gradenko_2000 posted:

Alibaba is gonna be competing directly in the west very soon

ikanreed posted:

Hot take: it will be under another name, because Americans are too racist

AnimeIsTrash posted:

check this out

https://twitter.com/TurkmenDc/status/1555816423691325440

Weka posted:

AnimeIsTrash posted:

check this out

https://twitter.com/TurkmenDc/status/1555816423691325440

ikanreed posted:

Hot take: it will be under another name, because Americans are too racist

gradenko_2000 posted:

Alibaba is gonna be competing directly in the west very soon

Al-Saqr posted:

I’m glad Turkmenistan is keeping up the wierd as gently caress traditions as Garbanguly and Supramat, but man this new kid really ought to improve his eyebrow game he looks far too hapless we need more stern massive eyebrows

gradenko_2000 posted:

Alibaba is gonna be competing directly in the west very soon

Kassad posted:

Gonna be? Aliexpress is already pretty big, isn't it?

genericnick posted:

Pretty sure someone linked a youtube in this thread. It's kind of worth it for the US Navy entry scene alone, though fundamentally it's the same action schlock.

IAMKOREA posted:

I know people who use it but I never have because it takes weeks to get your poo poo and you have to pay customs tax at the post which is a hassle. Its definitely competing but I don't think I would say it's directly competing....

this allusion meant posted:

oh yeah considering how weak a lot of the cgi (and the voice acting obv) is it's impressive how menacing the american assault is in the early scenes. and the pure red flags of the pva are always gorgeous whenever they're on screen. it's a fairly good movie if you already feel the right way about it, i guess

Southpaugh posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwvJ2MnsOgY

mila kunis posted:

i thought it was a good action movie with good politics. good to see americans correctly depicted as invading orcs.

this allusion meant posted:

oh yeah considering how weak a lot of the cgi (and the voice acting obv) is it's impressive how menacing the american assault is in the early scenes. and the pure red flags of the pva are always gorgeous whenever they're on screen. it's a fairly good movie if you already feel the right way about it, i guess

indigi posted:

it's a kind of bad action movie with a couple good scenes and good politics I think

quote:

Abdulhakim A. Idris is the founder and Executive Director of the Center for Uyghur Studies, a Washington D.C.-based think tank. He is the author of the book “Menace: China’s Colonization of the Islamic World & Uyghur Genocide” and “Kizil Kiyamet”.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

new Adrian Zenz just dropped https://www.islam21c.com/politics/nuclear-genocide-china-dropped-200-hiroshimas-on-uyghur-muslims/

mawarannahr posted:

“Kizil Kiyamet” means “Red Apocalypse”

mila kunis posted:

something i think about and wish i had good sources to read is what amount of the failure of 20th century socialism was attributable to the economic system itself versus

1) starting from an incredibly low base point (WW2 destruction + only partially industrialized pre war economies vs the already industrialized and rich west)
2) the main benefactor of largesse being rich countries like the USA that hadn't been destroyed by the war and already had a massive head start before socialism got started. people point out direct comparisons like NK vs SK and the USA spent more money on SK than it did on the entirety of the continent of africa and it still didn't catch up to NK until the USSR gave up the ghost in the 80s
3) the effect of economic strangulation and denial of trade with the already rich. both the USSR and china liberalized in the 80s. liberalization destroyed the USSR because it was still a rival and denied access to western capital, china zoomed and took off because it was flooded with the same - i feel like that's a strong indicator that it wasn't privatization that enabled growth, but access to resources and knowhow, and privatization was just a demanded price of admission to being allowed access to those by the rich west

and despite this most socialist countries ("second world" in cold war terms) had far better living standards than the "third world". so yeah they couldn't catch up to the rich countries but was that even possible in the geopolitical circumstances??

quote:

For Kusch, ROK economic development out of backwardness was essentially due to a change in the elite. This is an analysis that pays attention to the internal factors. There was a bad elite in the 50s and early 60s, then a good elite came along, that took economic statecraft seriously. This is a very popular perspective in the post-soviet world, which can integrate both IMF technocratic word-porridge about ‘corruption’ and populist slogans about the evil people ‘up top’ (Jews, masons, Sorosites, Russians etc) that need to be replaced by a harsh but wise father of the people

quote:

As Vivek Chibber2 notes in his comparative study of ROK and Indian 20th century economic development, both countries had a broadly similar politico-economic elite which espoused a combination of state-interventionism and export-promotion. Indeed, most third world countries in the 1960s and 1970s, let alone today, implemented economic policies broadly similar to that of the Park Chung-Hee’s ROK. But only the ROK truly industrialized.

quote:

if the ROK state was not all that different from other third world countries of the period, then what was the real difference between it and, say, India?

