maffiaw
ph33r me 傻逼
+40|6391|Melbourne, AUS
I agree with your statement that the Chinese government doesn't have "ethics" with regards to their policies, but all policies as you have pointed out, a governed by cold hard self-interest. As to the degree various governments do this - that is up for debate.

You may also dismiss my "mental gymnastics" with a wave of your hand, but the fact remains that the Communist Govt from 1979 onwards has achieved tremendous strides forward, recovering from the disastrous Maoist economics of yonder years into the position it is in now. These cannot be dismissed so easily. As I said before, we would not be having to rather lively debate if China were not a power player in the current world arena.
Whether the price paid to get to this step has been right, or worth it, is again up for debate.

I am sure that people of China will have different views, as will people from HK and the West. You can rightfully disagree with me, and I respect that.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

maffiaw wrote:

Really Turq? I may have had a similar argument with you ages ago, I dunno.

Falun Gong is another matter - why is it always brought up? This thread is about economics ffs. It's not some mudcake that you can throw anytime.

Killing off millions - do you mean One Child Policy, or Tiananmen?

One Child Policy - Without it China will be like India today - cramped, shanty towns even more crowded than today. It is loosely enforced in the countryside, where farmers have to have a son - they have to pay a fine for a 2nd child. It has created a massive male overpopulation and that is going to be a huge problem for the future.

Tiananmen - The popular perception is that it was a suppression of pro-democracy activists in 1989. This is partly true. One can argue that without such brutal suppression, China will be still be mired in poverty, and perhaps even severely Balkanised  and weakened like Russia today, except with a much larger population to feed. Another group of demonstrators were in fact workers wanting to return to Communism - they were afraid of future economic gap due to Deng's sino-capitalism. You could argue that the suppression was done for the survival of capitalism.

So, was all this Commie brouhaha just for killing's sake, or a longer term advantage for the country? (as well as their own hold on power). Well if it weren't, China wouldn't have lifted 500 million ppl out of poverty, wouldn't be such a threat to some of you guys, the Pentagon wouldn't be running ecowar games on it, and Cyborg wouldn't be so ascerbic.
Call it whatever you like, but there's no denying that the Chinese government is made up of masters of Machiavellianism.  They do whatever is most practical without any real concern for ethics.

So again, you can use whatever mental gymnastics you like to defend their tactics, but you're not fooling anyone.

But hey, I'll admit that most governments do some of the same.  The only difference is that countries like America can't quite go to the same extremes as China because their people demand more ethics.  As fucked up as America can be, we haven't quite reached the China level of ruthlessness.
Which, combined with China's vast workforce and current economic placement, means they are perfectly positioned to easily win any economic scenario played out.

It's not like China don't have their own markets, as Kmarion suggests (most of the population may live in poverty but there are still the odd couple of hundred million who don't - which is a lot (in fact it's not far off being the same size market as the US)) and the rest of the world isn't going to fold overnight - Chinese imports are far too important for the West to stop buying them anytime in the foreseeable future.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

maffiaw wrote:

I agree with your statement that the Chinese government doesn't have "ethics" with regards to their policies, but all policies as you have pointed out, a governed by cold hard self-interest. As to the degree various governments do this - that is up for debate.

You may also dismiss my "mental gymnastics" with a wave of your hand, but the fact remains that the Communist Govt from 1979 onwards has achieved tremendous strides forward, recovering from the disastrous Maoist economics of yonder years into the position it is in now. These cannot be dismissed so easily. As I said before, we would not be having to rather lively debate if China were not a power player in the current world arena.
Whether the price paid to get to this step has been right, or worth it, is again up for debate.

I am sure that people of China will have different views, as will people from HK and the West. You can rightfully disagree with me, and I respect that.
Thanks, and I respect your difference of opinion as well.  No one can dispute that what China has done has been very effective.

They've been extremely clever and have essentially beaten America at its own game.

My only argument is that the human cost has been extremely high.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Which, combined with China's vast workforce and current economic placement, means they are perfectly positioned to easily win any economic scenario played out.

It's not like China don't have their own markets, as Kmarion suggests (most of the population may live in poverty but there are still the odd couple of hundred million who don't - which is a lot (in fact it's not far off being the same size market as the US)) and the rest of the world isn't going to fold overnight - Chinese imports are far too important for the West to stop buying them anytime in the foreseeable future.
All true.  I wouldn't be surprised if China ends up buying a lot of our banks and automakers eventually.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

maffiaw wrote:

I agree with your statement that the Chinese government doesn't have "ethics" with regards to their policies, but all policies as you have pointed out, a governed by cold hard self-interest. As to the degree various governments do this - that is up for debate.

You may also dismiss my "mental gymnastics" with a wave of your hand, but the fact remains that the Communist Govt from 1979 onwards has achieved tremendous strides forward, recovering from the disastrous Maoist economics of yonder years into the position it is in now. These cannot be dismissed so easily. As I said before, we would not be having to rather lively debate if China were not a power player in the current world arena.
Whether the price paid to get to this step has been right, or worth it, is again up for debate.

I am sure that people of China will have different views, as will people from HK and the West. You can rightfully disagree with me, and I respect that.
Thanks, and I respect your difference of opinion as well.  No one can dispute that what China has done has been very effective.

They've been extremely clever and have essentially beaten America at its own game.

My only argument is that the human cost has been extremely high.
But has it been high enough to hinder them?

I think they've been very clever in giving people just enough civil liberties for them to stay productive and controllable yet not so many that they lose any of their vice like grip over them....
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

But has it been high enough to hinder them?

I think they've been very clever in giving people just enough civil liberties for them to stay productive and controllable yet not so many that they lose any of their vice like grip over them....
I think you misunderstand me.  In terms of practicality, everything they've done (just about) has been effective.

I'm saying that they may eventually have to be less practical in order to increase their quality of life (like granting more liberties than they currently do).
maffiaw
ph33r me 傻逼
+40|6391|Melbourne, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

maffiaw wrote:

I agree with your statement that the Chinese government doesn't have "ethics" with regards to their policies, but all policies as you have pointed out, a governed by cold hard self-interest. As to the degree various governments do this - that is up for debate.

You may also dismiss my "mental gymnastics" with a wave of your hand, but the fact remains that the Communist Govt from 1979 onwards has achieved tremendous strides forward, recovering from the disastrous Maoist economics of yonder years into the position it is in now. These cannot be dismissed so easily. As I said before, we would not be having to rather lively debate if China were not a power player in the current world arena.
Whether the price paid to get to this step has been right, or worth it, is again up for debate.

I am sure that people of China will have different views, as will people from HK and the West. You can rightfully disagree with me, and I respect that.
Thanks, and I respect your difference of opinion as well.  No one can dispute that what China has done has been very effective.

They've been extremely clever and have essentially beaten America at its own game.

My only argument is that the human cost has been extremely high.
It may be so, and perhaps future generations of Chinese may see their past and government differently. Should we leave it at that?

China is a extremely complex topic, and believe me, having coming from that ethnic background and lived there, only makes things less clear cut.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

maffiaw wrote:

It may be so, and perhaps future generations of Chinese may see their past and government differently. Should we leave it at that?

China is a extremely complex topic, and believe me, having coming from that ethnic background and lived there, only makes things less clear cut.
Well, I figure since you come from there, you might be able to give some insight as to how the average Chinese person views civil liberties.
maffiaw
ph33r me 傻逼
+40|6391|Melbourne, AUS
Civil liberties - If you mean a right for political freedom, I do not think this ranks high in the majority populace. The Chinese culture is one of pragmatism and practicality. Ironically you could argue that the 1989 incident was partly due to the ill-treatment (financially) of the intelligentsia.

The rule of law - this ranks high. The corruption of local officials - bribery, cover-ups of disasters, even traffic laws etc. This is an ongoing issue and one which I think will improve. A good example is the SARS epidemic, where local health officials tried to cover-up making it worse. They were sacked. Or the official caught on camera wearing a $10000USD Constantin watch by an online vigilante group which put enough pressure on the Govt to get him sacked. Of course many other cases are not discovered. Low-level corruption seems to an endemic problem and there is enough public pressure for the govt to take notice.

Net Firewall - I personally think this is doomed to failure once a big chunk of the 300million or so net users get savvy enough to bypass it. I also think it is inefficient, and the resources should be put to good use elsewhere. The govt is already finding the net hard to police and I think once the older more conservative factions in the Propaganda Bureau die off a more sensible approach will be taken.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina
I will say that one thing I like about the Chinese system is how practical it is in dispatching corrupt officials and corrupt businessmen.

We should probably execute people like Bernie Madoff to make an example out of them.
maffiaw
ph33r me 傻逼
+40|6391|Melbourne, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

I will say that one thing I like about the Chinese system is how practical it is in dispatching corrupt officials and corrupt businessmen.

We should probably execute people like Bernie Madoff to make an example out of them.
I personally agree - but we shouldn't introduce a debate about capital punishment into this thread!

It might also interest you that a recent regulation requires all death sentences in China to be sent to the High Court for review before being carried out. Perhaps we will see a reduction, or maybe not - who knows?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

maffiaw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I will say that one thing I like about the Chinese system is how practical it is in dispatching corrupt officials and corrupt businessmen.

We should probably execute people like Bernie Madoff to make an example out of them.
I personally agree - but we shouldn't introduce a debate about capital punishment into this thread!

It might also interest you that a recent regulation requires all death sentences in China to be sent to the High Court for review before being carried out. Perhaps we will see a reduction, or maybe not - who knows?
Heh... that probably depends more on bribery than anything else... 
maffiaw
ph33r me 傻逼
+40|6391|Melbourne, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

maffiaw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I will say that one thing I like about the Chinese system is how practical it is in dispatching corrupt officials and corrupt businessmen.

We should probably execute people like Bernie Madoff to make an example out of them.
I personally agree - but we shouldn't introduce a debate about capital punishment into this thread!

It might also interest you that a recent regulation requires all death sentences in China to be sent to the High Court for review before being carried out. Perhaps we will see a reduction, or maybe not - who knows?
Heh... that probably depends more on bribery than anything else... 
I would say personal connections would have more influence here. E.g some high ranking justice dept official to twist a few levers to lower the sentence to life imprisonment or something. But as death sentences are taken quite seriously, I doubt they would get away scot free.

Kind of like in the US a rich well connected parent hiring a massive team of lawyers to defend their son for rape or something while twisting a few arms in govt. You know what I mean. Connections connections!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687
Tyranny. Gets shit done. At least the PRC learned about how fucked up beaurocracy can be sometimes. We got a shitload of corruption here in Taiwan lulz.

From a personal standpoint, China depends on the West more than the West depand on China.

After NAFTA was signed, I find it extremely retarded why US corporations haven't moved a lot of their factories to Mexico. Maybe it's due to the fact that Mexico is almost a failed state. Kinda like why no one gives a fuck about Africa, despite the amount of resources over there compared to the Middle East. Dictatorships are win for corporations. Once China goes fully democratic, they'll move to somewhere else.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

Tyranny. Gets shit done. At least the PRC learned about how fucked up beaurocracy can be sometimes. We got a shitload of corruption here in Taiwan lulz.

From a personal standpoint, China depends on the West more than the West depand on China.

After NAFTA was signed, I find it extremely retarded why US corporations haven't moved a lot of their factories to Mexico. Maybe it's due to the fact that Mexico is almost a failed state. Kinda like why no one gives a fuck about Africa, despite the amount of resources over there compared to the Middle East. Dictatorships are win for corporations. Once China goes fully democratic, they'll move to somewhere else.
Pretty much.  I think the reason why Mexico didn't see much industry is because China is still cheaper.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Tyranny. Gets shit done. At least the PRC learned about how fucked up beaurocracy can be sometimes. We got a shitload of corruption here in Taiwan lulz.

From a personal standpoint, China depends on the West more than the West depand on China.

After NAFTA was signed, I find it extremely retarded why US corporations haven't moved a lot of their factories to Mexico. Maybe it's due to the fact that Mexico is almost a failed state. Kinda like why no one gives a fuck about Africa, despite the amount of resources over there compared to the Middle East. Dictatorships are win for corporations. Once China goes fully democratic, they'll move to somewhere else.
Pretty much.  I think the reason why Mexico didn't see much industry is because China is still cheaper.
Personally I still think it's because either

A) Political/Social situation in Mexico
B) Asian market is pretty big.

I think B > A personally.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6592|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

From a personal standpoint, China depends on the West more than the West depand on China.
That sums it all up tbh. They don't have much except for making cheap shit to sell to the west/other big asian countries. Unlike alot of the other more free countries, there's not the same internal economy/market. At the end of the day, China probably isn't a country that's known for its entrepreneurial spirit or business mind (PRC, yeah yeah we all know about places like HK or Taiwan). The US/West/Japan and some of the other Asian countries still holds the advantage in terms of having the populace with the correct state of mind, IMO

All the PRC is like, is a giant factory with no real spirit
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Tyranny. Gets shit done. At least the PRC learned about how fucked up beaurocracy can be sometimes. We got a shitload of corruption here in Taiwan lulz.

From a personal standpoint, China depends on the West more than the West depand on China.

After NAFTA was signed, I find it extremely retarded why US corporations haven't moved a lot of their factories to Mexico. Maybe it's due to the fact that Mexico is almost a failed state. Kinda like why no one gives a fuck about Africa, despite the amount of resources over there compared to the Middle East. Dictatorships are win for corporations. Once China goes fully democratic, they'll move to somewhere else.
Pretty much.  I think the reason why Mexico didn't see much industry is because China is still cheaper.
Personally I still think it's because either

A) Political/Social situation in Mexico
B) Asian market is pretty big.

I think B > A personally.
Good point...
Man With No Name
جندي
+148|5545|The Wild West
the chinese own a lot of American real estate
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6519|San Diego, CA, USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

..and when that happens they will be able to afford to sell off our bonds.
You think they'll still be worth anything?
We would Null and Void them if there was any military action.
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6620
Short-term China would win eitherway. They already own so much of America/relied on by America that it'd be like a world class athlete winning the special olympics.


Long-term they'd be screwed. They rely on western imports and when shit hit the fan, they'll start noticing their balance of payments aren't quite as pretty as before which will result in a crash. Then it'll be the prized commie being hit by a lot of shit.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2009-04-12 12:01:41)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard