Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
uziq
Member
+248|2021
we're very far away from 'presidential election' discussion here, but seeing as bf2s now resembles a series of boorish, not to say boring, continuing conversations that one circles and joins and leaves at a dinner party, as is one's whim, i'll put it here anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … 1577809553

By 2010, China was beginning to have an impact on the global consciousness in a new way. Prior to the western financial crisis, it had been seen as the new but very junior kid on the block. The financial crash changed all that. Before 2008 the conventional western wisdom had been that sooner or later China would suffer a big economic meltdown. It never did. Instead, the crisis happened in the west, with huge consequences for the latter’s stability and self-confidence.

Every year for the past decade, China, not the US, has been the main source of global economic growth. In 2014, according to the World Bank’s international comparison program, the Chinese economy overtook that of the US to become the world’s largest, measured by purchasing power parity. Although China’s growth rate over the past decade has declined to its present 6.2%, it is still one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. Today its economy is more than twice as big as it was in 2010.

This is the story, as pertaining to the past decade, of the most remarkable economic transformation in human history. Unsurprisingly the west is finding the phenomenon difficult to come to terms with, displaying a kaleidoscope of emotions from denial, dismissal and condemnation to respect, appreciation and admiration; though there is presently much more of the former than the latter. The rise of China has provoked an existential crisis in the US and Europe that will last for the rest of this century. The west is in the process of being displaced and, beyond a point, it can do nothing about it. China’s rise is one of those world-transforming changes that occur very rarely in history. And only during this past decade has the west begun to realise that China’s rise will, indeed, change the world.
the west wasn't ruined by overweening elites, liberal arts types too interested in Lucan and Pliny to have any forethought; it was brought to its knees by bankers, chancers and frauds, and the selfish plutocrats they cozied up to. wall street was deregulated and left to become its own sovereign power. the financial crash started all of this current decline and pessimistic frenzy: the populism, the lurch to the right, the anger and bitterness, debasing our public discourse; and the bailout cemented widespread disillusion and resentment as the dominant mood of the decade, even if not always aimed at the right targets. useful idiots like jay, claiming that the market can fix all things, whilst communities have been wiped away and lives discounted to 'save' the 'too big to fail' corporations and banks. the west's brand of neoliberal capitalism has made a mockery of the nation states of the west. we have nothing in answer to china's alternative model, except right-wing bullshit and a retreat to the politics of petty grievance and fear.

here's to the new decade!

Last edited by uziq (2019-12-31 10:19:35)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,783|5341|USA

Staying on topic probably had greater urgency when there were more active users.

Besides, I think Donald Trump brought up China before this thread.



e: Looking forward to how much video games will change in the 2020s! Ray-traced loot boxes, here I come.
uziq
Member
+248|2021
maybe by 2030 i’ll be able to give a fuck about the terrible games being made with ray-tracing.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,840|5201|949

i think it's a bit negligent to hold the western economy to task and assign blame without also turning the same discerning eye to China. China's economy is notoriously inflated, with estimates ranging from 20%-50%, due to internal money transfers and other banking shell games not unlike the debt commodity trading that ushered in the GFC in the first place.

I'm of the opinion that it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison between a planned capitalist economy and a mixed market economy, especially when it comes to economic growth and the somewhat nebulous value of "largest economy in the world". It also seems the author glosses over or fails to really drill down the reasons for China's economic progress going forward (probably due to space constraints -it's an op ed, afterall). I really take him to task about his non-critical celebration of the "Belt and Road" initiative, which is basically just China's version of imperialism, albeit from a much more strategic perspective, as opposed to brute-force western imperialism we are all familiar with. However, I think there are some key "lessons learned" that will undoubtedly go over a lot of western-based economists heads for whatever reason, including the heuristic that breeds future little Freidmans. I think it's worth noting the beneficial aspects of having a planned economy, notably the rapid rise of both the USSR and PRC from agrarian societies to world players. I think it's obvious when looking at that rapid rise, along with some of the other Asian Tigers (especially Japan and South Korea, but also to some extent Singapore) that public-private economic partnerships between government and industry can work beyond the conventional neoliberal economic models (specifically where western economists target government financial support only in strategic markets where the native economy has an already existing competitive advantage). These countries were able to focus on building industry and advantages from scratch, and were largely successful.

