(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Yeah, I thought it Falun Gong-affiliated, catch any Shun Yun ads?
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Toll roads are pointless if the roads aren't private because you pay for them via your taxes. The only use for a toll road on a 100% government run network of roads is if there's a way to mark industrial vehicles (18 wheelers, etc) since those do way more damage to a road, but again, this is something taxes should take care of via higher industrial taxes. I wouldn't say that, it is a use fee comparable to a ticket on mass transit and people who take mass transit still pay taxes. That road still takes upkeep, and in general auto travel is less efficient than other forms of travel and should come with some fee for use.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
tino posted:
This is a feature not a bug.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
I will go out there and say it... Trotsky didn’t have much of a plan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:what if it was a permavolution and it was just for forever Like a never ending rave but more nonsensical.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
Typo posted:had USSR only assisted chairman Amin in suppressing Dusmans, you might be correct. However, they used it as an excuse to betray, mount a coup against, and murdered the "Afghan Allende" to control Afghan Socialism (much as they tried to support a coup using Lin Biao against Mao to control Chinese Socialism) and this is clear social imperialism. What is the point? The Sino-Soviet split wasn't a good thing?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
If the the US owned 70% of industry backs in the 1950s, then that would be a valid comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:De facto yes, actually. "Liberalization" of industry hadn't really started yet and the early 40s were basically a command economy for obvious reasons. Strict ownership no, but lots of command and control and a burgeoning public sector It isn’t the same thing as the state actually owning industry and also that was during the war. Btw I am actually doubtful China would have been able to industrialize without the hybrid state capitalist model it currently has. It was too late to bootstrap state socialist development ala the Soviet Union. Also China has more recently been reintroducing social systems back into place and the minimum wage has been steadily climbing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:The new social programs are to the last one neoliberal as all hell, including the structure of the minimum wage Explain how it is more neoliberal than the US, considering our federal minimum wage is 7.25 and in many wages doesn’t apply to entire classes of workers. Also these reforms happened largely more recently as relations with the West have largely declined. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 13:00 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 12:56
|
|
|
It isn’t one, but is it actually more neoliberal? Then you have the other aspect of obviously state intervention which the US doesn’t really have any more or never had. :
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:State intervention for private profit is the centerpiece of neoliberalism It isn’t the same as the entire state itself being completely hollowed out as in the United States. If anything the princelings need a strong state to exist and to keep the system going. They have skin in the game. They may back stab each other, but the state itself remains a unitary entity unlike whatever corporation carves it a piece for itself. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 14:21 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:Hmm, seems... not too compatible with the statement that the chinese elite have skin in the game? Skin the game compare to dismantling the entire state apparatus as in the former Soviet Union, shock therapy is different than standard corruption. The leadership of the PRC wants the state to stay around. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 16:20 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:I think currently 35% of the US gdp is various forms of government spending so it's still pretty state controlled Spending is different than enterprises, the state’s involvement in he economy in China would be even higher by that metric.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:And yet, there's nazis today. Which you claimed there are not. Yeah, if you look st the history of the Former GDR after 1989 it isn’t that surprising. It has been 30 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:It looks like the Guardian managed to get some interviews with residents, at least, so there's that. Most of the quotes in that article seem to be from foreign academics. Also, while at least some shrines/mosques have been demolished. It doesn’t seem to follow the rhetoric that China is actually going after everything (which the Guardian was pushing). Also from those photos it is often hard to see if a shrine itself was left while outer buildings were razed or not.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:there are over 25,000 mosques in xinjiang so finding a dozen that have been demolished or renovated seems, uh, low Here is that Guardian quote, there seems to be a discrepancy: quote:Observers have called China’s actions in Xinjiang the work of a “bulldozer state”. It is an apt way to describe the ongoing work of destruction and remodelling of the region’s landscape and its people. Mosques such as the one in Keriya were an early target of the campaign against “religious extremism”. A reporter visited the eastern region of Qumul in 2017 and learned from local officials that over 200 of the region’s 800 mosques had already been destroyed, with over 500 scheduled for demolition in 2018. Residents said that their local mosques had disappeared overnight, levelled without warning. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&s...557319400939205
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:that claim is sourced from bitter winter, which is an rfa-tier outlet. My point being that the narrative being produced here is quite thin.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
Admittedly, you could always put your own blog together. Two can play the open source game.
