.75 million. This is all official numbers) in a single year.
Which is the first time I've done that particular bit of math. It's a bit shocking.
Coming years are going to be so much worse.
Plugging that gap alone isn't enough to maintain more than a 1:1 worker to dependent ratio. At the moment it's a little better than 2:1 (45 dependents per 100 workers)
In 2010 it was about 3:1 (37 per 100)
So if you want to maintain that current ratio, you need to replace the 10.75 million, plus add in an extra two for each new dependant, or 51.9 million. Bringing in a grand total of 62.65 million.
Big problems lead to big numbers.
The bright side is that assuming you managed that, not being able to speak Chinese stops being a problem. Something to do with immigrants outnumbering newborn locals by about 7:1
The downside is there's only enough English speakers in Africa to sustain this for four years. Assuming you managed to convince all of them.
But hey. After this, English becomes less of a priority. You've got so many other languages and communities that form around them.
Your problem then becomes that there's "only" about 45 million Africans being born per year in total.
Plus, call me crazy, but I get the feeling that a homogeneous country like the PRC isn't going to handle the flood of immigrants well. It's not easy. The Han might not be that happy about becoming a minority in their own country. It's not like you're a country of immigrants like Canada, Australia, the USA or even the UK.
1
-
1
-
@bingbing3464 part 2
And however many Chinese are studying English in school, the fact remains that not many speak it well. About 1 percent are conversational. There's a reason Australia needs an IELTS score of 6.5 (which ignorant people tried to portray as university level English) for PR. Because below that, you're basically not functional in the workplace.
Compare with the other major economies, Japan, the EU and US which is 20-30, 40 and close to 100 percent.
Just because you (claim you) can deal with Africa in English doesn't mean Africans can deal with China in English.
And then, where are the ones you need most going to go if they have the choice. The West, which pays more, plus they're literate and can talk to normal people, or the PRC, where none is true?
But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
In which case, the time for this mass migration of Africans to start was years ago. Because you're already getting a 36.7 million increase in the gap between workers and dependents (16.93 million retirees plus 9.02 million births, coming to 25.95 new dependents, plus the decline in workers of 10.75 million. This is all official numbers) in a single year.
Which is the first time I've done that particular bit of math. It's a bit shocking.
Coming years are going to be so much worse.
Plugging that gap alone isn't enough to maintain more than a 1:1 worker to dependent ratio. At the moment it's a little better than 2:1 (45 dependents per 100 workers)
In 2010 it was about 3:1 (37 per 100)
So if you want to maintain that current ratio, you need to replace the 10.75 million, plus add in an extra two for each new dependant, or 51.9 million. Bringing in a grand total of 62.65 million.
Big problems lead to big numbers.
The bright side is that assuming you managed that, not being able to speak Chinese stops being a problem. Something to do with immigrants outnumbering newborn locals by about 7:1
The downside is there's only enough English speakers in Africa to sustain this for four years. Assuming you managed to convince all of them.
But hey. After this, English becomes less of a priority. You've got so many other languages and communities that form around them.
Your problem then becomes that there's "only" about 45 million Africans being born per year in total.
Plus, call me crazy, but I get the feeling that a homogeneous country like the PRC isn't going to handle the flood of immigrants well. It's not easy. The Han might not be that happy about becoming a minority in their own country. It's not like you're a country of immigrants like Canada, Australia, the USA or even the UK.
I've addressed automation before, but long story short, it's a big project that needs large numbers of highly skilled, highly experienced people to both implement, maintain and improve (anyone who thinks it's easy to just walk in and automate a bespoke system is simply clueless). People who can basically live wherever they like (Australia, the UK and Hong Kong until the national security law here. Planning on Singapore later. I don't think I can get into Singapore, I know I can)
Made even bigger by the size of the problem in the PRC and the low overall level of development.
Plus that your best can emigrate. I've worked with many Chinese of the sort the PRC desperately needs. I'm married to one of them.
Overall, they're not going back.
And that's all a bit of math that makes me glad YouTube deleted my last response.
1
-
@bingbing3464 >>fine, countries worse off? Spain, italy and singapore. Feel free to fact check<<
For births per thousand 2023:
PRC - 6.39 (Official numbers)
Spain - 6.8
Italy - 6.4
Singapore - 7.9 (2022. Can't find 2023. In 2022, the PRC was 6.77 that year)
As you're bringing in a city state for comparison, let's go to the closest economies in the PRC.
Shanghai - 3.95
Beijing - 5.63
USD GDP per capita 2023:
PRC - 12,514 USD
Spain - 29,674.5
Italy - 34,776.42
Singapore - 82,807.63
Shanghai - 26,747
Beijing - 28,294
Even the PRC's best is worse than every single one of these examples.
