BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA1xyVEVtiI

C. Everett Koop posted:

but how is that going to work with all the sharia law britain has

Fallen Hamprince posted:

lol guyovich actually thinks comrade davos is going to usher in full communism, thats so loving cute lmao

Epic High Five posted:

it's infested with Huckabees tho

C. Everett Koop posted:

and yet they're not the fattest, dumbest person in the state

Cerebral Bore posted:

Cyborgs can time their popbooms with Golden Ages are also going to get the Cloning Vats long before anybody else even gets close, so I don't see how that's an objection.

Also industry is literally the strongest bonus. Free Drones running Democratic/Planned/Wealth get 40% lower mineral costs as well as actual money. It's broken af.

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

otoh smac is the greatest game ever made and everything about it owns

Calibanibal posted:

skimmed thru this rpg talk but i just say this - everybody play everything by spider software. geneforge, nethergate, avernum remake, avadon. all good tactical turn-based, awesome plot huge world, thanks for reading

rudatron posted:

yang is an obsessive control freak who's okay with crimes against humanity. That's 'evil'.

Baloogan posted:

find homework explainer's fan fiction for us please

Typo posted:

oh yeah and Katyn massacre was committed by the gestapo too

Fallen Hamprince posted:

reason for execution: hung toilet paper roll wrong way

Annual Prophet posted:

dung xiaoping thought

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

everybody who lives in china itt should probably sign

https://twitter.com/amnesty/status/935990434203144194

Typo posted:

I really want to play a good china-centric strategy game but the closest I get to that is paradox

I want something that simulates the complexity of imperial governance of the song-yuan-ming-qing era and fighting off the northern/western nomads

the closest I came to that was EU III era china, which imo had better mechanics in many ways than EU IV china, like for example a really cool mechanic in EU 3 is that you have to colonize with colonists nomad provinces like you would the new world to annex them or else they just fall back into nomadic control after a while which is really accurate

also in eu 3 the westernization mechanics are way superior, you basically have to work your way up to the western tech group and go through a stability -5 hit for every "level" you go through. Which really simulates how painful westernization/modernization can be. Whereas not not even A.I Ming ever falls behind in institutions.

Xelkelvos posted:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/974843230054477824

Praise Chairman for life Xi.

Xelkelvos posted:

So what's the truth?

Karl Barks posted:

china is 70% good and 30% bad has anyone done this yet

Typo posted:

Yossarian-22 posted:

tankies are the original "um actually" guys but instead of pedantry it's poo poo that killed millions of people

Yossarian-22 posted:

virgin white stalinist lf vet vs. chad actual chinese person

Yossarian-22 posted:

For the record, I had a Marxist economics professor who has written a ton about this very subject. He has also been to China and both of the Koreas, has contacts in the labor movement, and even given talks in Cuba about how the Chinese economic system isn't worth emulating

His newest article on China is here. https://economicfront.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/whats-driving-trade-tensions-between-the-us-and-china/amp/

"For its part, the Chinese government is trying to use its large state-owned enterprises, control over finance, investment restrictions on foreign investment, licensing powers, government procurement policies, and trade restrictions to build its own strong companies. These are reasonable development policies, ones very similar to those used by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. It is short-sided for progressives in the US to criticize the use of such policies. In fact, we should be advocating the development of similar state capacities in the US in order to rebuild and revitalize the US economy.

That doesn’t mean we should uncritically embrace the Chinese position. The reason is that the Chinese government is using these policies to promote highly exploitative Chinese companies that are themselves increasingly export oriented and globalizing. In other words, the Chinese state seeks only a rebalancing of power and wealth for the benefit of its own elites, not a progressive restructuring of its own or the global economy."

quote:

China rejects Singapore model for state-owned enterprise reform
in Shanghai

Chinese policymakers have largely rejected plans to depoliticise state-owned enterprises by governing them through financial holding companies that aim solely to maximise returns.

A forthcoming plan to reform China’s SOEs is the latest sign that efforts to boost efficiency and profitability are taking a back seat to ensuring that state groups support government macroeconomic and industrial policies.

Use of holding companies, a model based on that of Singaporean wealth fund Temasek, had been seen as a middle way between the privatisation of SOEs and the current system, in which top managers are approved by the Communist party and often put politics ahead of commercial considerations.

But the new plan from the finance ministry and the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission will cap the number of Temasek-style holding companies at two or three, compared with more than 80 central government-owned SOEs, the official Shanghai Securities News reported on Thursday.

[capitalist propaganda omitted]

The gap reflects the government’s use of SOEs to advance policy goals. [capitalist propaganda omitted]


In addition, big acquisitions such as ChemChina’s $44bn purchase of Syngenta were used to acquire advanced technology, even though the deals might not be profitable for the acquirer.

Singapore’s Temasek holds stakes in domestic and foreign companies and is known for making decisions based purely on financial considerations.

In February 2016 Sasac launched a pilot programme in which two SOEs were chosen to operate as Temasek-style “capital operation companies”. The two were China Chengtong Holdings, a paper-products conglomerate, and China Reform Holdings, a platform established in 2010 to invest in a range of industries.

Local governments in Shanghai and Chongqing have also established capital operation companies. In 2015 Shandong province took a similar step by transferring shares in provincial SOEs to the social security fund, which focuses purely on maximising investment return.

Related efforts to change management incentives include a pilot programme to let boards of directors, rather than the Communist party and Sasac, appoint senior management.

The soon-to-be-released plan from the finance ministry and the State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (Sasac) builds on the broad outline for SOE reform approved in 2015.

But Sasac has now cooled on the Temasek model. According to Caixin, a respected financial news website, Sasac has decided not to expand the existing pilot programme for capital operation companies.

The agency feels that promoting the Temasek model would reinforce an undesirable trend in China’s economy towards “fake” investment that generates profits by shifting money between existing assets without generating new economic activity, Caixin reported.

Sheer size also remains a top priority for SOE reform. The plan calls for reducing the number of central SOEs to less than 90 from the current 101. Sasac controlled 189 central SOEs when the agency was created in 2003, but successive rounds of mergers have steadily reduced that number.

Yandat posted:

it would have been cool as heck if Germany had had a successful revolution