The answer to these questions is the ROK’s sheer geographical luck of being located near Japan. Japan and the ROK reconciled in 1965, prior to which the two countries had remained isolated due to the Korean trauma of Japanese imperialism.

quote:

In the early 1960s, it became clear to the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) that the Japanese economy had to expand outwards and domestically restructure to survive5. Japanese competitiveness, hitherto founded on low wages and labor-intensive exports, was becoming seriously threatened for the following reasons:

(1)

- Rising Japanese wages due to the labor movement and the post-WW2 Japanese political structure

- Competition in Japan’s traditional labor-intensive sectors from lower-wage producers in Taiwan and Hong Kong

- Rising environmental taxes in Japan after public reaction to the ecological problems caused by industrialization

- Sudden appreciation of the yen due to ‘shock’ devaluation of the dollar by Nixon, making Japanese enterprises less competitive
[...]
- US tariff walls on Japanese textile exports in the early 1960s. This was a reaction to Japanese exports putting pressure on US employment, reminiscent of the anti-China trade war pushed by the US in recent years.

quote:

MITI also advocated the economic development of ROK for broader reasons. Japan didn’t require the ROK simply as a manufacturing center– if it had, the ROK would have remained a fairly impoverished low-wage nation, albeit which produced shirts for export – like Bangladesh today. Japan also wanted ROK purchasing power to grow, so that they could buy Japanese goods. The closure of much of the once-important US market to Japanese exporters required the ‘creation’ of a new export market.

quote:

Japan was hence eager for the ROK to industrialize in the 60s and 70s, since it was doing so by buying Japanese capital goods, as we will soon see. For much of the 60s and 70s, a triangular trading pattern emerged, whereby the ROK had a trade deficit with Japan which was made up for through a trade surplus with Europe and the USA.

quote:

Korea’s first Five-Year Plan (1963-1967) required $200 million, only 30% of which the ROK was able to raise on international capital markets by 1964. Enter the Korean-Japanese Normalization Treaty of 1965 – as a result, Japan committed to $800 million over a 10 year period. Japanese companies agreed to lend $300 million and the Japanese government gave a loan of $200 million – and, remarkably, a grant of $300 million

Japanese financial assistance to the ROK contrasted sharply with that of the US. Where the US did not allow the ROK to use US financial assistance to buy capital goods, Japan encouraged the ROK to do so. Most of the liquidity the ROK received as a result of the Normalization Treaty was used to buy capital goods and industrial raw materials

quote:

The role of Japanese foreign investment in ROK industrialization also can’t be overstated. In the early 1960s, the ROK faced a problem familiar to poor nations – despite their best efforts to attract foreign investors from Europe and the USA, they were simply unwilling to invest in a country with such a small consumer market and low skill levels. But because of Japanese state policy, that changed dramatically.

quote:

Without Japan’s assistance, ROK industry would simply not have been able to penetrate the markets of the rich countries, and whatever investments made in the first five -year plans would have found no buyers. Japanese General Trading Companies (GTCs) already had decades of experience selling textile goods in the US. In the 1950s, they had been taught the specificities of the US market due to US geopolitical interests in seeing a prosperous Japan, and in any case boasted over 60 years of experience exporting Japanese textiles across the world. Urged on by MITI, Japanese GTCs taught their Korean junior partners about the various specificities of the US market and gave them the US contacts needed to sell there.

quote:

Japanese technology transfer

Since Japan was attempting to exit the sectors that it was developing in the ROK, and hence faced no threat of economic competition from the ROK, it was very generous in transferring technology and the skills required to use it to the ROK.

In 1974, Japan is estimated to have accounted for 84 per cent of the technology supplied to the Korean electronics industry

quote:

Korean firms also had access to informal ties with Japanese engineers, consultants, and technicians who came to the ROK on weekends or other holidays and assisted Korean firms in mastering new technology33. They did this as a way to earn extra money, but the linguistic ties between Korea and Japan were a crucial condition of possibility for such assistance. As the economic historian Alistair Amsden wrote, ‘access to such technical assistance placed Korea in an enviable position. Other late industrializing countries further afield from Japan culturally and geographically have lacked such a resource to draw on

quote:

The global capitalist system is very distinctly divided into high-income nations and low-income nations. In 2020, the high-income nations (earning upwards of $30,000 a year) composed only 11% of the planet’s population43. 84% of the planet’s population live in countries where the average income is less than $10 thousand a year. Only 5% of the planet’s population live in countries where the average income is between $10 thousand and $30 thousand – the ROK and Poland are members of this small group. Many of these countries used to be low-wage nations, and managed to significantly increase wages through exporting to the high-wage nations, almost always on the condition of their geopolitical importance in ‘containing’ threats to the domination of the high-wage nations.

quote:

The high-wage nations have always depended on the low-wage nations as a source for cheap imports to offset the effects on profitability resulting from increased domestic wages. Therefore the high-wage nations encourage – or militarily impose – economic liberalization on poor nations, to make sure that wages cannot grow behind protectionist barriers, and that they continue supplying the cheap goods that the rich countries need.