Ardennes has issued a correction as of 15:29 on May 7, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Well, how likely do you think Beijing would actually give HK universal suffrage at this point? I mean it is pretty obvious from their perspective that they have plenty to lose from such an outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 12:12
|
|
|
get that OUT of my face posted:my shifty eyes on the subway struck again and that article whines about how russia is the junior partner in the relationship In that case, there is many strong signs that Russia has to actual defer to China in any serious sense beyond some investment in Central Asia and even then it doesn't seem have strongly shifted loyalties in the region, but its the Economist. BrutalistMcDonalds posted:also discussed political polarization in the U.S., and he said "our right wings and left wings fight too, but online. not with guns." i showed him pictures of the red guards (mostly white guys) open-carrying guns here and carrying giant mao banners and he thought that was hilarious and weirdly kind of proud about that? fun times. So I guess you were intentionally gaslighting him about “Red Guards” to see how he would react? Ardennes has issued a correction as of 17:31 on Jul 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Granted, from at least a PRC perspective, Hong Kong isn't sovereign and the Basic Law itself is essentially a series of privileges granted to an autonomous region of a unitary state. It can be argued that these "privileges" are similar to a truly independent country (separate currency, passport, legal system etc) but in fact, they aren't fundamental rights outside the Basic Law itself which is still essentially secondary to the constitution of the PRC. It isn't really compared to the US (prior or post the ACW) where the states have fundamental rights outside the realm of federal authority ingrained into the constitution. Also, someone mentioned, it isn't very "communist" but it doesn't really align up with the political history of either the PRC or Marxist-Leninist thought (the CCP itself is the leading party of a revolutionary front and is essentially a vanguard party). Furthermore, Dengism itself isn't anything new under the sun, and the Soviets were dealing with the same issues as far back as December 1917. The situation is still obviously a mess.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Lady Galaga posted:It's not "privileges", though the CCP may see it that way. HK's autonomy is guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed by both countries and submitted to the United Nations. Currently the CCP see the agreement as a 'historical document' and don't observe it as a valid treaty, and goons still think that there is nothing to fear from HK allowing extradition to China because other western countries do it, right? There's absolutely nothing that can go wrong with Beijing, China and Hong Kong, China having a system that can transfer criminals from a rule-of-law system to a rule-by-law system because there's safeguards in place that prevent political prisoners being extradited. We can all trust the CCP to not make up random non-political crimes because HK judges and chief executive have the final say, doesn't matter that the judges don't get any power to look into the circumstances of the crime. People don't have any reasons to be paranoid or fear the CCP, just like their fears of mainland cops being stationed in West Kowloon high speed rail were unfounded, they are just there to perform their duties and not spy on people's phones and disappear anyone with protest pictures back to Shenzhen The issue is that the joint declaration's authority was valid until HK became a subject of the PRC and therefore the PRC constitution. It is true, the UK could argue that possible moves by the PRC are a violation of the agreement but it would be an issue of international law. Also the PRC probably has enough pull in both the General Assembly (not to mention veto power in the UNSC) to avoid even censure. As for the violation of human rights, there indeed no guarantee but honestly, in any real legal sense, it didn't exist in the first place. That said, I would say there deserves to be fear at least by some.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
Btw, it is pretty clear the reason why China succeeded in the 1980s versus the Soviets was pretty much up to geopolitics and trade. The US wanted to exploit the Sino-Soviet split and was willing to accept an increasing trade deficit with the PRC. In contrast, Soviet energy exports languished with the fall of oil prices in the mid-1980s. Perestroika didn't fix anything because it had no ability to impact global energy prices. Btw, in the 1980s, the differences between how the economies functioned was fairly minimal, the big difference was how trade was conducted. Also, the Soviet Union saw a good 15 years of high economic growth after the Secret Speech. The big outcome was the Sino-Soviet split itself. Anyway, as far as the military spending of the Soviet Union went, it made a considerable amount of sense considering the Soviet Union desperately needed trade partners and if anything it arguably would have been in even worse shape if the Warsaw Pact didn't exist. By 1980s, China didn't need it's own Warsaw Pact (well besides Albania...) simply because it was able to access Western markets easily with the effective permission of the United States. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 14:44 on Aug 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Typo posted:soviet firms were so uncompetitive outside of very specific sectors (oil) and firms (mostly arms) its dubious having an export market would have helped. Having foreign markets doesn't help if your industries can't compete in a foreign market. Btw, the Soviet Union did export goods beyond oil and arms (you could buy a Lada in the U.K.), but predictably fell into Dutch disease during the 1970s. It wouldn’t be the last time. Much of the issue of competition was the US itself, which did purposefully try to restrict trade as much as possible (especially compared to how it treated the “Asian tigers.”) As for the Soviets not being competitive in computers and electronics, that is clearly also a capital issue. Either way let’s be honest the USD is going to allow the US and its allies to survive nearly any shock. Price liberalization in China during the 1980s was pretty limited btw and primarily centered around “dual tracking”. The 1980s if anything was a period of experimentation. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 18:10 on Aug 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Maybe both China and the US are two superpowers that absolutely don't give a poo poo about the welfare of their respective populations and the foreign policy of both states are about advancing their strategic and economic interests? The only thing that separates them though is the US, due to the US dollar and post-Bretton Woods institutions (IMF/WTO/WB), is still more hegemonic. It is also why it is a circular conversation because everyone knows China has billionaires, and also that US cops would mow down protesters coming at them in an instant. The only answer is when it comes to power, be cynically about everything. As for the Hong Kong protests, it doesn't really seem a side to support in all honesty. It more or less had come down to a geopolitical grudge match. Typo posted:Its just libs concern trolling about china Typo don't you ever worry you may eventually just become your gimmick, because it seems like your posting is starting to fade into the CSPAM background. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 15:21 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
Optimus Subprime posted:equivocating the foreign policy exploits of modern China with the USA is rather absurd op The US is certainly more powerful, but that will probably change, it a sense it has to. Darkest Auer posted:I seem to remember something about the internet and freedom of speech in general too... To be honest, I think both China and the US are showing signs of convergence if anything. Let's be honest, either system is designed to really have the public have a meaningful influence over the political process and if it did...it would be fixed. Looking at the US political system or how the US handles protests, privacy, or surveillance, meh. That said, you can access more websites in the US, for now. gradenko_2000 posted:China isn't even a superpower. Part of the reason the US is getting so pissy about Belt-and-Road is that China gets to enjoy its own resource-extracting superhighway under the very blanket of the very freedom that the I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! If the USSR from 1945 to 1991 was considered a superpower, the PRC absolutely should count as one. As for the US, I agree. (Btw China does have significant political influence globally, it just isn't in a formal alliance like the Warsaw Pact). Ardennes has issued a correction as of 15:47 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Why do superpowers have to be evenly matched rather than capable of at least challenging one another? The USSR was never as strong as the US (about 40% of its GDP at most) but nevertheless did significantly challenge the US for global supremacy into the late 1980s. Likewise, China doesn't have the financial influence of the US but is still now actively challenging it geopolitically. Either way the US can't act unchallenged at this juncture and that is the entire reason there is a Second Cold War. If the US was ever an unchallenged "hyperpower" that era is over. Otherwise, it is about semantics. Also, yeah Chinese total trade is larger than the US and China has a much larger GDP in PPP terms and is closing in on the US in nominal terms. The US is obviously still more powerful because of its alliances and like I said the USD and post-Bretton Woods institutions, but they have also been developing a parallel system along the BRI. The big issue is going to the Yuan. It is also why I think the US overplayed its hand in Hong Kong, the US has an advantage but its status as hegemon is weakening.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
TheBuilder posted:What did the US do other than sending some diplomatic attache to meet with protesters? A resolution on "monitoring" Hong Kong has been advancing through the US congress. More than the bill itself, it is a message to the PRC that the US is at least thinking about trying to openly intervene in Chinese domestic affairs. Likewise, US diplomatic staff openly meeting with protestors is sending a message. Btw, it looks like US-Chinese trade talks are on the ropes again. ------------------ Also, the Chinese have a real navy nowadays and has begun trading without the USD (the Soviet Union also traded in USD btw).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:In the same sense France has a real navy. China has been significantly modernizing its surface fleet before it started building carriers. The PLAN has now 25-30 modern missile destroyers and about 45 modern frigates (and a bunch of corvettes and missile boats) (older Soviet knockoff models are quickly being retired). The French Navy has 11 destroyers, 10 frigates, and 1 carrier. The gap is narrowing pretty quickly (especially since the Chinese are building new ships rather quickly). Either way, 10 years really isn't that much time, and I think a lot of it is that American policymakers really don't want to admit they have been asleep at the wheel. ---------------------- Also, what the US is doing isn't about just hard results (the tariffs did have an effect btw) but sending a message to China. The Chinese are still playing the long game. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 17:09 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:Bingo! It doesn’t mean that they aren’t challenging the US already, they are just doing it more carefully.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
