China thread.

[Chobham]

Maybe N Korea's style of governance is having a bigger influence on China than all those supposed bureaucratic experts believe.

I'm thinking that Xi fully understood that the liberalization of the economy was going to lead to the downfall of the CCP so he's trying to reimpose Marxism. Kinda reminds me of the lyrics from an old post WWI song,
"How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'"

 

[icanhelp1]

I'm thinking that Xi fully understood that the liberalization of the economy was going to lead to the downfall of the CCP so he's trying to reimpose Marxism. Kinda reminds me of the lyrics from an old post WWI song,
"How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'"

Like Kim, Xi has become the supreme ruler ( the party )

A blend of Marxism and communism simultaneously exist now, Xi's power is using both as he sees fit, an ayatollah without the religion. IMHO

 

[Chobham]

Like Kim, Xi has become the supreme ruler ( the party )

And also like Kim setting himself up as a personality cult, one of the reasons he had to take down Jack Wa and others. There can be only one.

 

[ll74]

You can think any damn thing you want, and truth be told I hope you're right. Unfortunately for both of us history only gives that a marginal chance. The dissolution of any government is rife with peril, this is especially true in the case where there is no organized opposition to step in. In China's case we're looking at the military, an indoctrinated military, and I don't see that as a positive step forward. Kinda like trading the Shah for the Supreme Leader. The best resolution, as far as I can tell, is for the nation to fractionalize and they'll be too busy fighting among themselves to molest others.

Regardless of how that all plays out the upset to the world economy is going to be a shock to the system.

Yes, it would be. But in a global economy, shocks don't take much to feel down the line. This is why we need to bolster global diplomatic structures as well as reform. Have a powerful security council with permanent members who act nefariously is dumb.

 

[ll74]

QUOTE="GeneralBored, post: 96154248, member: 6561252"]
Pick a side!
[/QUOTE]
Let me just be clear - (regardless of what BotBoy has said towards me or others even) - I'm anti-fascist, anti-authoritarian and anti-autocrat.

I'm not sure if iso/lance would accept that as an answer, but he's "curated" once again, so who cares.

 

[Chobham]

Yes, it would be. But in a global economy, shocks don't take much to feel down the line. This is why we need to bolster global diplomatic structures as well as reform. Have a powerful security council with permanent members who act nefariously is dumb.

Might want to think that through a little deeper.

 

[ll74]

Might want to think that through a little deeper.

Not at all. The world deserves to have parties focused on human rights as a global interest. The US is as bad an actor as others in this endeavor.

 

[Chobham]

Not at all. The world deserves to have parties focused on human rights as a global interest. The US is as bad an actor as others in this endeavor.

"Human Rights" huh? Exactly what are "Human Rights?"

No, no, no, don't even try to list what your ideas are because they don't matter in the least.

1. You cannot create a list of "Human Rights" that a majority of nations will agree to.

2. Assuming you could come up with some sort of a list there is NO realistic way to enforce those "rights."

3. Who's going to pay for all these "rights", and how?

4. Saving the best for last, anything a government, local, state, federal, or global, can grant you they can take away. Your "rights", in reality, are nothing more than a list of temporary permissions.

The people that preach that shit never cease to amaze me. They put themselves in the position of "World Dictator" and of course they are all benevolent dictators. But when you ask them what sort of behavior they'd allow and which they'd proscribe you find that a whole lot of people you know would be shipped off to a "re-education center" of some sort............if they're lucky.

 

[ll74]

"Human Rights" huh? Exactly what are "Human Rights?"

No, no, no, don't even try to list what your ideas are because they don't matter in the least.

1. You cannot create a list of "Human Rights" that a majority of nations will agree to.

2. Assuming you could come up with some sort of a list there is NO realistic way to enforce those "rights."

3. Who's going to pay for all these "rights", and how?

4. Saving the best for last, anything a government, local, state, federal, or global, can grant you they can take away. Your "rights", in reality, are nothing more than a list of temporary permissions.

The people that preach that shit never cease to amaze me. They put themselves in the position of "World Dictator" and of course they are all benevolent dictators. But when you ask them what sort of behavior they'd allow and which they'd proscribe you find that a whole lot of people you know would be shipped off to a "re-education center" of some sort............if they're lucky.

Rights for humans.

1.yes you can, and we have
2. Yes there is, and we have
3. The global community contributes, and we have
4. That's why you have a global body to work for global rights

Apparently you don't understand the UN. Maybe read up a bit. This is why we need it to be reformed as well. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and make a difference.

 

[Chobham]

Oh but I do understand the UN. I also understand the people that think the UN is actually a functional world government and is a manifest source of peace and goodness. *chuckle*

 

[JohnEBbad]

Post #83

Spot On, especially the last paragraph.

 

[Chobham]

Yet another update.