Nevertheless, this demand of the rich nations for exports from the low-wage nations also creates a certain opportunity to industrialize for the low-wage nations. When the circumstances especially fortuitously align – as they did for the ROK in the 1960s – a low-wage nation can even catapult into status of a upper-middle wage nation on the basis of exporting to high-wage nations.

quote:

But the demand of the high-wage nations is limited – this is a market economy, where products are only imported when domestic consumers can pay for them. Accordingly, significant economic development through exporting to the rich capitalist nations is a path available only to 5% of the earth’s population. Europe and North America only need a fixed amount of consumer goods. They get more than enough of these goods from Mexico, Poland, coastal China and a handful of other low-wage countries. Lacking foreign investment, most of the poor capitalist world hence remains poor, and this is something that not even the wisest military dictator can change. They are simply unnecessary for the global market. There’s no domestic purchasing power, and the purchasing power of the rich countries is already satisfied.

quote:

Those poor countries that do ‘succeed’ in joining the outer edges of the globally parasitic rich countries did not do so because of the wisdom of domestic elites – it happens due to geographic and historical chance, as we have seen in the case of the ROK and Japan.

mila kunis posted:

i thought it was a good action movie with good politics. good to see americans correctly depicted as invading orcs.

Antonymous posted:

Chile has huge FDI, something like 10% of GDP year after year, and like Korea it's balance of trade went hugely positive in the 80s. Indonesia is also very high on the list of foreign investment, though it's a big country (#4 by population) and so not as high as a percent of GDP.

I'm curious what you think about them, simply because neither is covered in US military bases nor do I think of either as a success story of joining the imperial system. but I'm pretty ignorant of both.

mila kunis posted:

imho with this + climate change + a government built on sectarianism india might be in for "not a good time"

their economic policy seems to be built on memes. demonetizing half the currency in circulation at once, trying to emulate the chinese/vietnamese model with large "make in india" sloganeering without doing any of the things that actually made it work in china (state control of the commanding heights and intervention in the economy at will, tightly enforced capital controls, enforced knowledge transfer sharing and ensuring local stakes in MNC projects, building up their own industrial and tech giants without letting foreign companies gobble them up, etc etc etc)

quote:

the effect of economic strangulation and denial of trade with the already rich. both the USSR and china liberalized in the 80s. liberalization destroyed the USSR because it was still a rival and denied access to western capital and markets, china zoomed and took off because it was flooded with the same - i feel like that's a strong indicator that it wasn't privatization that enabled growth, but access to resources and knowhow, and privatization was just a demanded price of admission to being allowed access to those by the rich west

quote:

the only way china could get the massive capital investment it did was to make concessions to DC. led to some horrendous foreign policy poo poo like the sino-viestnamese war, but they maintained their sovereignity and independence and kept rigid state control over the capitalists (rather than vice versa) instead of having their elites hollow out their country like others that caved to american pressure, for example in south america, or become american protectorates like some in southeast asia.

you want to talk about international solidarity, - cut to a few decades later and the existence of a near-peer sovereign economic power (as opposed to protectorates like germany/japan) is the only thing giving countries in the american empire's crosshairs like bolivia, venezuela, cuba and iran some breathing room.

massive exports of vaccines, medical equipment even to regimes hostile to it: https://translate.google.com/transl...asil/a-56344254)

investment in iran: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3127278/iran-and-china-sign-25-year-cooperation-agreement

engagement in south america, which included working with bolivia to help develop their (state owned) lithium resources before the coup happened: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/11/10/china-is-working-to-expand-its-ties-to-latin-america/

DiscountDildos posted:

https://twitter.com/ChathamHouse/status/1390284424806289410?s=20&t=nX1N9wt0GaG-7WBtkem7lg


Dey took er jerbs and productive capacities!!!

ikanreed posted:

Hillary on board with seizing the means of production

stephenthinkpad posted:

So they just rely on big rear end magnet to create zero friction? That's new right? The operating maglev train in SH airport relys on electricity right.

Homeless Friend posted: