Last edited by lowing (2010-08-12 20:28:59)
How exactly are they a communist state? They are a complete autocracy, yes, but hardly egalitarian. The spread between wealthy and poor there makes our own look insignificant in comparison.Uzique wrote:
all im stating is that the point of their maturity and 'coming of age' will happen. people seem to enjoy focussing on what's holding them back, in tiny amounts. but the fact is there's a big red wave surging out at sea and it's gonna break upon the shore of western progress preeeeetty soon.
WOW... at john... using GDP as an assessment of a communist state. hahahaha.
How do you know Norway 'risks nothing'?lowing wrote:
Translation------Norway sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.
Not really no. However the fact that you compare a nation to ONE of our states is pretty tellingDilbert_X wrote:
How do you know Norway 'risks nothing'?lowing wrote:
Translation------Norway sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.
California sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.
See how your theory fails?
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-08-12 17:09:56)
that you're a union of federal self-governing states that are directly equatable to small nations?lowing wrote:
Not really no. However the fact that you compare a nation to ONE of our states is pretty tellingDilbert_X wrote:
How do you know Norway 'risks nothing'?lowing wrote:
Translation------Norway sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.
California sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.
See how your theory fails?
So should we only count the 'freed serfs' when it comes to purchasing power then? Turquoise seems to think that China is somehow going to blow past the west in terms of wealth when that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small minority. What they have over there reminds me of the Antebellum South, with all of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the rich plantation owners, while being entirely dependent on slave labor in order to prop up the fiction that they had the same real wealth as that of the North.Uzique wrote:
errm well hey wise-ass, chinese political ideology has no room whatsoever for individualism, basically, for the mass anyway (i.e. the proletariat). so comparing the average GDP per capita to western societies where every individual is encouraged to 'reach their potential' and become essentially middle-class, petit-bourgeoisie people is a bit of a moot point. 'apples and oranges'. you can't measure the economic strengths of a democratic-capitalist state with a socialist-capitalist / ex-communist state. they have completely different approaches and means of evaluation when it comes to standards of 'wealth' and 'living standard'.
Sorry Pal, our big brother is way bigger than that. We are a collection of states bound by an ever increasingly intrusive central govt. Get it right.Uzique wrote:
that you're a union of federal self-governing states that are directly equatable to small nations?lowing wrote:
Not really no. However the fact that you compare a nation to ONE of our states is pretty tellingDilbert_X wrote:
How do you know Norway 'risks nothing'?
California sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.
See how your theory fails?
depends on how you want to interpret the constitutionUzique wrote:
that you're a union of federal self-governing states that are directly equatable to small nations?lowing wrote:
Not really no. However the fact that you compare a nation to ONE of our states is pretty tellingDilbert_X wrote:
How do you know Norway 'risks nothing'?
California sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.
See how your theory fails?
Uzique wrote:
that you're a union of federal self-governing states that are directly equatable to small nations?lowing wrote:
Not really no. However the fact that you compare a nation to ONE of our states is pretty tellingDilbert_X wrote:
How do you know Norway 'risks nothing'?
California sits in th corner of the world, risks nothing, but benefits from the risks of other nations, then pats itself on its back as to how great it is and how right it is.
See how your theory fails?
Texas would be nothing more than Kansas with less grass (cows) without it's oil boom.Uzique wrote:
btw john it mystifies me that you make the direct comparison to antebellum southern-states but then say
"china rising is a myth perpetuated to scare the west".
the south has modernized and the quality of living improved for all, no? texas is now a majorly wealthy state, no?
why is it that victorian england got over their industrial speedbumps and colonial-america freed itself... but china wont?
"china's unique burden is a myth perpetuated to keep the west comfortable at night"
you gotta be kidding me.... You honestly think the quality of life in Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh, Philly, etc is better than the quality of life in the burbs of Atlanta, Chattanooga, Huntsville, Raleigh, Charleston.. you are highJohnG@lt wrote:
Texas would be nothing more than Kansas with less grass (cows) without it's oil boom.Uzique wrote:
btw john it mystifies me that you make the direct comparison to antebellum southern-states but then say
"china rising is a myth perpetuated to scare the west".
the south has modernized and the quality of living improved for all, no? texas is now a majorly wealthy state, no?
why is it that victorian england got over their industrial speedbumps and colonial-america freed itself... but china wont?