It's also very hard for me to reconcile what Larssen terms as "western greatness" with the fact that western economic and democratic policy has left rubble behind in virtually every place we've touched; in the very literal sense and in a symbolic 'my community is ruined" sense. I do not for one minute believe the stated goals of exporting democracy and an improved standard of living, because the realities before, during, and after actions taken do not align with that goal.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+294|2289
We should have nice VR by 2025 at least.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,840|5201|949

people have been talking about VR for 20+ years now. I don't want to look like a constipated troglodyte jumping over crude blocks while flailing around. It needs to get a LOT better to be taken seriously.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+294|2289
Larssen
Member
+19|457

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

i think it's a bit negligent to hold the western economy to task and assign blame without also turning the same discerning eye to China. China's economy is notoriously inflated, with estimates ranging from 20%-50%, due to internal money transfers and other banking shell games not unlike the debt commodity trading that ushered in the GFC in the first place.

I'm of the opinion that it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison between a planned capitalist economy and a mixed market economy, especially when it comes to economic growth and the somewhat nebulous value of "largest economy in the world". It also seems the author glosses over or fails to really drill down the reasons for China's economic progress going forward (probably due to space constraints -it's an op ed, afterall). I really take him to task about his non-critical celebration of the "Belt and Road" initiative, which is basically just China's version of imperialism, albeit from a much more strategic perspective, as opposed to brute-force western imperialism we are all familiar with. However, I think there are some key "lessons learned" that will undoubtedly go over a lot of western-based economists heads for whatever reason, including the heuristic that breeds future little Freidmans. I think it's worth noting the beneficial aspects of having a planned economy, notably the rapid rise of both the USSR and PRC from agrarian societies to world players. I think it's obvious when looking at that rapid rise, along with some of the other Asian Tigers (especially Japan and South Korea, but also to some extent Singapore) that public-private economic partnerships between government and industry can work beyond the conventional neoliberal economic models (specifically where western economists target government financial support only in strategic markets where the native economy has an already existing competitive advantage). These countries were able to focus on building industry and advantages from scratch, and were largely successful.

It's also very hard for me to reconcile what Larssen terms as "western greatness" with the fact that western economic and democratic policy has left rubble behind in virtually every place we've touched; in the very literal sense and in a symbolic 'my community is ruined" sense. I do not for one minute believe the stated goals of exporting democracy and an improved standard of living, because the realities before, during, and after actions taken do not align with that goal.
I don't think the intent behind the spread of western ideology already envisioned the destruction capitalism would bring to many places in the world. This is a bit more complicated because it's impossible to speak in terms of a uniform 'western' approach the world over. Many of the places that were poor and remained so became stuck in neocolonial realities after they fought for their independence in the 50s-70s, forced upon them by mostly European interest or even just due to the structures we built there over hundreds of years. Have we turned a blind eye to corporate exploitation? Yes, we have, to the detriment of millions.

The point you raise on private-public partnerships is an interesting one and in a sense you can see at least a grassroots movement in that direction in the West as the public is growing more cynical and demanding of the role the corporate world occupies in our societies. Vastly different to the Asian concepts, with which I'm not too familiar. I do wonder if in many of these countries, esp. China, you can truly speak of a 'partnership' with the private sector. It seems to me the government assumes the right to intervene in any sort of company affairs whenever it deems this to be necessary. I am very interested in learning of examples such as Singapore and Japan, though I'm sure many will argue the contexts are too different to our own or that the countries aren't performing all that well.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-01-06 14:09:39)

uziq
Member
+248|2021
look at the chaebols in south korea. family firms that are very corrupt and closely intermingled with politics.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+294|2289
"The American Middle Class as Victim"
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/ … irtytales/

An article from the one National Review writer that is actually worth reading.  It's mostly just criticism of Warren's focus on middle issues. I know National Review's ultimate goal is to save the wealthy from as much taxes as possible but I like the headline.