 

[ll74]

Oh but I do understand the UN. I also understand the people that think the UN is actually a functional world government and is a manifest source of peace and goodness. *chuckle*

They aren't a government. They are a regulating body supported by world governments.

And it needs to be reformed so that bad actors cannot override the best interests of the majority of override being held accountable for its own actions

 

[colddiesel]

They aren't a government. They are a regulating body supported by world governments.

And it needs to be reformed so that bad actors cannot override the best interests of the majority of override being held accountable for its own actions

When a majority of the worlds nations are run as semi or totally corrupt autocracies, of either right and left, it seems to me that your faith in majorities is naive at best. Whether one likes it or not all UN decisions have to be by consent of some very bad people. They have no capacity to enforce anything.

 

[ll74]

When a majority of the worlds nations are run as semi or totally corrupt autocracies, of either right and left, it seems to me that your faith in majorities is naive at best. Whether one likes it or not all UN decisions have to be by consent of some very bad people. They have no capacity to enforce anything.

My faith is in the people of those countries. Regardless, when only 1 in 5 are required to decide things, a majority is irrelevant.

Reform would allow them to do more and be more. I have faith in the idea.....the execution is always going to be imperfect.

 

[Chobham]

China Update.

It's getting ugly.

 

[Chobham]

The latest financials are worse than expected. The optimists are believing that the lifting of the Wuhan Flu restrictions are going to point to a brighter day. And if Xi doesn't go totally stupid and invade Taiwan a recovery is certainly in sight. Just not a 'business back to usual' recovery. The CCP led by Xi is no longer trusted by the producer community, only certain players in the investment community are still toting China as the place to put your money. Here's the problem with that. The 'Boomer's' are retiring and and no longer interested in growth investment, it's all about preservation of capital with them if not all and out conversetion to cash. China's at the bottom of the list. While you may discount that, the fact remains that the boomers are the single largest investment class this nation has, of may ever, have seen. Right now boomers control $60 trillion in investment monies, not trivial at all.

What does that have to do with China? Boomers were the investors that propelled China to where it is today. Without significant outside investment China would still be where it was under Mao. And that worked for a while.

That brings us to China's soft underbelly. China built it's economy on cheap labor, unskilled labor. Labor costs in China have increased 14-20 fold (depending on source) while productivity has only increased by 4-5 fold. If productivity doesn't keep up with labor costs you're looking at a money loser. There are other nations out there with unskilled labor to compete with China, and they are.

The way to avoid the labor cost trap is to provide higher value product and that requires a better educated work force. China has not invested in educating it's people. Oh, the sons and daughters (those daughters that survived the 'one child' policy) of the elite were educated. But the children of the unskilled labor class and the rural were not. As a nation they are seriously uneducated and this limits their ability to move into the higher value product realm. So the parents that were working those unskilled labor jobs were paying 'tutor's' to educate their children. Xi put an end to that two years ago. The state had no control over what those 'tutors' were teaching and that is a threat to a totalitarian state.
China is done.

 

[HisArpy]

The latest financials are worse than expected...


...China is done.

China still has the nuclear option. Given enough pressure from outside influences they might use it against Taiwan or Hong Kong or both.

Depending on the courage of other governments and peoples around the world, it might work. And you can't discount China's resolve to come out on top, even if what they're atop of is a smoking pile of radioactive waste.

 

[JohnEBbad]

I doubt that scenario which would invite retaliation from several nuclear powers.

 

[Chobham]

China still has the nuclear option. Given enough pressure from outside influences they might use it against Taiwan or Hong Kong or both.

Depending on the courage of other governments and peoples around the world, it might work. And you can't discount China's resolve to come out on top, even if what they're atop of is a smoking pile of radioactive waste.

Some years ago a senior Chinese military guy published an article that basically said that they could use nukes against Taiwan with impunity because it was their own sovereign territory. In that China is NOT officially part of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty they could do that without violating any international convention. Obviously any ethical considerations would be ignored.

 

[colddiesel]

China is done.

Probably not. China as a State has existed in recognisable form for a fraction less than 4,000 years, about 15 or 16 times longer than the USA. The CCP is the latest of the major 14 Dynasties (and more than 100 minor dynasties). Big call to write the Chinese off just yet.

 

[Chobham]

Probably not. China as a State has existed in recognisable form for a fraction less than 4,000 years, about 15 or 16 times longer than the USA. The CCP is the latest of the major 14 Dynasties (and more than 100 minor dynasties). Big call to write the Chinese off just yet.

Oh, geographically China will still be there, and so will the Chinese people. But the CCP is coming to the end of its shelf life just as the Soviet Union before it. It's the death throws that concern me.

 

[Chobham]

Update

 

[JohnEBbad]

When will Covid kill them all?

 

[JohnnySavage]

When will Covid kill them all?

???

They've only had 10 covid deaths.