|
Vladimir Putin posted:China wasn't the center of the world, but you have to look at the historical context. The opium wars started because the British were consuming large amounts of cultural products (the eponymous 'China', tea, silk and other goods) while China really wanted nothing from Britian which they considered from a cultural/artistic standpoint to be inferior. Fashion and artisans in Europe also mimicked the Chinese style in various crafts. Things like the civil service exam were admired and copied throughout Europe. Britain's trade imbalance led to a series of consequences which included a large amount of formerly British silver in the hands of the Chinese which could only be resolved by the trafficking of opium via their colonies in India. Thus began the opium wars and the annexation of HK and subsequent humiliations for China. I'd shy away from terms like 'advanced culture.' Bacteria in a petri dish is an advanced culture. Everything, is, by virtue pf still being here, highly evolved. Better to say that the Chinese {economy/culture/state/society/ethnicity/nation}* hit a point of local optimization relative to Great Britain. The greater British engagement with the outside world (often at gunpoint, of course, but often not) helped for sure. But I really think it's hard to overstate the importance of breaking the Biological Old Regime as a productivity multiplier on a per capita basis. *Again, we're running into a problem of conflating some poo poo.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:China wasn't the center of the world, but you have to look at the historical context. The opium wars started because the British were consuming large amounts of cultural products (the eponymous 'China', tea, silk and other goods) while China really wanted nothing from Britian which they considered from a cultural/artistic standpoint to be inferior. Fashion and artisans in Europe also mimicked the Chinese style in various crafts. Things like the civil service exam were admired and copied throughout Europe. Britain's trade imbalance led to a series of consequences which included a large amount of formerly British silver in the hands of the Chinese which could only be resolved by the trafficking of opium via their colonies in India. Thus began the opium wars and the annexation of HK and subsequent humiliations for China. You have your timescale off - the British were buying a bunch of tea and poo poo in the early 1700's which lead to a large outflow of silver into China, which British merchants attempted to ameliorate with opium. But by the start of the 1800's that Chinese surplus has turned into an enormous deficit thanks to increased opium consumption and new tea supplies around the world. This lead to an enormous outflow of silver, which was more valuable in China (who were on the silver standard) than Britain (who were on the gold standard). At this point the imperial government began to act and outlawed opium, and it was over 30 years of tension before any fighting commenced. By the time the opium wars had started, the British weren't really importing anything from China, and the opium trade was less about controlling trade balances and more about lucrative drug sales (which is why the Americans and French had started getting in on it)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
the JJ posted:I'd shy away from terms like 'advanced culture.' Bacteria in a petri dish is an advanced culture. Everything, is, by virtue pf still being here, highly evolved. Better to say that the Chinese {economy/culture/state/society/ethnicity/nation}* hit a point of local optimization relative to Great Britain. The greater British engagement with the outside world (often at gunpoint, of course, but often not) helped for sure. But I really think it's hard to overstate the importance of breaking the Biological Old Regime as a productivity multiplier on a per capita basis. Well I'd say that the Chinese developed ways to make beautiful poo poo while the British developed ways to blow poo poo up. In the end, knowing how to blow poo poo up mattered more. This discordance and the fallout have haunted China in the last century until now and will probably follow them for many decades to come.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Well I'd say that the Chinese developed ways to make beautiful poo poo while the British developed ways to blow poo poo up. In the end, knowing how to blow poo poo up mattered more. This discordance and the fallout have haunted China in the last century until now and will probably follow them for many decades to come. That's great and all, except ain't nobody gonna do poo poo except die when there's no food to eat. Who developed better agrarian production and distribution, China or England?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Myriarch posted:You have your timescale off - the British were buying a bunch of tea and poo poo in the early 1700's which lead to a large outflow of silver into China, which British merchants attempted to ameliorate with opium. But by the start of the 1800's that Chinese surplus has turned into an enormous deficit thanks to increased opium consumption and new tea supplies around the world. This lead to an enormous outflow of silver, which was more valuable in China (who were on the silver standard) than Britain (who were on the gold standard). At this point the imperial government began to act and outlawed opium, and it was over 30 years of tension before any fighting commenced. By the time the opium wars had started, the British weren't really importing anything from China, and the opium trade was less about controlling trade balances and more about lucrative drug sales (which is why the Americans and French had started getting in on it) Given that opium is so addictive I don't think it's a major surprise that the trade imbalance started reversing. Opioid addiction is a problem that modern society still faces. It's also instructive to note that the British understood this and outlawed the use of opium at home which was a point brought up during negotiations by the Chinese. Of course nobody cared.