You probably should have fact checked yourself first.
Now here's where you might like to use fertility per women, but...
1. This is changing rapidly enough that this will lag.
2. Do we really need to go into why comparing how many women have children in China vs anywhere else isn't exactly apples to apples?
You might also start to talk about PPP, but that's only useful on a domestic market. When you need to import things from places that aren't nation sized nursing homes, gross matters.
>>China is more culturally diverse than you think. marrying one and that makes you think youve known it all? Ive work with multiple regions mind you. And im a PR in singapore and australia for that matter so i know the region pretty well. <<
So you say.
But while it might be more than you've decided I think, it's not even close to what the Western world considers normal.
It's diverse by Asia standards.
>>Also no need for of assumptions, AI is progressing really well in china as they are equipped with very established fundings<<
Which doesn't address what I'd said.
>>im talking about industrialized applications<<
Cool.
So once you've got the lights out factory.
Why China?
>>There's a reason why US is very desperate at slowing down chinese AI progress if youd actually go and think about it. <<
Because it's a powerful tool that's fairly easy to get started on, now that such a wide range of models is available and is able to do real damage.
>>And speaking of language barrier, people will naturally adept to gain opportunities, just like how im fluent in 5 languages as it benefits me. So right now it may be english to get a ticket to the west but it wont be surprising for people to learn chinese in order to get a job in china as well. <<
If there's not enough people now, there's not going to be enough to make the difference.
Especially with the math presented (that you'd skipped right over)
Learn English (which so many have) go to the west with the advantages I gave.
Learn Chinese, go to a place even the locals have given up on.
>>Im not sure what youre saying about "skills china desperately needs" as thus far in my entire career ive never seen skill shortages in china but in actuality it's the opposite... (graduates are jobless) <<
Graduates who were educated in a field the economy couldn't provide opportunities in.
Graduates who then won't get real world experience.
Which finally means graduates who won't be useful when the economy actually does need them. If you are what you claim you are, you'd know what happens to knowledge that's unused.
>>we've moved entire departments from our vendor in china to our branches in US and their human resources never fails to rehire competent workers... and the irony of us doing that is because we couldnt hire anyone competent locally in the US even when our package is on the higher end in the industry.
<<
Which I've got to say, doesn't go along with my experience of hiring for high frequency traders (with massive pay. Not higher end in the industry. Massive) in Hong Kong. Plenty of mainland applicants.
Interviews were basically a depressing experience.
>>China's median age is 39 which is the same as the global average of any other nations so i suppose that answers your worries<<
So let's see how that's playing out with the countries you selected.
Because I already had it available, I'll throw in the US for the biggest Western economy and Japan for what's widely acknowledged to be in a dire situation.
Age in 2000:
PRC: 28.9
USA: 35.3
Japan: 40.7
Italy: 40.3
Spain: 36.36
Singapore: 33.66
Age in 2020:
PRC 2020 37.4
USA: 38.6
Japan: 48
Italy: 47.3
Spain: 43.49
Singapore: 41.2
Absolute ageing in years:
PRC 8.5
US: 3.1
Japan: 7.3
Italy: 7
Spain: 7.13
Singapore: 7.54
Increase as a percent:
PRC: 29%
USA: 18%
Japan: 17%
Italy: 17%
Spain: 19%
Singapore: 22%
>>China converting to capitalism is probably the best thing to happen for the world actually<<
Probably.
But that's irrelevant to the point that was being made.
All those dead. For failure.
>>also back to your population concern, it's always a generational swing<<
Only helps if you have a generation.
>>but the more down to earth genZ married couples are more family oriented. <<
They're just starting to hit the most common age to reproduce, and birth rates are at record lows.
Although it's interesting that you bring this up.
The most common age for a woman to have children in the PRC is 27. So for 2023, that's people who were born in 1996
In 1996, there were 20,670,000 births.
Those are the people that are currently giving China it's wholly inadequate rates.
That goes down for 10 years, reaching a trough of 15,850,000 in 2006.
So that's 10 years of, even if they remain at the same level (trends show otherwise and there's no magical barrier between gen Z and millennials) continuing to decline.
The next time the numbers get close to the 1996 levels is 2012 at 19,730,000 - A number which we know from the data last year is wholly inadequate.
And after that, it just gets so much worse.
Plus, if you're pinning your hopes on gen Z (Currently aged between 15 and 27 years) that's twenty years from now before it starts to actually show benefits. So whatever they produce will start to really make an impact around 2045. Assuming next year is a bumper year. Which it won't be.
But that's assuming you're not just hoping against hope.
Kind of like how you think immigration from Africa is going to really pick up (it doesn't need to pick up now. It needed to pick up 10 years ag0) to save the day.
