|
R. Guyovich posted:i also base my understanding of geopolitics on mistranslated comments from 50 years ago That’s literally how people form their opinions of China though, from the Zhou Enlai French Revolution thing
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:North Korea doing alright; maybe the idea that socialist countries have better banging even holds true in Jucheland. It's been established
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I'm familiar with that. East Germany wasn't the only communist country. But the article quotes someone from Bulgaria. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
I've had sex
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
The Great Autismo! posted:I've had sex This means you might be a socialist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:But the article quotes someone from Bulgaria. It gives vague anecdotes about a lot of countries, but it only actually backs up the claims about East Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:i also base my understanding of geopolitics on mistranslated comments from 50 years ago Obviously she didn't literally mean that no one in the USSR had sex, but the actual basis for her statement - the strong taboo against the word "sex" - is telling. Edit: I guess I just used an anecdote there, which I guess is hypocritical. But I don't think it's controversial to say that Stalinism restricted people's sex lives, and that a lot of this restrictiveness stuck around for decades afterward. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
sincx posted:The first company, probably a Japanese one, to perfect a senior citizen care taking robot will make literally trillions of dollars. What I don't get is why so much is made of Japan's demographics in the media when SK is apparently on a worse trajectory. Also are there different ways of measuring this? The first Google result is World Bank which has the recent rates being ~1.6. But apparently the lower number is from Chinese census?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
Korea is aging more rapidly, but Japan is already very old - 25% over 65 versus 15% in Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
Redmark posted:What I don't get is why so much is made of Japan's demographics in the media when SK is apparently on a worse trajectory. Japan is more prominent/well-known in English language media world than South Korea Data’s probably old
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
According to China at least, its fertility rate in 2016 was 1.6. According to Wikipedia, South Korea was 1.17, and Japan was 1.44. Russia was 1.76.
Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
South Korea has a easy solution of swallowing the North Korea. Japan has nothing and doesn't take step to remedy it like China did it the birth control policy recently..
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
poo poo's hosed if conquering North Korea is the "easy" solution to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 10:39
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Japan is more prominent/well-known in English language media world than South Korea You can trace SK and Taiwan's demographic plunge to the early 90s (and a real hit in 97) but Japan started a generation before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:demographic plunge I suspect we'll see the Shenzhen numbers drop starting around the middle of last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 12:23
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:I suspect we'll see the Shenzhen numbers drop starting around the middle of last year. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:You can trace SK and Taiwan's demographic plunge to the early 90s (and a real hit in 97) but Japan started a generation before. According to this SK’s birthrate went below 2 to ~1.5 in the mid 80s, and then collapsed to 1.1 or so after 2000. Japan fell in the 70s but that was basically in line with European countries. Germany was actually lower than Japan from the mid 70s to the mid 90s, Japan went down in two stages sort of, from 2+ to like 1.7 then from there to 1.4. Germany fell to 1.4 in like 1973 and hasn’t budged since. Having a leech-like neocolonial relationship with Eastern Europe and sucking up all their young people helps Germany with that though. Maybe Japan should consider the same with its near abroad (that’s a joke, although the structural and historical parallels are very obvious) No data for Renegade Province, of course https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=KR-JP-DE icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-24/xi-seeks-to-tame-china-s-wild-property-market-with-rental-push Wish we had leaders in the west trying to do something about out of control housing in our major cities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
China not having a property tax is the most ridiculous thing. But it also makes me laugh when crazy Chinese property investors come to the west to buy empty luxury homes and then find out they have to pay tens of thousands a year in property tax
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:China not having a property tax is the most ridiculous thing. You can't own the land so I imagine valuation of the structure or use could determine the taxable value under some Georgist valuation scheme. It just seems like a mess and something that would lead to even more corruption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:You can't own the land so I imagine valuation of the structure or use could determine the taxable value under some Georgist valuation scheme. It just seems like a mess and something that would lead to even more corruption. They’ll bring back the idea of taxing based on number of windows and the terrible concrete shell houses will become truly featureless seven-story monoliths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Bring back Sun Yat Sen's land tax
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:According to this SK’s birthrate went below 2 to ~1.5 in the mid 80s, and then collapsed to 1.1 or so after 2000. Japan fell in the 70s but that was basically in line with European countries. Germany was actually lower than Japan from the mid 70s to the mid 90s, Japan went down in two stages sort of, from 2+ to like 1.7 then from there to 1.4. Germany fell to 1.4 in like 1973 and hasn’t budged since. http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/list.htm http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/fies/e11.asp?year=105 I know it says 105 data (which means 2016) but most of the files have data going back to the 70s/80s If you'd ask me a couple months ago I could remember which ones yield the best info, my students were tracking data by county for their projects (and the obtuseness of these graphs were difficult for me, imagine trying to help 7th graders parse this data.) I also emailed the person in charge of this data for recent job stats (participation rates and primary/secondary/tertiary) by county. If you check section 2, sheet 1 you see raw pop. stats showing a big drop-off around 1986 and another one in 98. Besides 2000 and 2012 (dragon years) its a straight shot down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