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Well I'd say that the Chinese developed ways to make beautiful poo poo while the British developed ways to blow poo poo up. In the end, knowing how to blow poo poo up mattered more. This discordance and the fallout have haunted China in the last century until now and will probably follow them for many decades to come. Well, a. beauty is subjective, and it's not like beauty in one place diminishes another. As for technology for blowing poo poo up well... I've got some bad news about the origins of gunpowder. Also, it wasn't blowing poo poo up tech that tipped the scales, it was - to simplify hugely- making cotton tech that mattered. e: and what really mattered wasn't the tech, it was a state that could tap the economy and administrate poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Well, a. beauty is subjective, and it's not like beauty in one place diminishes another. As for technology for blowing poo poo up well... I've got some bad news about the origins of gunpowder. I don't give a poo poo how "beautiful" Chinese think killing all the elephants of the world is, gently caress the elements of Chinese culture which facilitate the extermination of nature's most majestic, intelligent, and beautiful giants!!! gently caress China's demand for ivory!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Well, a. beauty is subjective, and it's not like beauty in one place diminishes another. As for technology for blowing poo poo up well... I've got some bad news about the origins of gunpowder. It's probably all of the above. But in the end it's the ability of the British to sail up the coast and bombard Chinese targets with impunity and the inability of the Chinese to respond. The background on that is many contributing factors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Given that opium is so addictive I don't think it's a major surprise that the trade imbalance started reversing. Opioid addiction is a problem that modern society still faces. It's also instructive to note that the British understood this and outlawed the use of opium at home which was a point brought up during negotiations by the Chinese. Of course nobody cared. Also China had a huge internal economy more or less agnostic about the presence of opium and was more affected by a. the Brits not needing to buy their poo poo anymore thanks to cheaper British knock offs manufactured in fuckoff factories and then b. starting to actually turn that poo poo around. The Opium Wars were hammer blows to the Chinese state but, as wars go, not hugely damaging to the people or the economy. Well, not directly. Not compared to the various civil wars that followed, or the Japanese occupation .
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:It's probably all of the above. But in the end it's the ability of the British to sail up the coast and bombard Chinese targets with impunity and the inability of the Chinese to respond. The background on that is many contributing factors. But probably, and this is the important part, that's neither a reflection of a Chinese National Characteritic predilection for beauty nor the result of a British choice to eschew aesthetics in favor of war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Also China had a huge internal economy more or less agnostic about the presence of opium and was more affected by a. the Brits not needing to buy their poo poo anymore thanks to cheaper British knock offs manufactured in fuckoff factories and then b. starting to actually turn that poo poo around. The Opium Wars were hammer blows to the Chinese state but, as wars go, not hugely damaging to the people or the economy. Well, not directly. Not compared to the various civil wars that followed, or the Japanese occupation . I guess the irony is that now China makes the knock off poo poo and the U.K. probably has a huge trade imbalance with China which it can't relieve with opium or another war. Things don't change much, old men continue to send young men to die so they make that money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:It's probably all of the above. But in the end it's the ability of the British to sail up the coast and bombard Chinese targets with impunity and the inability of the Chinese to respond. The background on that is many contributing factors. How can you respect a culture which is too weak and unorganized to build itself some brick star-forts?  It ain't the English's fault that the Chinese provoked the wrath of a stronger nation than themselves without being organized enough to prepare in advance, it's the Chinese's fault. A culture which blames all its problems on someone else, rather than stopping at any time to reflect inward, is not a respectable culture that can easily switch between governing oligarchies and ensure continued economic growth. It's a culture that will be responsible for the extermination of the greatest, most humble species on the planet, and a culture that should be shamed for its actions. Shame, Chinese, for killing the elephants! Shame! Shame!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Why do we keep letting you back in again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
China built plenty of coastal fortifications, but they aren't much use if the enemy ships have guns with vastly greater range and accuracy. The British could concentrate fire and take them down one by one. The Qing had a poo poo load of problems that had nothing to do with Britain, but its convenient for everyone to emphasize the opium wars and slot it into a genericized victim of imperialism narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I guess the irony is that now China makes the knock off poo poo and the U.K. probably has a huge trade imbalance with China which it can't relieve with opium or another war. Things don't change much, old men continue to send young men to die so they make that money. What war is China sending young men off to die in? I mean, you're right (coming the long way 'round) in that China has been cutting away at manufacturing and in doing so increasing it's per capita productivity and thus maybe 'catching up' to the US. Which is sort of where this derail started. Capital still lives it up in the UK though, so they still have that going for them. That's the inertia thing. I guess part of why I've been yammering away about what we mean by 'Chinese' or 'British' or whatever (Nationally? Socially? Culturally? Etc. etc.) is that all these distinctions are kinda bs. There are a lot of Chinese new rich who are doing fine, plenty of rich Brits in London, plenty of poor and oppressed in both as well. British capital is powerful right now but their navy is not. These systems interlock in ways that don't actually fit our conception of nations very well. Because nations are a Dumb Idea and Bad. My Imaginary GF posted:Shame, Chinese, for killing the elephants! Shame! Shame! Mhmm. That's nice dear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Even if trade wasn't direct it still happened. It isn't remembered as 'trade with China' since it went through intermediaries but the Eurasian markets were pretty well liked up with regards to a lot of goods. The linkage between Iberia and, say, Austria was a matter of distance, but as is was Austria to Anatolia, Anatolia to Persia, Persia to the Indus Valley, and so on. It's not like there was an uninhabited waste between the two. Roman's stole silkworms, statues of Vishnu turn up in Pompeii, Manichean Christians had a quarter in the imperial capital in, like, the 4th Century or something. Yeah, the fact that Eurasian markets were actually pretty well linked means that historically, whoever dominated the Middle East would also have the continent's economic centre of gravity swing to them. The Persian, Greek, Roman, Islamic, and Mongol Empires all dominated the continent's economic center of gravity at some point. The Chinese got a few centuries at the helm because China was the crown jewel and socio-economic center of the Mongol Empire and that lasted for a while even after the Mongol Empire disintegrated. But even then it never translated to domination of the entire landmass although the Mongols came very close. China, like various other empires from all over Eurasia, got a turn at the helm for a time but it was hardly something uniquely Chinese. All this changed, as you correctly pointed out, in the Columbian era and subsequent European colonization of the New World. The Americas seem to be the lynchpin to controlling the world's economic centre of gravity now because of its centrality in ocean trade. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:China has very real economic problems and things will probably continue to get worse in the short term or even the medium term, but I think there's a danger in extending the recent trend line too far into the future. I find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where the world's largest country by population doesn't eventually become the world's largest economy. Some combination of structural problems in the economy (not to mention the political system), unfavorable demographics (lopsided sex ratio, etc), corruption, disastrously bad decisions by the political and business elite, internal and external events, and/or just plain bad luck can certainly slow or even reverse growth for a time as we're seeing now, but what happens after that? You could have the business savvy of George W. Bush and the luck of William H. Macy in The Cooler, but when you get to draw four times as many cards as everyone else at the table you're still going to win unless some external event disrupts the game before you stumble your way to victory. China would be much better off with a smaller population, population size can work both ways and if you are trying to switch to a consumption style economy a shiton of uneducated and unproductive farmers doesn't help you but hurts you significantly. You could remove 20-40% of their population (from the rural areas) and you wouldn't lose a thing. It's not the industrial revolution anymore, countries don't need tons of low educated people on assembly lines. Population is one of the least important things in a modern economy, particularly when huge advances in automation technology is probably less than 10 years away. The things you do need, like a well educated populace are the areas where they are the worst off- their current upper education system is beyond pathetic. Basically any university in the US that isn't a clown college outperforms all but maybe 2-5 of Chinese colleges. Even going beyond school and you still see massive amounts of cheating with their corporate espionage. The problem is if you steal everything and don't really understand it you aren't going to be the ones innovating. And for all the complaints in the US about 'teaching to the test', we do a hugely better job at teaching critical thinking than traditional Asian education systems. I'm sure they will eventually pull their heads out of their asses but we are talking a timeframe so long that it isn't even worth hypothesizing about. There will be like robot janitors and genetically engineered super babies. It's like saying capitalism will inevitably fail because the earth (or the universe if you want to go there) has finite resources. Of course it's true but who gives a poo poo, in the long run everyone's dead. tsa fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Mhmm. That's nice dear. Shame! You should never kill something this cute and majestic  To produce something this horridly gaudy  That ain't beauty, that ain't culture, its FYGM materialism at its worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Go back to the other thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Additionally it's not like the continental US is much smaller than China, and it enjoys a much better distribution of people, resources, and habitable land. The US could double in population in a short amount of time without any ill effects, while China will be dealing with the disastrous effects of a really hosed up population pyramid along with the lurking social issues regarding family structure for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yeah, the fact that Eurasian markets were actually pretty well linked means that historically, whoever dominated the Middle East would also have the continent's economic centre of gravity swing to them. The Persian, Greek, Roman, Islamic, and Mongol Empires all dominated the continent's economic center of gravity at some point. The Chinese got a few centuries at the helm because China was the crown jewel and socio-economic center of the Mongol Empire and that lasted for a while even after the Mongol Empire disintegrated. But even then it never translated to domination of the entire landmass although the Mongols came very close. China, like various other empires from all over Eurasia, got a turn at the helm for a time but it was hardly something uniquely Chinese. I think essentially you're weirding out over the term 'center.' China was the biggest market, it's demands did the pulling. It pulled silver out of the New World, pulled European traders into the Indian Ocean, and all that jazz. If it helps, I was using it as center of gravity. Maybe it was inaccurate to put that in 'China,' but I think the studies have it more or less in the Himalayas until 1800 or so. You're also dancing around goalposts and vastly oversimplifying the dynamics of Mongolian Empire. Pax Mongolia was nice for the trade and all, but there was a time when you could walk from Beijing to Lisbon and cross only two borders. It's vastly overstated, trade, as I've said a bunch, barely now and certainly then never did particularly care for our modern delineations of state or nation. Overall the point is that that's fungible and conditional on historical conditions and meant gently caress-all 50 years later, and so really doesn't have too much bearing on today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
I think that "center" is dictated chiefly by geography rather than sheer size, hence why I think that historically the Middle East was Eurasia's "center of gravity." Sino-European trade always had to go through the Middle East in some fashion, so whoever dominated the Middle East tended to benefit the most from Eurasian trade, and what's more they also tended to make the rules. One of the reasons Europeans began to scout the Atlantic more is because the Ottomans seized control of the Middle East and hence controlled East-West trade. China's prominence in that the demands of the Chinese market had a substantial influence on the global economy is also a recent phenomenon that wasn't really seen until Europeans showed up wanting to trade directly. Prior to that, when most trade occurred via an Indian Ocean-Middle East-Mediterranean corridor there were so many proxies that the only group whose demands dominated global trade was whoever had the most influence over this corridor. Often this was multiple states, sometimes it was only one or two.quote:You're also dancing around goalposts and vastly oversimplifying the dynamics of Mongolian Empire. Pax Mongolia was nice for the trade and all, but there was a time when you could walk from Beijing to Lisbon and cross only two borders. It's vastly overstated, trade, as I've said a bunch, barely now and certainly then never did particularly care for our modern delineations of state or nation. The various powers that be at the time definitely cared about trade that was going through their realms because you could tax trade, and if you didn't tax trade you were a massive sucker who probably wasn't long for the world. And unless you were going to hoof it through Siberia or Central Asia like a suicidal retard you'd go by the ocean, and ocean trade requires ports, and ports require infrastructure, and infrastructure is supplied by states who levy taxes for use of their port. The Mongols weren't really any exception to this, although their control of the Persian Gulf was mostly via proxies. The point is that up until the mid-14th century Persia was controlled by the same dudes who ruled from Karakorum and later Beijing. In my opinion it's this fact that allowed China to dominate Eurasia's economic center of gravity during the Ming Dynasty and if there was any notion that China was ever "the center of the world (read: Eurasia's) economy," it was at this point. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
tsa posted:China would be much better off with a smaller population, population size can work both ways and if you are trying to switch to a consumption style economy a shiton of uneducated and unproductive farmers doesn't help you but hurts you significantly. You could remove 20-40% of their population (from the rural areas) and you wouldn't lose a thing. It's not the industrial revolution anymore, countries don't need tons of low educated people on assembly lines. Population is one of the least important things in a modern economy, particularly when huge advances in automation technology is probably less than 10 years away. The things you do need, like a well educated populace are the areas where they are the worst off- their current upper education system is beyond pathetic. Basically any university in the US that isn't a clown college outperforms all but maybe 2-5 of Chinese colleges. Even going beyond school and you still see massive amounts of cheating with their corporate espionage. The problem is if you steal everything and don't really understand it you aren't going to be the ones innovating. And for all the complaints in the US about 'teaching to the test', we do a hugely better job at teaching critical thinking than traditional Asian education systems. Counterpoint: consumption based economy fed by the a large (largest) population of consumers. If they can make it there, that is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Counterpoint: consumption based economy fed by the a large (largest) population of consumers. If they can make it there, that is. Consumption is great and all, but are they able to feed themselves off their domestic production?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
"Consumption" is in vogue with CCP planning but consumption doesn't drive growth, growth drives consumption. The Chinese seem to believe that the USA is a "consumption based economy" but it isn't. The US economy does at least a little bit of every form of production there is and THAT is what drives consumption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:"Consumption" is in vogue with CCP planning but consumption doesn't drive growth, growth drives consumption. Consumption may drive growth, if production and logistics capacity is severely under-utilized. Unfortunately for the communists, China has an excess of capacity in most areas of its economy. Close the shipyards; shut down the highways to nowhere; quit building abandoned buildings and golden toilets in Mao's imagine; invest in a guaranteed minimum income and democratic institutions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Consumption may drive growth, if production and logistics capacity is severely under-utilized. That's what so delicious about this whole scenario assuming you don't like autocracies. The best ways to proceed would all require the CCP to give up power, and that isn't happening without party members literally being strung up in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Dunno, a lot of decent shoes are still made outside China, too. Spain is popular, and there's a lot of English shoemakers who still make stuff in England - Charles Tyrwhitt, Herring, Loake 1880, etc. In the US Allen Edmonds is still around. If anything, it's actually hard to find a decent good quality shoe that is made in China. You've got a weird concept for a worthwhile shoe. You don't really need to pay much over $100 for a shoe that will be quite durable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You've got a weird concept for a worthwhile shoe. You don't really need to pay much over $100 for a shoe that will be quite durable. No, not at all. You don't start getting quality dress shoes until you hit around the $200 price point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:No, not at all. You don't start getting quality dress shoes until you hit around the $200 price point. That's total bullshit. Maybe if you have hosed up feet that need excessive custom cobbling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:Not to derail too much, but I've always found it hilarious that Buick out of all the GM nameplates is the one that really took off in China. Apparently the public image of Buick is the exact opposite of what it means to a lot of Americans nowadays. Rather than being seen as essentially a car for the 70+ age group that likes GM but can't afford a Cadillac, it's seen as this cool edgy brand favored by the new rich, business/tech elites, and of course ordinary people who want to project that image. Buick is marginally improving their image. My wife drives one, but it's still kind of an old person car. It reminds me if I leave my blinker on. Mange Mite posted:Dunno, a lot of decent shoes are still made outside China, too. Spain is popular, and there's a lot of English shoemakers who still make stuff in England - Charles Tyrwhitt, Herring, Loake 1880, etc. In the US Allen Edmonds is still around. If anything, it's actually hard to find a decent good quality shoe that is made in China. Pay enough and you'll get artisanal footwear hand crafted by a blind master cobbler with leather so soft it's like you crossed a cow with a puffy white cloud. I just wish there was a middle ground. $50 shoes? Definitely made in a sweatshop. $150 shoes? Still made in a sweatshop. $300 shoes? Maybe not made in a sweatshop. I have heard that there's a massive difference in quality when you get up to the $300 range. I'm not sure if I like my shoe styles enough to want them to last a lifetime though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Buick is marginally improving their image. My wife drives one, but it's still kind of an old person car. It reminds me if I leave my blinker on. Cheap shoes look terrible. Buy nice shoes, it's not like dress shoe fashions change that fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's total bullshit. Maybe if you have hosed up feet that need excessive custom cobbling. I used to think that $100 was "expensive" for a shoe. Then I bought a $300 pair of Allen Edmonds dress shoes for my wedding. I was impressed enough that I saved up and bought a $300 pair of Red Wing boots. The boots are nearing two and a half years old and look and feel better than any brand new $100 shoe. In a year or two I'll have to resole them, and then get at least another 4 years out of them if I treat them well. My dress shoes will likely be handed down to my children. Cheap shoes are good for when you beat the crap out of them and don't expect them to last. Anything else, spend on quality if you can save up and swing it. It's a better value in the long run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBso-UG8R_E&t=1m35s LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Nice dress shoes for 200 is about right. Heck even nice sneakers go above 100-150.Krispy Kareem posted:Buick is marginally improving their image. My wife drives one, but it's still kind of an old person car. It reminds me if I leave my blinker on. What? You would pay more for shoes made by a blind person? Vladimir Putin fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Anyone who would buy a car made in China is a suicidal idiot
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Nice dress shoes for 200 is about right. Heck even nice sneakers go above 100-150. If a blind guy is making shoes, he must know something we don't
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
What about Chinese who buy cars made in China?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What about Chinese who buy cars made in China? If they can afford to buy foreign cars they do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This isn't true though. Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans couldn't have cared less about what China was doing for most of its history, if they were even aware of China's existence at all. Sir Isaac Newton loving worshiped China and their governmental and societal structure as being superior to white peoples disorderly mess. His opinion was fairly typical of European intellectuals up until Imperialism driven by the Industrial revolution and trade interests gained momentum. China was certainly known for a long time by a number of peoples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Sir Isaac Newton loving worshiped China and their governmental and societal structure as being superior to white peoples disorderly mess. His opinion was fairly typical of European intellectuals up until Imperialism driven by the Industrial revolution and trade interests gained momentum. China was certainly known for a long time by a number of peoples. Sir Isaac Newton is from the 17th century and believed tons of stupid bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:27
|
|