Then how you think that maybe, if emigrating to a national retirement village is a good enough incentive, people will learn Mandarin en mass, rather than something that's more useful and has more teachers available.
>>Not being biased but rather im just being realistic on the fact that china will not be going anywhere<<
And you say this, in your unbiased opinion, after eventually, after much prompting, giving countries that are in a better situation than the PRC in every way.
I've got to say, though, I'd thought Singapore would be worse.
>>In my trading industry we always see changes, but no matter it is, the economy will always find a way to balance itself<<
Here it looks like you're literally setting the bar for success to not being entirely destroyed.
No, it won't be destroyed, there'll still be a region called China.
but what's actually in that region will be anyone's guess. The only thing we know for certain is that for the rest of our lives, it'll be old and it'll be poor.
1
-
@bingbing3464 Part 1:
>>fine, countries worse off? Spain, italy and singapore. Feel free to fact check<<
For births per thousand 2023:
PRC - 6.39 (Official numbers)
Spain - 6.8
Italy - 6.4
Singapore - 7.9 (2022. Can't find 2023. In 2022, the PRC was 6.77 that year)
As you're bringing in a city state for comparison, let's go to the closest economies in the PRC.
Shanghai - 3.95
Beijing - 5.63
USD GDP per capita 2023:
PRC - 12,514 USD
Spain - 29,674.5
Italy - 34,776.42
Singapore - 82,807.63
Shanghai - 26,747
Beijing - 28,294
Even the PRC's best is worse than every single one of these examples.
You probably should have fact checked yourself first.
Now here's where you might like to use fertility per women, but...
1. This is changing rapidly enough that this will lag.
2. Do we really need to go into why comparing how many women have children in China vs anywhere else isn't exactly apples to apples?
You might also start to talk about PPP, but that's only useful on a domestic market. When you need to import things from places that aren't nation sized nursing homes, gross matters.
>>China is more culturally diverse than you think. marrying one and that makes you think youve known it all? Ive work with multiple regions mind you. And im a PR in singapore and australia for that matter so i know the region pretty well. <<
So you say.
But while it might be more than you've decided I think, it's not even close to what the Western world considers normal.
It's diverse by Asia standards.
>>Also no need for of assumptions, AI is progressing really well in china as they are equipped with very established fundings<<
Which doesn't address what I'd said.
>>im talking about industrialized applications<<
Cool.
So once you've got the lights out factory.
Why China?
1
-
@bingbing3464 Part 1:
>>fine, countries worse off? Spain, italy and singapore. Feel free to fact check<<
For births per thousand 2023:
PRC - 6.39 (Official numbers)
Spain - 6.8
Italy - 6.4
Singapore - 7.9 (2022. Can't find 2023. In 2022, the PRC was 6.77 that year)
As you're bringing in a city state for comparison, let's go to the closest economies in the PRC.
Shanghai - 3.95
Beijing - 5.63
USD GDP per capita 2023:
PRC - 12,514 USD
Spain - 29,674.5
Italy - 34,776.42
Singapore - 82,807.63
Shanghai - 26,747
Beijing - 28,294
Even the PRC's best is worse than every single one of these examples.
You probably should have fact checked yourself first.
Now here's where you might like to use fertility per women, but...
1. This is changing rapidly enough that this will lag.
2. Do we really need to go into why comparing how many women have children in China vs anywhere else isn't exactly apples to apples?
You might also start to talk about PPP, but that's only useful on a domestic market. When you need to import things from places that aren't nation sized nursing homes, gross matters.
1
-
@bingbing3464 Part 1:
>>fine, countries worse off? Spain, italy and singapore. Feel free to fact check<<
For births per thousand 2023:
PRC - 6.39 (Official numbers)
Spain - 6.8
Italy - 6.4
Singapore - 7.9 (2022. Can't find 2023. In 2022, the PRC was 6.77 that year)
As you're bringing in a city state for comparison, let's go to the closest economies in the PRC.
Shanghai - 3.95
Beijing - 5.63
USD GDP per capita 2023:
PRC - 12,514 USD
Spain - 29,674.5
Italy - 34,776.42
Singapore - 82,807.63
Shanghai - 26,747
Beijing - 28,294
Fact checking is a good idea.
Now here's where you might like to use fertility per women, but...
1. This is changing rapidly enough that this will lag.
2. Do we really need to go into why comparing how many women have children in China vs anywhere else isn't exactly apples to apples?
You might also start to talk about PPP, but that's only useful on a domestic market. When you need to import things from places that aren't nation sized nursing homes, GDP per capita matters.
1
-
@bingbing3464 Part 1:
>>fine, countries worse off? Spain, italy and singapore. Feel free to fact check<<
For births per thousand 2023:
PRC - 6.39 (Official numbers)
Spain - 6.8
Italy - 6.4
Singapore - 7.9 (2022. Can't find 2023. In 2022, the PRC was 6.77 that year)
As you're bringing in a city state for comparison, let's go to the closest economies in the PRC.
Shanghai - 3.95
Beijing - 5.63
USD GDP per capita 2023:
PRC - 12,514 USD
Spain - 29,674.5
Italy - 34,776.42
Singapore - 82,807.63
Shanghai - 26,747
Beijing - 28,294
Fact checking is a good idea.
Now here's where you might like to use TFR, but...
1. This is changing rapidly enough that this will lag.
2. Do we really need to go into why using this isn't exactly apples to apples with the rest of the world?
You might also start to talk about PPP, but that's only useful on a domestic market. When you need to import things from places that aren't nation sized nursing homes, GDP per capita matters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bingbing3464 Part 5:
"China converting to capitalism is probably the best thing to happen for the world actually"
Probably.
But that's irrelevant to the point that was being made.
All those dead. For failure.
"also back to your population concern, it's always a generational swing"
Only helps if you have a generation.
To produce people, you need people.
This latest generation isn't going to be magically free of cares and worries, able to go off and breed like rabbits either.
"but the more down to earth genZ married couples are more family oriented."
They're just starting to hit the most common age to reproduce, and birth rates are at record lows.
Although it's interesting that you bring this up.
The most common age for a woman to have children in the PRC is 27. So for 2023, that's people who were born in 1996
In 1996, there were 20,670,000 births.
Those are the people that are currently giving China it's wholly inadequate rates.
That goes down for 10 years, reaching a trough of 15,850,000 in 2006.
So that's 10 years of, even if they remain at the same level (trends show otherwise and there's no magical barrier between gen Z and millennials) continuing to decline.
The next time the numbers get close to the 1996 levels is 2012 at 19,730,000 - A number which we know from the data last year is wholly inadequate.
And after that, it just gets so much worse.
Plus, if you're pinning your hopes on gen Z (Currently aged between 15 and 27 years) that's twenty years from now before it starts to actually show benefits. So whatever they produce will start to really make an impact around 2045. Assuming next year is a bumper year. Which it won't be.
But that's assuming you're not just hoping against hope.
Kind of like how you think immigration from Africa is going to really pick up (it doesn't need to pick up now. It needed to pick up 10 years ag0) to save the day.
Then how you think that maybe, if emigrating to a national retirement village is a good enough incentive, people will learn Mandarin en mass, rather than something that's more useful and has more teachers available.
"Not being biased but rather im just being realistic on the fact that china will not be going anywhere"
And you say this, in your unbiased opinion, after eventually, after much prompting, giving countries that are in a better situation than the PRC in every way.
I've got to say, though, I'd thought Singapore would be worse.
"In my trading industry we always see changes, but no matter it is, the economy will always find a way to balance itself"
Here it looks like you're literally setting the bar for success to not being entirely destroyed.
No, it won't be destroyed, there'll still be a region called China.
but what's actually in that region will be anyone's guess. The only thing we know for certain is that for the rest of our lives, it'll be old and it'll be poor.
All this really brings us back to this
"you think. marrying one and that makes you think youve known it all"
I might not know it all.
But every post you make makes it increasingly clear I know more than you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bingbing3464 >>well i knew the MF ratio will come into play on your choice of using birth per capita. Statistics is fun that way.<<
So basically, you knew why the metric you were using was invalid, but used it anyway as if you were unaware of why it was invalid.
That's called being disingenuous.
The important thing isn't how many women are reproducing. It's how many new Chinese are entering the workforce relative to the population they'll be supporting. Low births = low workforce entrants down the line.
Which you also knew.
And then the three countries you chose using this metric you knew was invalid were STILL at worst, temporarily a little below par with the PRC (And that's the country that's best equipped to attract immigrants. A GDP per capita of 86k and a population of 5.6 million means that Singapore offsetting this decline with immigration is easy. They can attract the best in the world and don't need that many of them). With two out of three being in a better situation. These are countries you chose.
>>China have too many population as it currently stands and is still a strain to it's infrastructure thus having the excess of talents likewise with insufficient job opportunities.<<
Yes. Because the economy isn't remotely close to where you need it to be for your fantasies to come true.
Also, thank the CCP's Mao for both encouraging people to have children, and creating a famine that made the one child policy seem like a good alternative.
>>You can dispose hundreds of millions of chinese now and it wouldnt really matter much. <<
Like this? This is meant to be a joke about the absolute incompetence of the person in charge of the village. However, yeah, it's the closest thing to an actual workable solution to the PRC's problems I've ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ziMr4I3YqE&ab_channel=ColossalComedyClips
Or are you pretending that overall population size matters, rather than ratios?
Which is a common line of argument I've seen, and shows either dishonesty (it's been very clear in here that ratios are the important thing) or a lack of understanding of why a large worker:dependent imbalance is bad.
>>There are many things your numbers have not considered, for example the current china's economic breakthroughs in the tech sector are mostly headed by people in their 20s and 30s and they have many more years to serve<<
These things are needed now. At this moment. The luxury of time is a thing you don't have.
Plus, there's not all that many people that age.
And again, emigration. The people you need have skillsets that are globally in demand. From countries that are able to pay far more.
>>The ones that will be dead are the manufacturing sectors, china themselves are proactively handing out these sectors to other nations partly due to they no longer want to be an intermediate oem producer but one that makes their own design and final products especially in the high tech sector aka made in china 2025<<
MIC2025 has been going on since 2015. We're halfway through 2024. 2025 was meant to be the year by which it was in full swing. It should have already been providing the benefits. Instead, you've got massive amounts of people with pointless educations.
It's not the saviour you need it to be. If it were, you wouldn't be using it as a hope for the future.
>>This move itself is not without its own controversies as it will put many people jobless as fewer headcounts will be needed for growth: but that will be the answer to their population issue.<<
1. High unemployment makes the worker to dependent ratio worse.
2. It completely ignores that dependents need to be supported. Unless you go for the Attestup, whatever you do will have those dependents being a drain on the economy.
>>And the argument is getting stale as your only argument still and only circle around population numbers despite factors on industry, economic and demographic changes that is happening (one that you have been consistently brushing off). <<
It's not getting stale. I'm enjoying watching you switch from one ludicrous fantasy to another.
Although the countries YOU CHOSE being better than or basically equal on the metric YOU CHOSE despite knowing why it didn't tell the whole story was just gravy.
>>Also the beauty and concern of emerging tech is that there are no concrete practical experience to look for at most a manager who will take care of the time line and budget, while majority of the workforce are brand new, hires are usually from startup groups with a sound prototype seeking for additional investments. <<
Basically, you're so desperate you're relying on things that simply haven't been proven wrong yet.
>>HFT is irrelevant here. Yall just blood suckers in the finance market, and not as if the supply chain industry too are doing the same thing with hundreds of TB of data to crunch using million worth of hardware and licenses although in our industry we are leveraging heavily on AI nowadays not sure about you guys.<<
That's nice. It doesn't change a thing about the reason I brought it up, though.
And how you're discussing this shows you don't have the slightest clue of how the large language models fueling the current AI revolution work.
You know the buzzword. That's clearly about it.
For instance, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that precision isn't really their thing. Being 80% accurate is more like it.
Speed also isn't their thing.
But first and foremost, there's a reason they're called large LANGUAGE models. They're predictive text on steroids. They rely on words more than data. They're predictive text on steroids writing out out what someone is likely to say in a particular scenario. It's fantastically powerful, but if you had the slightest clue of what you were talking about, you wouldn't have brought them up in response to what I'd said.
So not only was it an irrelevant response (I've developed internal applications making use of the major ones myself. Learning about vector databases and the role they play in bridging the gap between a properly trained local model and the current day was interesting), it was a response that showed a lack of understanding of the technologies.
Doing this was also an interesting example of how difficult it is to actually make the solution fit. As one of my lecturers said, if you computerise a mess, you get a very fast mess. It's new technology, we're still figuring it out. Very, very, very few people have any sort of in-depth knowledge of it. It's a powerful tool, but to make a powerful tool useful, you need to actually know how to use it as a tool.
The biggest guarantee of any new technology is that anyone who treats it as a magic wand that'll solve all problems is destined for disappointment.
The more relevant but less buzz wordey is subject here is machine learning. Which is powerful, but has been in widescale use for well over a decade. No-one's bragging about (possibly) being a leader in it anymore because it's a mature technology. Sure, there's specific uses of it that we're discovering and going in on, but the floodgate of possibilities they opened is in the past. LLMs are interesting because the floodgates are just starting.
And in the end, knowledge of how best to create and use them only give a temporary advantage, before the fundamentals come back into play.
The fundamentals the PRC is facing is that it's a country with a large, ageing population and a birthrate that's declining so fast I wouldn't have believed it if the data hadn't come from official sources.
1
-
@bingbing3464 "well i knew the MF ratio will come into play on your choice of using birth per capita. Statistics is fun that way."
So basically, you knew why the metric you were using was invalid, but used it anyway as if you were unaware of why it was invalid.
That's called being disingenuous.
The important thing isn't how many women are reproducing. It's how many new Chinese are entering the workforce relative to the population they'll be supporting. Low births = low workforce entrants down the line.
Which you also knew.
And then the three countries you chose using this metric you knew was invalid were STILL at worst, temporarily a little below par with the PRC (And that's the country that's best equipped to attract immigrants. A GDP per capita of 86k and a population of 5.6 million means that Singapore offsetting this decline with immigration is easy. They can attract the best in the world and don't need that many of them). With two out of three being in a better situation. These are countries you chose.
"China have too many population as it currently stands and is still a strain to it's infrastructure thus having the excess of talents likewise with insufficient job opportunities."
Yes. Because the economy isn't remotely close to where you need it to be for your fantasies to come true.
Also, thank the CCP's Mao for both encouraging people to have children, and creating a famine that made the one child policy seem like a good alternative.
"You can dispose hundreds of millions of chinese now and it wouldnt really matter much. "
Like the Attestup (Search on youtube. First result)? This is meant to be a joke about the absolute incompetence of the person in charge of the village. However, yeah, it's the closest thing to an actual workable solution to the PRC's problems I've ever seen.
Or are you pretending that overall population size matters, rather than ratios?
Which is a common line of argument I've seen, and shows either dishonesty (it's been very clear in here that ratios are the important thing) or a lack of understanding of why a large worker:dependent imbalance is bad.
"There are many things your numbers have not considered, for example the current china's economic breakthroughs in the tech sector are mostly headed by people in their 20s and 30s and they have many more years to serve"
These things are needed now. At this moment. The luxury of time is a thing you don't have.
Plus, there's not all that many people that age.
And again, emigration. The people you need have skillsets that are globally in demand. From countries that are able to pay far more.
"The ones that will be dead are the manufacturing sectors, china themselves are proactively handing out these sectors to other nations partly due to they no longer want to be an intermediate oem producer but one that makes their own design and final products especially in the high tech sector aka made in china 2025"
MIC2025 has been going on since 2015. We're halfway through 2024. 2025 was meant to be the year by which it was in full swing. It should have already been providing the benefits. Instead, you've got massive amounts of people with pointless educations.
It's not the saviour you need it to be. If it were, you wouldn't be using it as a hope for the future.
"This move itself is not without its own controversies as it will put many people jobless as fewer headcounts will be needed for growth: but that will be the answer to their population issue."
1. High unemployment makes the worker to dependent ratio worse.
2. It completely ignores that dependents need to be supported. Unless you go for the Attestup, whatever you do will have those dependents being a drain on the economy.
"And the argument is getting stale as your only argument still and only circle around population numbers despite factors on industry, economic and demographic changes that is happening (one that you have been consistently brushing off). "
It's not getting stale. I'm enjoying watching you switch from one fantasy to another.
Although the countries YOU CHOSE being better than or basically equal on the metric YOU CHOSE despite knowing why it didn't tell the whole story was just gravy.
"Also the beauty and concern of emerging tech is that there are no concrete practical experience to look for at most a manager who will take care of the time line and budget, while majority of the workforce are brand new, hires are usually from startup groups with a sound prototype seeking for additional investments. "
Basically, you're so desperate you're relying on things that simply haven't been proven wrong yet.
"HFT is irrelevant here. Yall just blood suckers in the finance market, and not as if the supply chain industry too are doing the same thing with hundreds of TB of data to crunch using million worth of hardware and licenses although in our industry we are leveraging heavily on AI nowadays not sure about you guys."
That's nice. It doesn't change a thing about the reason I brought it up, though.
And how you're discussing this shows you don't have the slightest clue of how the large language models fueling the current AI revolution work.
You know the buzzword. That's clearly about it.
For instance, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that precision isn't really their thing. Being 80% accurate is more like it.
Speed also isn't their thing.
But first and foremost, there's a reason they're called large LANGUAGE models. They're predictive text on steroids. They rely on words more than data. They're predictive text on steroids writing out out what someone is likely to say in a particular scenario. It's fantastically powerful, but if you had the slightest clue of what you were talking about, you wouldn't have brought them up in response to what I'd said.
So not only was it an irrelevant response (I've developed internal applications making use of the major ones myself. Learning about vector databases and the role they play in bridging the gap between a properly trained local model and the current day was interesting), it was a response that showed a lack of understanding of the technologies.
Doing this was also an interesting example of how difficult it is to actually make the solution fit. As one of my lecturers said, if you computerise a mess, you get a very fast mess. It's new technology, we're still figuring it out. Very, very, very few people have any sort of in-depth knowledge of it. It's a powerful tool, but to make a powerful tool useful, you need to actually know how to use it as a tool.
The biggest guarantee of any new technology is that anyone who treats it as a magic wand that'll solve all problems is destined for disappointment.