Anyway, I think the American middle class does get off too easy when it comes to criticism of our economic system. It is the middle class managers who commit the most direct acts of cruelty towards low income people. It's the beloved small business owners of America who practice exclusionary hiring practices and purposely provide poor services. It's the American middle class who vote to cut up the social safety net. It's middle class culture to look down on others and pretend your shit doesn't stink.

I am not advocating fucking over the middle class. I am mostly just criticizing the tone of our politics and how we frame the discussion we have and the policies those discussions produce.
uziq
Member
+248|2021
it's small business owners who also set-up businesses that source locally and have worker cooperatives, though. the characterisation isn't quite accurate.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-08 05:49:03)

SuperJail Warden
Member
+294|2289
The amount of farmer co-ops is insignificant in the U.S.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,994|3927|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

The amount of farmer co-ops is insignificant in the U.S.
Wrong
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+294|2289
I decided to support Joe Biden for president. His wife is a teacher and will fight the Republicans for our teacher lounge iced coffee machines.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,673|4675|eXtreme to the maX
Where does Trump stand on iced covfefe machines?
Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,673|4675|eXtreme to the maX
Where has the COVFEFE bill got to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVFEFE_Act
Epstein didn't kill himself
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,783|5341|USA

Didn't Trump winkingly tweet to everyone to have fun figuring out what covfefe meant as if it were some intentional prank?
SuperJail Warden
Member
+294|2289
Democrat cucks are going to lose the election and Sulaimani thing encapsulates why. They still don't understand why people think Trump is alpha. Elizabeth "Ace of Spades" Warren is the most egregious example.
https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Warren-on-Soleimani-as-a-murderer.png
"Soleimani was a murderer". Why would you give Trump any ground on the issue? If you acknowledge he is a bad guy, people will eventually come around to the idea that killing him was a good thing. If you genuinely want to oppose an Iran adventure abandon nuanced discussions of Middle Eastern politics. Focus solely on the American cost of a war in the area instead.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+733|5254|United States of America
Kim Jong-un is a "bad guy" and it's still unwise to assassinate him in the interest of maintaining stability. It's a far worse look if they don't actually acknowledge the truth of who Soleimani was and pretend he was a sweet baby angel. Spoiler: "DEMS SUPPORT TERRORISTS"
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,783|5341|USA

What DesertFox said. No time has been wasted in framing the Dems as being in bed with the Iranian government or whatever, and people lap that up. Dems are maneuvered into a difficult position where they have to carefully explain why assassinating Soleimani might not have the desired effect, while at the same time acknowledge what sort of person he was. But at the same time, to some listeners it will sound like they're either backpedaling, stalling, or giving Trump credit. But it's a small bushfire that could get worse if ignored.

Low brow politics.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,840|5201|949

Macbeth has the worst perspective on american politics on this website. Surprise surprise.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+294|2289
I actually got that idea from a podcast of strong Bernie supporters. They compared Warren's response to the no nonsense response of Bernie.

I know you are a supporter of Zombie Sanders so I am surprised you don't agree.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,673|4675|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth has the worst perspective on american politics on this website. Surprise surprise.
Ken is using the Trump playbook now, anyone who holds different views is stupid and fake.
Epstein didn't kill himself
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,840|5201|949

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I actually got that idea from a podcast of strong Bernie supporters. They compared Warren's response to the no nonsense response of Bernie.

I know you are a supporter of Zombie Sanders so I am surprised you don't agree.
I don't agree with political theater. Never liked it, probably never will.
uziq
Member
+248|2021
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020 … and-shield

new yorker takes a long dip on william barr. about as nutty as you'd expect.

the culture war opener reminds me of textbook macbeth, which shows possibly how confused and mixed up that guy is at present. as for the rest of barr's conduct, i can imagine it chiming with someone of the intelligence of a Jay.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard