|
DarkCrawler posted:I...uh...are you aware of the concept of overpopulation? Do you think China instituted one-child policy because they hate children? The one child policy was retarded and made by people who don't understand demographics and will screw Chinese economic development within a generation or half a generation from now on and is basically complete irrelevant for a first world country in which the natural rate of population growth is negative.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Typo posted:The one child policy was retarded and made by people who don't understand demographics and will screw Chinese economic development within a generation or half a generation from now on and is basically complete irrelevant for a first world country in which the natural rate of population growth is negative. China today is essentially at carrying capacity. India and Africa are going to be destroyed by resource scarcity and overpopulation in the next 50 and 100 years. See the article I posted about water. There are 1.3 billion people in China, and there is not enough water for any more, period. Without the one child policy China would be even more overcrowded than India. Of course, if WW2 and Mao hadn't happened and China had been developing during that time, it wouldn't have been needed and today the demographics would look much better, but peasants kept on making GBS threads out kids throughout all the wars and famines, and then one day you've got a few hundred million more people than you should at that level of development icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:The one child policy was retarded and made by people who don't understand demographics and will screw Chinese economic development within a generation or half a generation from now on and is basically complete irrelevant for a first world country in which the natural rate of population growth is negative. Alternatively, they found an innovative source for bribes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
That reminds me I need some new shoes. Should I hold out for the Korean shoetopia or not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:North Korean workers are generally well trained, even if their factory only gets to run twice a week due to resource shortages. Exactly. Even if they are not trained in a particular role, they are eminently trainable. Any assumptions about South Korean intentions about the North need to take into account the role of Korean language. North Korea, for all its shortcomings, has managed to achieve near-universal literacy. This shouldn't be a surprise - softer Marxist regimes like Cuba have managed this as well. South Koreans prefer to work with Korean speakers, just like anyone else. Their monoglotism just happens to be more intense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:There are 1.3 billion people in China, and there is not enough water for any more, period. Without the one child policy China would be even more overcrowded than India. Water resources is not mainly used for drinking purposes, it's mainly used for agriculture. So basically tacking more people onto the system is mainly going to result in more agricultural imports, would that cause problems? Maybe, but I simply don't buy adding another...what 100-200 million or so on top the 1.3 billion existing people are going to cause a catastrophe when China is already a big food importer today. Oh and as a side note, if you want to drop birth rates, you might as well as go for something like Iran's family planning program, which succeeded in dropping it to the same place as China's (~1.65/woman) before they reversed their policy a few years ago. It involves no forced abortions and instead consists of the government giving away free condoms and free vasectomies to anyone who wanted it. quote:India and Africa are going to be destroyed by resource scarcity and overpopulation in the next 50 and 100 years. Typo fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
You know if you want to argue about the feasibility of South Korean firms hiring North Koreans for low wage manufacturing work there is a real life example in the Kaesong Industrial Complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaesong_Industrial_Region#Kaes.C5.8Fng_Industrial_Park
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:You know if you want to argue about the feasibility of South Korean firms hiring North Koreans for low wage manufacturing work there is a real life example in the Kaesong Industrial Complex. You don't even have to pay them, you can just bring in moonpies! This is a great innovation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Pretty sure South Koreans are big enough fans of their democracy and human rights that they'd rather not unify at all then have some weird inferior part in their nation. I don't know why there couldn't be a transitional period of decade or two where NK is still a separate entity under international observation during which US/China/SK bring it up to bare minimum of infrastructure/economy for it to actually be a viable other half of unification. I've never understood the attitude that the US is able to build anything infrastructure or economy wise when we've been actively trying to let roads go to gravel for over a decade now. We succeed in having a first world county in spite of our politics, not because of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:You know if you want to argue about the feasibility of South Korean firms hiring North Koreans for low wage manufacturing work there is a real life example in the Kaesong Industrial Complex. The original question I was responding to wasn't whether it's possible to employ North Koreans for low wage manufacturing, but whether that is enough to completely support the entire North Korean population and economy so successfully that South Korea doesn't really need to spend any money on reunification.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:but whether that is enough to completely support the entire North Korean population and economy so successfully that South Korea doesn't really need to spend any money on reunification. I don't think anyone is expecting SK to not have to spend a massive amount of money period. Even if the NK economy is successful 2 generations down the road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I've never understood the attitude that the US is able to build anything infrastructure or economy wise when we've been actively trying to let roads go to gravel for over a decade now. You're pretty decent in doing it in other countries where you actually have willing partners, etc. Marshall Plan, Japan, and so on. SK would probably be running things on the ground anyway, and SK has a very good semi-recent track record of building up economy/infrastructure, as does China. And no, I think for a long while American politics were pretty stellar in comparison to the rest of the world. Then the Republican Party went batshit insane and neoliberals started basically stopping anything that didn't line the pockets of them and their friends. The "rebuilding" of Iraq was headed by the unholy combination of both and well, the result was about what you could expect. You would have had better results just dropping 10% of the money wasted from planes over Baghdad and promising to drop the rest if the Iraqis overthrew Saddam and held free elections. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I've never understood the attitude that the US is able to build anything infrastructure or economy wise when we've been actively trying to let roads go to gravel for over a decade now. United States's major infrastructure building periods were during recession and after WWII. Having over supply of labor is a primary motivation. Cheap labors and incomplete labor law can also help too. Both Dubai and China are examples of the later two conditions. I am sitting here in New York, looking at the new World Trade Center building. It's still unfinished after 13 years. I am starting to think low wage and state directed planning is really important for infrastructure projects. When the new WTC 1 building was purposed, its cheating tip could still claim "the tallest building" title. Yet 3 other taller buildings have built before its tip was installed. Not just the top there, there were a whole bunch of tall buildings built around this time in the top 30 range that I have never heard of. I am starting to question can the U.S. even put together massive infrastructure projects, like high speed railway anymore?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:United States's major infrastructure building periods were during recession and after WWII. Having over supply of labor is a primary motivation. Cheap labors and incomplete labor law can also help too. Both Dubai and China are examples of the later two conditions. You should see the sort of graft that the Transcontinental Railroad drew. This is nothing new.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:United States's major infrastructure building periods were during recession and after WWII. Having over supply of labor is a primary motivation. Cheap labors and incomplete labor law can also help too. Both Dubai and China are examples of the later two conditions. I don't know if you're aware of this but the tip of the antenna spire on the old WTC 1 was 1,727 ft. The 49 extra feet they made the tip of the antenna spire of the new one was a minimal change (and incidentally is actually better for broadcasting once it's fully spun up. It also didn't take 13 years, it took 8. No construction was started until 2006 because there was a lot of clearing out debris and poo poo to be done first, as well as deciding designs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You should see the sort of graft that the Transcontinental Railroad drew. This is nothing new. Love me some Credit Mobilier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't know if you're aware of this but the tip of the antenna spire on the old WTC 1 was 1,727 ft. The 49 extra feet they made the tip of the antenna spire of the new one was a minimal change (and incidentally is actually better for broadcasting once it's fully spun up. Why did it need 5 years to clean up the site? How many years do you think it will take for New York to get a faster commuter railroad to Westchester/Long Island? Probably never? Why is it that New York basically got 80% of the its infrastructure done in the 50s through Robert Moses and everything afterward is just as slow and impossible as the Big Dig? whatever7 fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Why did it need 5 years to clean up the site? Do you have any understanding what the site was built on? No, clearly you don't. There was assloads of material to clear away first, there was rebuilding of transit infrastructure that had to take priority versus a bunch of dumb office buildings, and there was removing and re-setting up better equipped underground utilities. They excavated nearly all the way through the bathtub structure's containment to reinforce it as well. You'll notice this is why the new 7 World Trade Center got rebuilt in just 4 years (construction start 2002, opened for business 2006) - it was outside the main site, and that was with replacing the original with a taller building. Similarly the new 4 WTC was built in 4 years - 2009 to 2013; being on the furthest edge of the bathtub area from the main towers collapsing, and thus easy to get building once its site was stabilized. The new 4 wtc is 78 floors versus the old 9 story; the new 7 wtc is 52 versus 47.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Wasn't there also a lawsuit over the insurance at Ground Zero? I seem to recall that slowing down a chunk of the rebuild, along with finding more bodies 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:Wasn't there also a lawsuit over the insurance at Ground Zero? I seem to recall that slowing down a chunk of the rebuild, along with finding more bodies Yeah there was a hell of a lot of lawsuits to work out before construction could begin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
So what you're saying is that it's easier to build stuff when you don't need to take into account the people who live there, workers or their interests. Fascinating. Can't wait to see that new Nicaragua canal get put out in record time!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:How many years do you think it will take for New York to get a faster commuter railroad to Westchester/Long Island? Probably never? Why is it that New York basically got 80% of the its infrastructure done in the 50s through Robert Moses and everything afterward is just as slow and impossible as the Big Dig? a lot of what bob moses did was unethical if not illegal quote:Although Moses was never elected to any public office (his only attempt at public office came when he ran for governor of New York as a Republican in 1934 and lost by a significant margin), he was responsible for the creation and leadership of numerous public authorities which gave him autonomy from the general public and elected officials. It is due to Moses that New York has a greater proportion of public benefit corporations than any other US state, making them the prime mode of infrastructure building and maintenance in New York, accounting for 90% of the state's debt. As head of various authorities, he controlled millions in income from his projects' revenue generation, such as tolls, and he had the power to issue bonds to borrow vast sums, allowing him to initiate new ventures with little or no input from legislative bodies. This allowed him to circumvent the power of the purse as it normally functioned in the United States, and the process of citizen comment on major public works. a true hero of the people
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Why did it need 5 years to clean up the site? Beyond cleaning up the debris, they had to sift for body parts and conduct a massive criminal investigation. After that, they had to redesign and repair the underlying subway stations and infrastructure, then prep the actual site for setting the foundations. Anything that you build in Manhattan (or the heavily urbanized parts of the other boroughs) takes an assload of time because you have to plan for how the building is going to fit into the infrastructure base of the city, some of which was first laid over a century ago. Sometimes, especially in Lower Manhattan, ConEd doesn't even have very good maps of what's down there, so you end up playing archaeologist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:So what you're saying is that it's easier to build stuff when you don't need to take into account the people who live there, workers or their interests. Fascinating. Can't wait to see that new Nicaragua canal get put out in record time! Works for corporations, who's to say it won't work for countries?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Works for corporations, who's to say it won't work for countries? Well it's not like we have a particular lack of examples for countries...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Works for corporations, who's to say it won't work for countries? The glorious free market always has the solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:a lot of what bob moses did was unethical if not illegal That was my point then. State directed infrastructure projects can be built very fast when there is no proper laws to protect the workers and residents. Maybe its not possible to do it fast in developed countries?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
I'm not sure exactly how we got to this subject, but the new WTC isn't exactly comparable with vital infrastructure, given that it's a $4 billion giant glass dick intended to be nothing more than a ludicrously expensive display of defiance and opulence. It's basically a monument to our determination to flaunt and waste as much wealth as possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Beyond cleaning up the debris, they had to sift for body parts and conduct a massive criminal investigation. After that, they had to redesign and repair the underlying subway stations and infrastructure, then prep the actual site for setting the foundations. Anything that you build in Manhattan (or the heavily urbanized parts of the other boroughs) takes an assload of time because you have to plan for how the building is going to fit into the infrastructure base of the city, some of which was first laid over a century ago. Sometimes, especially in Lower Manhattan, ConEd doesn't even have very good maps of what's down there, so you end up playing archaeologist. My one quibble: A century ago? Sure, that works for most of Manhattan, but Lower Manhattan was first settled in the...1640s, I think? They've found *ships* below foundations in plenty of places, since most of what we know of as Manhattan is landfill. (Otherwise, Zeroisanumber just nailed it and has my applause.) One thing that bugs me: Manhattan is criss-crossed by earthquake faults. Sure, they're not as active as out in California, but one earthquake at 6 or 7 magnitude (which is, correct me if I'm wrong, entirely possible) and I'm not sure I want to contemplate what'll happen. Did they build the new towers with any degree of seismic protection?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm not sure exactly how we got to this subject, but the new WTC isn't exactly comparable with vital infrastructure, given that it's a $4 billion giant glass dick intended to be nothing more than a ludicrously expensive display of defiance and opulence. It's basically a monument to our determination to flaunt and waste as much wealth as possible. We got onto it because I suggested that America is recently speaking, rather horrible about building or maintaining anything, be it our own infrastructure or foreign states where we literally threw billions at it and said "spend it as usefully as possible I hope everything works out great!" and now half that territory is under the control of a literal fanatical organization bent on world domination, it couldn't have gone more cartoonishly wrong if we had planned for it to play out that way. You're right about the purpose of the WTC though, to bring this full circle it's rather telling that NK hasn't built it's own giant phallus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:You're right about the purpose of the WTC though, to bring this full circle it's rather telling that NK hasn't built it's own giant phallus. The Ryugyong Hotel might be unfinished, but it's still there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:We got onto it because I suggested that America is recently speaking, rather horrible about building or maintaining anything, be it our own infrastructure or foreign states where we literally threw billions at it and said "spend it as usefully as possible I hope everything works out great!" and now half that territory is under the control of a literal fanatical organization bent on world domination, it couldn't have gone more cartoonishly wrong if we had planned for it to play out that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:My one quibble: A century ago? Sure, that works for most of Manhattan, but Lower Manhattan was first settled in the...1640s, I think? They've found *ships* below foundations in plenty of places, since most of what we know of as Manhattan is landfill. I was talking about stuff that they're still using. Some of the steam pipes still delivering heat around Manhattan were laid down in the 1920's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:The Ryugyong Hotel might be unfinished, but it's still there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:That is the ugliest drat thing I have ever seen. Still living in a house without mirrors 'eh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:The Ryugyong Hotel might be unfinished, but it's still there. Isn't it in a bit of a state as well? Like structurally and all. Like a Health & Safety person would run away screaming in mortal terror levels of structural issues?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Isn't it in a bit of a state as well? Like structurally and all. Like a Health & Safety person would run away screaming in mortal terror levels of structural issues? That's my understanding. Low quality non-prestressed poorly reinforced concrete that was showing signs of cracking shifting and deforming before they covered it all up with glass. I'm surprised the windows haven't all started popping off, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Isn't it in a bit of a state as well? Like structurally and all. Like a Health & Safety person would run away screaming in mortal terror levels of structural issues? Supposedly the foreign company they contracted to finish the building is going to completely rebuild most of the upper floors, the lower floors apparently being well enough off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
The Ryugyong Hotel should be in a Bioshock game. There is a BBC documentary about a skycraper in Venezuela that was abandoned by the investors half way through its construction and it was taken over by a whole town of squatters even though there was no water, electricity and windows. I imagine in a Bioshock communist dystopia, this is what the inside of Ryugyong Hotel is like. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
whatever7 posted:The Ryugyong Hotel should be in a Bioshock game. Isn't that basically what BioShock 2 was about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:56
|
|