Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 23, 2017 at 8:27 PM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807272July 23, 2017 at 6:35 AM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807268
ocrenter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Did you read Thucydides’ Trap?
https://www.google.com/amp/foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/amp/
[/quote]
I see we read the same article and came to very different conclusions.
“Maintaining China’s extraordinary economic growth, which provides legitimacy for sweeping party rule, is a high-wire act that will only get harder.”
unfortunately the maintenance of this extraordinary growth is via bubble economics. and remember, they can make up their economic numbers, so no one on the outside can really decipher how bad things are.
http://video.vanityfair.com/watch/the-new-establishment-summit-disrupting-the-global-economy
Now here’s what the article stated about the US:
“Meanwhile, in the United States, sluggish growth is the new normal. And American democracy is exhibiting worrisome symptoms: declining civic engagement, institutionalized corruption, and widespread lack of trust in politics.”
the biggest difference here is one government relies on high growth for its legitimacy. and if you read the “problems” given for the US, it turns out every single point mentioned are realities within China. There is no civic engagement, there is widespread corruption, and lack of trust in politics is a given.
Going back to the Thucydides’ Trap. China’s highwire act does have a “safety net” of nationalism the CCP perpetuates and plan to flame in the event of economic disaster.
https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/chinas-world-of-anti-japan-war-films
Can you imagine if 70% of all of our TV shows and movies are all war related? and the bulk are all against Russia or Muslims?
In the event China does utilize that nationalism safety net to maintain its legitimacy, is the US willing to check China? Or will political appeasement win, which further the flame of such nationalism.
July 22, 2017 at 3:32 AM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807263Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Plus I don’t want to see China fail. It would be a disaster for humanity because hundreds of millions of people will see development retarded, perhaps too late in their lifetimes.
.[/quote]
I agree with the desire to see a successful China that matures into a prosperous first world nation. That will end up lifting up not just Chinese citizens, but also the surrounding countries and the world as well.
However, there is way too many parallels with Nazi Germany in regard to its nationalistic fervor.
It desires union of ethnic Han Chinese states under one roof, aka Taiwan (much like the desire to have all ethnic German states unite under one roof, for example the annexation of Austria).
It claims the right to protect ethnic Chinese populations in neighboring states such as Malaysia and Indonesia (much like the claim to protect ethnic Germans in neighboring states such as Czechoslovakia and Poland).
It continues to nurse a bruised ego for past wrongs, aka hundred years of humiliation (much like Germany nursing bruised ego from WWI and its unfair treaties).
There were plenty of German fans in the west back in those days that rooted for Nazi Germany to thrive and become a mature and successful member state of the world.
Don’t ignore the parallels, don’t be on the side of appeasement, don’t stay silent on clear violations of human rights and acts of aggression. By being tough with China, you are helping China grow up as a mature upright citizen. By being soft and apologist, you allow the nationalistic tendencies to grow unchecked and you’ll end up with WWIII on your hands.
July 21, 2017 at 11:56 AM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807261Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ocrenter]
Apparently 50% of the well to do Chinese wishes to leave China. I guess the Bieber ban was the last straw.[/quote]
It’s actually good for China. Because they act like Chinese investments aboard. And their businesses usually involve facilitating trade with China and knowledge transfers to China.
The world is changing. We need to embrace globalization and world citizenry.[/quote]
Dude, you sound like a PRC spokesperson, there’s a positive spin to anything and everything.
July 21, 2017 at 10:02 AM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807258Participant[quote=harvey]The Chinese government does have a certain wisdom:
https://www.facebook.com/m.ltn.tw/posts/1511308972288097
Apparently 50% of the well to do Chinese wishes to leave China. I guess the Bieber ban was the last straw.
July 20, 2017 at 8:42 PM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807255Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Trump voters want to go to war. They want to kick ass but for what really?
We spent $ trillions in Afghanistan and the taliban is looking to make a comeback. Spending drives economic growth for a few years because we spend on our own contractors but there is no future return. We maybe sending more troops there.
China is building the China Pakistan corridor. They get revenue concessions from the project. They get development rights along the corridor… new businesses, new condos. Development in Pakistan will drive demand for Chinese products. Win win. Best of all nobody is killed. Even if Pakistan doesn’t payback the loans for decades, the buiness opportunities will more than make up.[/quote]
Trump voters are self contradictory. They are very nationalistic, so you are right, they do want higher military spending. But they are also isolationist and want the US withdraw from these wars and conflicts.
Chinese are incredibly nationalistic, they absolutely support the government policy of increasing military spending. The government uses various manufactured conflicts to fan the nationalistic flame.
July 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807252Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Wow, Shoveler. Sounds like the Middle Kingdom has been restored to greatness.
I don’t think the Chinese are that powerful. But they have a lot of well qualified people with PhDs, many engineers running the country.
I just worry about our old fashioned approaches… our badass thinking leads to military intervention whereas China uses economic power. We spend $ trillion on military adventures and China builds infrastructure that give them revenue concessions and create new markets for their exports.
Our population is so unaware of global affairs and business. Sad, as Trump would say.
On China railway you can now order food to your seat on smart phones, to be delivered by local restaurants at the trains arrive the stations. Very advanced since the high speed trains stop for only a few minutes.[/quote]
This is the reason why a lot of people voted for Trump.
July 19, 2017 at 12:12 PM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807245Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Here’s a timely article on how China tames the internet. I just think China wants to insure stabillity by not allowing critics of the government to gain momentum. That’s all.
Xi is very powerful and he’s able to push his policies through. Yes, the Chinese middle class knows environmental pollution is a problem. But they are also millionaires sitting on huge real estate equity and other wealth they likely could not have accumulated had they immigrated to the West decades ago. Hence the push to renewables and China replacing American leadership as Trump retreats. Xi has been very supportive of Davos and Paris, economy and environment, the two most important issues for the Chinese educated class. Education would be third.
The border disputes with India is politics just like Iran was used by Trump during the elections. Makes people more nationalistic.
Xi has a tough job pivoting the Chinese economy to consumerism. I think he’ll pull it off. The construction companies have Belt and Road to keep working. That will help them gain more experience, international goodwill and export their high speed trains, telecom networks, create new markets, etc. That will also develop the hinterland and narrow the rural-coastal wealth gap.
I see products from China becoming international quality. So I see China moving to the next stage of development where they are creative and setting standards.
I’m not betting against China. People have poo-pooed China for the last thirty years and they have been proven wrong. Those same people are now forced to accept Chinese money which they called fake before.
Sure, China coiuld liberalize and they are in the area of travel and personal freedoms. But they won’t loosen the party’s grip on government, not until China is an advanced economy.
Maybe I’ve been listening too much to Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. They have tied Australia’s future to China and Australia has so far done very well.[/quote]
Exhibit 743 on giving China the pass.
All in the name of stability.
Maybe Trump should learn from the Chinese and stabilize us.
July 19, 2017 at 7:14 AM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807242Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]ocrenter, your comments imply that Xi Jinping is an insecure paper tiger. Do you really believe that?
By all accounts Xi is the most powerful leader since Deng Xioaping. He is confident and can do what he wants.[/quote]
The idea here is the more insecure one is, the tighter the grip. The Chinese economy is riding on fluff with lax lending and relentless borrowing and bubbling real estate at all level. Foreign investors are retreating. The more developed economies of the coastal provinces now have to deal with more environmentally minded citizenry and their frequent protests (which goes unreported). On the political front he has made numerous enemies with his anti-corruption campaign, which simply cracks down on political rivals.
Is it any surprise that Xi is reactivating decade old border conflict with India just months away from the 19th CCP party congress this fall?
China is far less free now than a few years ago. Just today, we hear of further tightening with the blocking of WhatsApp services. I literally just read that article in the NYT when I happened upon your post here.
Let’s just look at Trump. He doesn’t have the ability to shut off Facebook or control the press. Instead, he just calls the press fake, as his position grows weaker, the fake press rallying cry gets louder. Would you say he is confident? Same idea, but applied in a country where the insecure leader CAN restrict the press and everything else and does with increasing ferocity.
July 18, 2017 at 1:12 PM in reply to: Insecurity riding high within world’s second largest economy #807234Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]It’s a great opportunity for Trump to speak up. But Trump was silent on Hong Kong’s 20 year return to china. Trump was silent on Liu Xiabo.
OC renter, weren’t you hopeful that Trump would be tough on China that you’d give him a pass on everything else?
Do you think that China’s trademark awards to Trump was coincidence? Now Ivanka has applications pending.
BTW, China’s economy is bigger by 15% than the US’ in purchasing power parity. But our free press doesn’t like to report that because that would make us #2.
The US chamber of commerce in Beijing sent a delegation to DC to warn about China’s policies to support 21st century industries such as renewable energy, cloud computing, transport, etc…. but not to worry, China will fail anyway because government intervention never works.
Remember when more than a decade ago experts said the Internet Great Wall of China would crumble in no time?[/quote]
Nope, never gave Trump a pass.
July 16, 2017 at 8:06 AM in reply to: OT: what happens in other democracies when opposing parties can’t agree on an infrastructure spending bill.. #807193Participantthis is an important week in the greater Sinosphere.
this week 30 years ago marks the end of what was the world’s longest running martial law in Taiwan.
this week also marks the death of Chinese Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo while incarcerated. (Only one other regime had a Nobel Laureate die while incarcerated: Nazi Germany). China’s Great Firewall is also blocking all searches and images involving Liu’s, candles, and “RIP”. (Apparently Chinese netizens are expressing their condolences by using the image of an empty chair to bypass the censors.)
Taiwan’s legislative fights have always been used by China to warn its population regarding the danger of democracy. Funny how Taiwan’s old authoritarian ruler, the KMT, picked just the right time to instigate an all out brawl to help facilitate that narrative across the strait.
July 15, 2017 at 6:42 AM in reply to: OT: what happens in other democracies when opposing parties can’t agree on an infrastructure spending bill.. #807187ParticipantHere’s the background:
For decades the ruling KMT used infrastructure spending as a way to maintain a crony capitalist system of patronage. It also heavily favored development in and around the capital Taipei as that was its main base of support.
The current ruling DPP plan would heavily favor the rest of the country that was neglected for decades. The current plan would also break up the traditional patronage system as KMT would no longer be the go to party for local pet projects that can enrich local bosses.
KMT is already a minority party due to its ultimate goal of annexation by China. The distruction of its patronage network would be the final nail in its coffin.
Hence the all out battle to prevent the passage of the bill.
Participant[quote=livinincali]
Our system’s biggest problem is it doesn’t allow for free market forces to force competition and drive down costs. At the same time is also has no regulations in place to prevent costs from rising. Every country in the world has decided to either make health care a utility that’s tightly controlled or allowed bad outcomes for some based on free market forces. Neither is perfect but they are more efficient than our current system.
The bottom line is our medical system has a lot of people being paid by health care spending that aren’t actually providing care. There’s excessive overhead in our health care spending. Free market systems prevent excessive overhead to the cost of providing care by competition. Tightly regulated system prevent excessive overhead by strictly regulating everything. We don’t do either so we have millions of paper pushers being paid by health care spending from insurance agent, to billing coders, to various administrative departments and boards.[/quote]
Free market forces can’t force competition if government mandates emergency services.
Let’s say you have competing garages for car services. Because of market forces, the prices are lowered for routine maintenance and repairs.
But then government came out with a law mandating all garages to take in cars in event of emergencies regardless of the ability to pay. These emergency cases are all cars that do not have routine maintenance, cars that use the lowest grade gasoline engine cars running on flats.
Suddenly the garages now have to spread the cost of these emergencies to everyone else, and the cost goes up. And then some people decide to forgo routine maintenance since they can now demand car repair at any garage’s emergency bay. Forcing prices to go up even more.
If you have a government and society at large unable to stomach the idea of patients dying outside of ERs, then that free market is not truly a free market.
This is why all industrialized developed nations all move to nationalized single payer systems. Just look at Taiwan, S.Korea, and Singapore, they all followed the American model of free market capitalism to developed world status. And the moment they got there, they all switched to the European model old single payer universal coverage.
That is the natural course of development.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter]Kinda splitting hair here.
Single payer literally means there is only one payer and thus this one and only payer has the monopoly and thus the ability to dictate pricing.
Medicare for all would be single payer, but VA for all would be single payer and single provider.[/quote]
Not splitting at all. The VA is a single payer model.
It is also the only example of government controlled health care, similar to the UK NHS. Medicare isn’t. The Canadian version isn’t.[/quote]
“Single-payer healthcare is a healthcare system in which the state, financed by taxes, covers basic healthcare costs for all residents regardless of income, occupation, or health status. … In contrast, multi-payer healthcare uses a mixed public-private system.
Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). “Single-payer” describes the mechanism by which healthcare is paid for by a single public authority, not the type of delivery or for whom physicians work.”
U.K. Is a single payer system with a single provider, aka NHS. VA for all would be like the U.K.
Canada is a single payer system with multiple providers. Medicare for all would be like Canada.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=ocrenter][quote=FlyerInHi]I think that VA is the most efficient.
Service members, retirees and family could go to VA or private insurance/providers if they have other insurance.[/quote]
you are kidding right?
btw, single payer does not mean the VA.
single payer means more like multiple competing entities like Kaiser and Scripps and Sharp.[/quote]
Actually the VA is more like single payer. (though I too question whether it’s been a very successful model.) I think a more likely model would be medicare for all, where medicare is everyone’s primary insurance. Kaiser, Sharp, and Scripps are providers, so they don’t have anything to do with what defines single payer.[/quote]
Kinda splitting hair here.
Single payer literally means there is only one payer and thus this one and only payer has the monopoly and thus the ability to dictate pricing.
Medicare for all would be single payer, but VA for all would be single payer and single provider.
-
AuthorPosts