The more relevant but less buzz wordey is subject here is machine learning. Which is powerful, but has been in widescale use for well over a decade. No-one's bragging about (possibly) being a leader in it anymore because it's a mature technology. Sure, there's specific uses of it that we're discovering and going in on, but the floodgate of possibilities they opened is in the past. LLMs are interesting because the floodgates are just starting.
And in the end, knowledge of how best to create and use them only give a temporary advantage, before the fundamentals come back into play.
The fundamentals the PRC is facing is that it's a country with a large, ageing population and a birthrate that's declining so fast I wouldn't have believed it if the data hadn't come from official sources.
1
-
@bingbing3464 >>and do you see the contradicting point you have there: not enough chinese entering the work while the economy isnt realistically big enough for the population. I remember vaguely from one research i read mentioned the ideal or optimum population for china should be far lower to even less than a billion. <<
If ratios weren't a factor, this would be true. If you were 'convincing' your elderly to go for the the Attestupa solution, on retirement, there'd be no problem. But if you're not going to do that, then there's a problem.
And what I said was opportunities weren't there. Which you'd previously accepted. ("Many emigrated precisely because they cant find vacancies locally as they have a talent surplus")
This is resolved when you realise that it's simply an expected consequence of a low tech economy. Yes, there are some relatively bright spots, but they're about as representative of the country as a whole as Shanghai is.
And you literally acknowledged an understanding of ratios in this very post. Two sentences after you made an argument that ignored them completely.
>>With a higher ratio of useful stem graduates china is technically still at no huge risk in its technological sectors after all majority of the unemployed are in liberal arts according to data. And yes ratios are important as you said. <<
So there's NOT a surplus of talent?
"Many emigrated precisely because they cant find vacancies locally as they have a talent surplus"
You were highly confident there was earlier. What changed? Convenience?
This doesn't impact the ratios, BTW.
Or the impact of better overseas opportunities that will primarily go to the best and brightest.
>>China doesnt need a huge population eventually by moving intermediate manufacturing out to cheaper nations while they focus on the final assembly. EV dominance is mainly due to MIC2025<<
High govt subsidies.
Those mean it's not profitable. Just another way to waste resources.
Also, that's them getting in on what's still China's primary niche.
And still ignores the proportion of workers to dependents. This has been highlighted so many times that did I think you were discussing this in good faith, I'd be wondering what part of it was so difficult to understand.
>>Besides things hasnt been going smoothly with US constantly disrupts with sanctions. If ASML were allowed to sell EUV machines to china or even if other semiconductor companies were allowed to sell chips to china in a fair economy, we could be witnessing a very different market.<<
It must suck for you that life isn't fair.
The unfairness of life doesn't change the reality, though.
Anyway, this post is like the three countries you yourself selected as being in a worse state than the PRC. (In which the only country that actually was, by that single metric, if you ignored how it needed to be adjusted was in a vastly better position to handle it than the PRC could possibly be)
You've been reduced to three points that you yourself believe are the only oens you have left.
The first is a lack of understanding of the consequences of a low development economy, plus what I can only assume is an intentional refusal to acknowledge something you clearly understand when you think it's convenient.
The second is a contradiction of yourself that tries to pretend this thing that you clearly understand only applies to the small subset of people that are convenient to you. Ignoring the country as a whole.
And the third is a complete irrelevance. It gives you an excuse.
When you're doing well, you don't need excuses.
1
-
@bingbing3464 "and do you see the contradicting point you have there: not enough chinese entering the work while the economy isnt realistically big enough for the population. I remember vaguely from one research i read mentioned the ideal or optimum population for china should be far lower to even less than a billion."
If ratios weren't a factor, this would be true. If you were 'convincing' your elderly to go for the the Attestupa solution, on retirement, there'd be no problem. But if you're not going to do that, then there's a problem.
And what I said was opportunities weren't there. Which you'd previously accepted. ("Many emigrated precisely because they cant find vacancies locally as they have a talent surplus")
This is resolved when you realise that it's simply an expected consequence of a low tech economy. Yes, there are some relatively bright spots, but they're about as representative of the country as a whole as Shanghai is.
And you literally acknowledged an understanding of ratios in this very post. Two sentences after you made an argument that ignored them completely.
"With a higher ratio of useful stem graduates china is technically still at no huge risk in its technological sectors after all majority of the unemployed are in liberal arts according to data. And yes ratios are important as you said. "
So there's NOT a surplus of talent?
"Many emigrated precisely because they cant find vacancies locally as they have a talent surplus"
You were highly confident there was earlier. What changed? Convenience?
This doesn't impact the ratios, BTW.
Or the impact of better overseas opportunities that will primarily go to the best and brightest.
"China doesnt need a huge population eventually by moving intermediate manufacturing out to cheaper nations while they focus on the final assembly. EV dominance is mainly due to MIC2025"
High govt subsidies.