"china's unique burden is a myth perpetuated to keep the west comfortable at night"
As for the South as a whole? They're still lagging very far behind the rest of the country in terms of quality of living. Even Florida, once you get past the touristy crap is full of trailer trash rednecks.
So no, aside from one state that had the fortune of immense natural resources to pull itself out of poverty, the rest of South is still very poor in comparison to the rest of the nation.
as well as comparatively same sized cities in the north. Lets face it, there is only 1 NYeleven bravo wrote:
bout named half the biggest cities in the south right there
The only city I'd live in that you named is Charleston. And yes, I'd take Philly over all of them.lowing wrote:
you gotta be kidding me.... You honestly think the quality of life in Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh, Philly, etc is better than the quality of life in the burbs of Atlanta, Chattanooga, Huntsville, Raleigh, Charleston.. you are highJohnG@lt wrote:
Texas would be nothing more than Kansas with less grass (cows) without it's oil boom.Uzique wrote:
btw john it mystifies me that you make the direct comparison to antebellum southern-states but then say
"china rising is a myth perpetuated to scare the west".
the south has modernized and the quality of living improved for all, no? texas is now a majorly wealthy state, no?
why is it that victorian england got over their industrial speedbumps and colonial-america freed itself... but china wont?
"china's unique burden is a myth perpetuated to keep the west comfortable at night"
As for the South as a whole? They're still lagging very far behind the rest of the country in terms of quality of living. Even Florida, once you get past the touristy crap is full of trailer trash rednecks.
So no, aside from one state that had the fortune of immense natural resources to pull itself out of poverty, the rest of South is still very poor in comparison to the rest of the nation.
it's already evolving into a very adept state-capitalist machine, investing heavily in africa and getting lucrative deals and securing little pockets of power here, there and everywhere. you could say it's actually very insidious. shady. the government funding yet-not-funding a lot of foreign interests and basically displaying that it is actively aware the maoist project will not be 'enough' to ensure future prosperity. as for a 'big event' or 'revolution' of sorts, perhaps. perhaps there will just be a mass famine again and a giant humanitarian crisis. 'growing pains', though, in the cold view of the economic long-term. in history books and studies we look at things over years, decades, centuries... and a bad year for people will mean nothing compared to a retrospective 100-year view of china's emergence as a world superpower.JohnG@lt wrote:
I didn't say that it was eternally doomed, I just said that it's wealth is built on the faux platform of serf labor. They're going to have to free their people at some point and it's not going to be pretty. If they emerge out of that turmoil with the goal of advancing their nation then yes, they will beat the crap out of the rest of us. Until then? It's all an illusion, the same as the productivity reports that came out of the USSR were.
and you are welcome to it. Remember, no give backs.JohnG@lt wrote:
The only city I'd live in that you named is Charleston. And yes, I'd take Philly over all of them.lowing wrote:
you gotta be kidding me.... You honestly think the quality of life in Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh, Philly, etc is better than the quality of life in the burbs of Atlanta, Chattanooga, Huntsville, Raleigh, Charleston.. you are highJohnG@lt wrote:
Texas would be nothing more than Kansas with less grass (cows) without it's oil boom.
As for the South as a whole? They're still lagging very far behind the rest of the country in terms of quality of living. Even Florida, once you get past the touristy crap is full of trailer trash rednecks.
So no, aside from one state that had the fortune of immense natural resources to pull itself out of poverty, the rest of South is still very poor in comparison to the rest of the nation.
Pittsburgh is a 'cute' little city as well. Full of fat people though.lowing wrote:
and you are welcome to it. Remember, no give backs.JohnG@lt wrote:
The only city I'd live in that you named is Charleston. And yes, I'd take Philly over all of them.lowing wrote:
you gotta be kidding me.... You honestly think the quality of life in Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh, Philly, etc is better than the quality of life in the burbs of Atlanta, Chattanooga, Huntsville, Raleigh, Charleston.. you are high
Well, you're going to get that in pretty much any American city. New York was founded, what? 1700 or so years after London was?Uzique wrote:
ive been to pittsburgh and that place had about as much culture as a mills and boon book
shit felt identikit, like it was just dropped out of the sky by generic designer or something