sincx posted:If those officials have dirty money stashed in the US, or if their wives/kids are in the US, then their lives will get a lot more annoying. It also adds evidence that we are actually genuinely in a second Cold War.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Prager is siding with the protesters in his tweet. Admittedly, it is only because he thinks they are useful.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:
Yeah, I doubt it any of that would be possible considering up to 2014-2015 the DC establishment thought everything was okay and by then it was way way too late. Even if the War on Terror hadn’t happened we would have still kept on acting everything was fine because American corporations were still making a ton of cash. If anything it seemed pretty baked in, and he Great Recession also has to happen eventually after Clinton deregulated derivatives.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2019 15:24
|
|
Militarily: The US could probably have contained China for another 20 years or so if it weren’t for the GWOT/OIF. If Bush has done a pacific pivot then, the geopolitics could maybe have worked out until the US/JP/SK economies ran out of gas trying to make it work. Instead, the PLAN achieved technical parity with the USN in the 2010s (as a direct result of the shift to counterterrorism) and the Chinese economy continues to grow despite a contractionary trade war with the US.
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:yeah only insane racist reactionary maniacs like pat buchanan cared about it in the 90s or 00s or whatever. weird how liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction and it gives way to either futile fascist revanchists (Buchanan, the liberals freaking out about HK, etc.) or, uh, socialism Well, part of it simply Marxian mechanics and rest is "end of history" nearsightedness, nevertheless I do think American-Chinese relations between the late 1970s to 2014 were fairly baked in. China turned to state capitalism because near-autarky had run its course and there wasn't really anywhere for the PRC to go, and the US was happy to welcome this victory. Otherwise, as moderating influence of social-democracy/reform liberalism faded during the 1990s/2000s, a turn to more radical politics was inevitable (as well as a growing distrust of "elite politics" and free trade). So now here we are in a second Cold War, that neither side really wants to get into but seemingly can't get out of.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:i dont know about the chinese economy continuing to grow. if they get shut out of exporting certain things to certain markets, they're going to have to resort to domestic demand which would mean wage increases. but lower wages (than western labor) is what launched their growth in the first place, so what's the way forward? Well there are other markets beside the US (look at the 5g issue btw) and it is unclear if the US is willing or able to shut out China entirely. Chinese growth may trend downward but st the same time the US has its own pressures.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
sincx posted:Probably for the same reason that chiropractors exist in the US. Btw are active studies in TCM, many of are inconclusive but at very least it requires further research. Also, at least some TCM has overlap with Western herbal and palliative medicine. Non-drowsy Dramamine is literally just powered ginger in pill form, seabands are based on acupressure, and everyone is fine with drinking mint tea for a sour stomach... etc It is when people forgo more effective treatment is when it becomes an issue. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 19:23 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Considering it is so prominent, I assume it is intentional, Disney has a lot to lose by being shutout of the Chinese market including two theme parks. As for the PRC, admittedly the SCS isn’t just about national bluster but it is one of the more strategic sea areas in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Granted, I think at least a portion of the protests is fueled by the housing/wage crisis in HK and they portions of the middle class, especially younger HKers, have started to feel the pinch a bit. The problem is how much of his anger has been channeled into xenophobia (this is pretty evident) and a larger geopolitical issues, neither one which is going to fix the social crisis HK is experiencing. Admittedly, the HK government and its land use policies are largely responsible for what is happening but that factor seems to be ignored nearly entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
BrokenGameboy posted:Really, if you want a simplified nugget of the good/bad of the Hong Kong protests badempanada did a video on it. My criticism is: he goes too far attributing colonialism on its own but that colonial attitudes come to play when there are geopolitical goals at stake. It isn't just that Hong Kong was colonized and is more Western, but that the PRC has gone off the Beltway script and needs to be brought back in line and Hong Kong is a convenient tool to do so. (It is also why the US media has treated protests in Latin America were much only on their geopolitical/ideology compatibility with the goals of the US.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Anyway, those protestors were part of the May 4th movement so it must have been...the Cheka. The Russkis strike again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 12:38
|
|