Those mean it's not profitable. Just another way to waste resources.
Also, that's them getting in on what's still China's primary niche.
And still ignores the proportion of workers to dependents. This has been highlighted so many times that did I think you were discussing this in good faith, I'd be wondering what part of it was so difficult to understand.
"Besides things hasnt been going smoothly with US constantly disrupts with sanctions. If ASML were allowed to sell EUV machines to china or even if other semiconductor companies were allowed to sell chips to china in a fair economy, we could be witnessing a very different market."
It must suck for you that life isn't fair.
The unfairness of life doesn't change the reality, though.
Anyway, this post is like the three countries you yourself selected as being in a worse state than the PRC. (In which the only country that actually was, by that single metric, if you ignored how it needed to be adjusted was in a vastly better position to handle it than the PRC could possibly be)
You've been reduced to three points that you yourself believe are the only ones you have left. If you thought you had better, you'd have used better.
The first is a lack of understanding of the consequences of a low development economy, plus what I can only assume is an intentional refusal to acknowledge something you clearly understand when you think it's convenient.
The second is a contradiction of yourself that tries to pretend this thing that you clearly understand only applies to the small subset of people that are convenient to you. Ignoring the country as a whole.
And the third is a complete irrelevance. It gives you an excuse.
When you're doing well, you don't need excuses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sleepyman6598
Ambassador Cheng:
Firstly, I don't think this will make any substantial progress. Secondly, as I said earlier, the Chinese public is frustrated, dismayed and disappointed with what you are doing now. In the long term, for example, I think if the mood is going from bad to worse, people would think why we should go to such a country while it's not so friendly to China.The tourists may have second thoughts. Maybe the parents of the students would also think whether this place, which they find is not so friendly, even hostile, is the best place to send their kids to. So it's up to the public, the people to decide. And also, maybe the ordinary people will think why they should drink Australian wine or eat Australian beef. Why couldn't we do it differently?
Andrew Tillett:
So a boycott of Australia?
Ambassador Cheng:
I don't know. I hope not. But if the mood is bad or even worse, I don't think it's helpful to everyone and as I said, I hope that the Australian side will do more positive things, which would serve the interests of both sides.
1
-
1
-
@michaellaw3732 for your first bit, that doesn't contradict what I said. There's been improvements, massive ones, based on giving up on the one thing the communist party was meant to have dinner.
For the CCP virus response, again it doesn't contradict what I did. A huge bit inadequate response doesn't turn this failure into a success. If it was a success, the entire world wouldn't be locking itself up at the moment.
And for the bit about Beijing. You're pretty disingenuous to be pretending that a first tier city like Beijing (or Shenzhen, Shanghai or Shenyang, for that matter) is indicative of China as a whole.
There's a few bright spots is prosperity covering a small percentage of the population, but overall, even in ppp terms, poverty is widespread. Which is why that poverty line you talk of is the global extreme poverty line.
Living in Hong Kong. Married a mainlander. Been going all over the place since 2006. I also know what I saw with my own eyes.
As far as you being British Chinese goes.
Maybe. But it's not exactly unusual for wumao to lie about their nationality in order to give their words more weight.
Given that you're using copy and paste responses that are at best vaguely relevant to what was actually said, this seems more likely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children.
The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data)
So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues.
Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD. PPP multipler is about 2x. So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line.
And yes. I know things are cheaper. That's why I used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1k now.
If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 870 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 900. That's after today's sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2014, about 30 percent of newborns were second or third children. The crude birth rate was 13.83 per thousand (we can't exactly use births per woman, now, can we?)
Last year, a bit over 50 percent of newborns were second or third children and there were 6.39 births per thousand (official data) So in less than a decade we've had the number of births go to less than half of what it was and the number of deciding they can become parents drop by two thirds.
In less than a decade.
And the decline continues. Last year alone, in order to maintain the 2:1 worker to dependent ratio (down from 3:1 in 2011) the PRC needed an additional 30 million workers.
And the next decade is looking much worse.
This is coupled with a median income of about 4k USD.
PPP multipler is about 2x.
So the median Chinese person has a spending power of about 2/3 the US poverty line. And yes. know things are cheaper. That's why used the PPP modifier. To take that into account.
That's why 5 percent simply isn't good enough. They lost the race to grow rich before they grew old.
If you invested 1k into the CSI 300 back in mid 2009, you'd have about 1.1 k now. If you did the same with the S&P500, you'd have about 6k.
If you made this investment five years ago, you'd have 1050 today. Vs 1,930.
A year ago, it would have been 1090. That's after this sugar hit.
Vs about 1300.
And things continue to slide.
And slide.
And slide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1