|
Fojar38 posted:The paradigm of industrialization had already been well established by the time China industrialized, whereas it was completely uncharted when England and the US industrialized. There have been detailed maps of most of China since like 4000 BCE...
|
# ¿ Mar 18, 2014 17:25 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:18 |
|
Oh, yeah, I see that now. But red text plus the standard 'only white people can explore places' beliefs made me go down the other path. But yeah, the way to quickly modernize is to heavily finance the growth of a few heavy industries to bring in foreign money and train workers on modern techniques. You also do basic land reform to make peasants move from their land to the cities more quickly so that there is a greater workforce. Its the path that the USSR, South Korea and China went down. Most of the Asian Tigers, Brazil, etc as well. The US and UK basically did it as well, just over a longer period of time.
|
# ¿ Mar 18, 2014 17:37 |
|
In the case of the UK, the textile industry was a heavy driver of their industrialization. To feed the mills for that industry, the British took over places like Egypt and India which were good for both cotton farming and food; this could be considered land reform in that the incoming cash crops lowered agricultural prices at the same time new jobs were opening up in industries like textiles and ship building. It was a much more organic process than we have seen recently, to be sure, though.tbp posted:I don't see how you could have possibly made that error. I live in the US South. "Columbus found the new world and showed the naked locals 'magical boomsticks'," and "The Spanish explored South America and found cannibal Aztecs," and "The British went into deepest darkest Africa to explore the savage wilderness" are literally taught in our schools. It is, unfortunately, the basic idea here that only White Europeans are able to really map out anything. So when he said 'China, which was uncharted unlike the US/UK' I read it as this.
|
# ¿ Mar 18, 2014 18:11 |
|
I would drink from both your labials, to be honest. This isn't a thing that only happens in China, either. Nigeria, especially, has the same thing going on, though they mostly stick with sportswear brands. The football cleats they have on sale are all 'Noike" or "Qddidqs" just like they pointed out "Addidos" in the story. I was surprised to read that there are Chinese companies trying to ape Japanese brands though; I wouldn't think that the Chinese would want a brand that sounds Japanese because of the last 100 years of history.
|
# ¿ Dec 29, 2014 15:33 |
|
I can second MIGFs general idea that Africans really dislike Chinese infrastructure projects. In Benin, all the people I talked to said the same things: 1. The Chinese bring in their own workers. Nobody in the area gets paid. 2. The Chinese workers self-segregate, and when they do go out of their camps, they tended to be jerks 3. The actual projects took longer than they said and with very poor quality 4. No training on maintenance was done. No training of engineers, etc to teach how to make infrastructure themselves in the long-run either. 5. A lot of open corruption is done with local governments and police by the Chinese to keep the Chinese workers out of trouble, and to make up for the project not going on time.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2015 14:00 |
|
Ardennes posted:Also more than military affairs, in terms of actual financial weight a nominal GDP is going to matter much more since PPP is only showing costs not assets. From what I can tell, this is already starting to happen. Thanks to the one-child policy, there are far more people 45+ than there are younger than 30. As those born before the policy was started are retiring right around now, it's going to be a huge cost sink on their kids. Their kids have to support their own families in high-cost cities like Shanghai, with relatively lovely wages, plus their parents now because there isn't a good safety net in China for the elderly.
|
# ¿ Apr 5, 2015 06:53 |
|
I don't have any sources on hand, but from what I recall the rare earths debate really isn't a debate at all. China is the only current major exporter of them because they have been able to do it far cheaper than in the West, mostly by ignoring environmental degradation and giving low wages. If China ever refused to sell rare earths, for whatever reason, the United States and Australia would be able to begin mine their huge stockpiles again within just a few months. The sites were shut down only because they were unprofitable compared to unethical Chinese mines.
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2015 07:05 |
|
Yeah, it's hilariously sad that bubbles basically always look like that, but people still keep buying stocks in them.
|
# ¿ Jul 27, 2015 21:36 |
|
Mange Mite posted:Also we learn the value of an undergraduate economics minor. Absolutely worthless?
|
# ¿ Aug 29, 2015 23:53 |
|
Peel posted:So what's going on with the Chinese economy? Market correction with Chinese characteristics.
|
# ¿ Aug 31, 2015 18:21 |
|
Imports are down twenty percent. Wow, those factories are shutting down production fast.
|
# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 15:30 |
|
Grundulum posted:How does that follow? Wouldn't imports being down mean that internal factories are taking up more of the consumption? A poo poo ton of China's imports are raw and unfinished materials and fuels. Few imports means the factories are planning on making a lot less in the future.
|
# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 17:32 |
|
Give or take 30-70%
|
# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 15:30 |
|
So did they just not see what the One Child Policy would do to the economy, especially for retirees, and not plan around it? Especially when the West was starting to go through the same thing when the policy was implemented, it should have been obvious.
|
# ¿ Oct 29, 2015 15:02 |
|
Probably more kick the can than not foreseeing it, I think. "I'm not going to be Premier when the demographic poo poo hits the economic fan but we are struggling to feed everyone now. So, I hope they remember to plan for this later!"
|
# ¿ Oct 29, 2015 15:30 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:18 |
|
namaste faggots posted:
-Trump tweet soon, probably
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2017 16:38 |