Just in case people weren't aware, you also can't own a building for more than a set amount of time based on the purpose of the building. So if you own an apartment block, you only own it for 70 years and the government can take it as you've lost the land grant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_property_law#Obtaining_land_use_rights It doesn't really give an incentive to build a building to last but then again the regional tradition is to build something that's only supposed to last 5-10 years and then get knocked down and replaced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:Just in case people weren't aware, you also can't own a building for more than a set amount of time based on the purpose of the building. So if you own an apartment block, you only own it for 70 years and the government can take it as you've lost the land grant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_property_law#Obtaining_land_use_rights Also there's zero maintenance on top of that shoddy construction. All those ghost towns built in the last 10 years are already unlivable and crumbling to pieces on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/xhnews/status/897817640353144833
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
They got that from watching the anime, didn’t they?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
I watched the whole loving thing and none of the sins was about making GBS threads on the street? I thought that's China's pet peeve about India. Also, she has a really odd accent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I watched the whole loving thing and none of the sins was about making GBS threads on the street? I thought that's China's pet peeve about India. her fist pumping during the word “bulldozer” really drove home the fact that this was serious
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
sincx posted:China's fundamental pet peeve/paranoid fear about India is that India wants Tibet to be in its sphere of influence so India can put IRBMs on the plateau, and also control the sources of the Yellow and Yangtze rivers. Is there something mid range missiles couldn't do that has the same effect? oh wait, China is just being bullshit. Tibet is the major source of potable water until they piss industrial into it. Since China doesn't believe in treatise or good faith they think a sovereign or a satellite state Tibet could or would blackmail it indefinitely. This is massively untrue as it is in the interest for those up river to ensure water continues downstream as cutting off water creates a potential existential crisis for those downstream which would almost guarantee war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I watched the whole loving thing and none of the sins was about making GBS threads on the street? Do you unironically think that China cares about a wholly internal matter of another nation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Is there something mid range missiles couldn't do that has the same effect? oh wait, China is just being bullshit. china isn’t well known for having an ability of foresight 2020 is just around the corner!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
 Xinhua is raising the banner high.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:
banners are a foreign manchu importation and therefore suspect
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Is there something mid range missiles couldn't do that has the same effect? oh wait, China is just being bullshit. Lol what possible loving reason would china have to ever let Tibet or any other part of its territory have sovereignty. Everyone keeps imagining as if this is something that could happen if they wish for it or bitch about it hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Lol what possible loving reason would china have to ever let Tibet or any other part of its territory have sovereignty. Everyone keeps imagining as if this is something that could happen if they wish for it or bitch about it hard enough. Taiwan, Singapore, and Korea, at minimum, are generously allowed to exert varying degrees of sovereignty.  also the ungrateful Vietnamese schismatics, but that'll be resolved in time, you'll see
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Lol what possible loving reason would china have to ever let Tibet or any other part of its territory have sovereignty. Everyone keeps imagining as if this is something that could happen if they wish for it or bitch about it hard enough. Idiot. You missed the point. China has no idea or doesn't care how international relations work. Back when Tibet was sovereign they would have gladly given China the water they needed to stay sovereign. But nope, they China gotta China and now western China is an oppression factory. It would be a lot cheaper for everyone to have struck a deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 10:46
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Idiot. Lol? The only principle of international relations that matters is that might (diplomatic, economic, or military) == right. China seems to understand that very well given how well they're playing the South China Sea, the Rohingya genocide, de-islamization of Turkestan, OBOR/CPEC (and the list goes on). Why would China restrict its ambition to water when it claims that under historical precedence, Tibet belongs to China? What you're arguing for is similar to arguing that the US should've just negotiated peace instead of waging civil war to keep the union together, because it would've been cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
While it is true in International relations might can make right, building relationships are far stronger that any single country standing alone. There is a reason the US went to all that trouble building up trade and defence pacts with everyone as US power alone is not enough for it to have the global reach it does. The US Navy could not function or project power like it does without ports of call everywhere. It could not contain Russia or China without NATO or Japan to act as the shield to it's sword. Taiwan position would be tenuous if not for US defence guarantee or arms. Trade flow freely from US Navy protection. Britain would not have been able to maintain its empire for so long without local allies. The EU is stronger and increasingly so through peace than any amount of war or territory held by any one nation. These relationships have endured through changes in leaders and governments and are profitable to both let alone "Cheaper". No amount of might could have achieved this nor if it did it not honour its contracts. Peace, good faith, fairness and prosperity are all tools of diplomacy that China does not use. War, violence and immidation are indeed part of the tool kit and the one chosen in the US civil war. Given they reached an impasse that that couldn't be crossed war ensured. Maybe both viewed it as a necessity as a solution to their existential crisis real or not. I am not here to ligate that given the factors have nearly nothing to do with Tibet. I have already stated my position on Tibet and I am not going to repeat myself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 14:59
|
|