China to overtake US economy by 2028

[littlepotter 76,610]

2 hours ago, Enigma said:

Everyone on here is shitting on China, the entire Republican Party is shitting on China, and I’ve never met a Democrat who was very found of China. Chill out.

Trump initially banned Chinese people (as in the nationality) from China, not people that came back from China at large, which was ****ing stupid and seemed racist.

You being worried about data being sold is very funny considering the US knows everything about you and is spying on everyone already.

If you really think Western society has “values” you’re wrong. What we have is development. Human rights generally come with that. But we started out as slave-owner white supremacists countries. We were never about morals.

A country with morals wouldn’t have workers in the third world just because they can exploit them. A country with morals wouldn’t overthrow leaders from third world country for their own interest. A country with morals wouldn’t kill civilians in the sake of oil. 

Please. The US is an imperialist country with no morals. 

And no, this isn’t me defending China. China is ****ing awful. But guess what? There isn’t always a “good side”. We’re not in a Marvel movie.

Academy award

[alsemanche 97,799]

3 hours ago, Enigma said:

Everyone on here is shitting on China, the entire Republican Party is shitting on China, and I’ve never met a Democrat who was very found of China. Chill out.

Trump initially banned Chinese people (as in the nationality) from China, not people that came back from China at large, which was ****ing stupid and seemed racist.

You being worried about data being sold is very funny considering the US knows everything about you and is spying on everyone already.

If you really think Western society has “values” you’re wrong. What we have is development. Human rights generally come with that. But we started out as slave-owner white supremacists countries. We were never about morals.

A country with morals wouldn’t have workers in the third world just because they can exploit them. A country with morals wouldn’t overthrow leaders from third world country for their own interest. A country with morals wouldn’t kill civilians in the sake of oil. 

Please. The US is an imperialist country with no morals. 

And no, this isn’t me defending China. China is ****ing awful. But guess what? There isn’t always a “good side”. We’re not in a Marvel movie.

This. 

[Economy 52,845]

4 hours ago, Miss Dolly said:

Just a little question, what are your thoughts on Democratic socialism as a political system in a country? 

If I'm not mistaken part of the idea of democratic socialism is that the population gets a vote on policy (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Tbh I don't think the majority of the population understands most things well enough for that to work. The complexity of offsetting factors, net benefits vs backfiring of policies and unintended consequences doesn't seem to be something the majority of people go deep into and I think that's extremely important for policy making. Most people tend to favour a policy because there's a problem they've identified and that policies intent is to fix it but then there's not always much consideration on whether or not it would actually work, what are the possible downsides and unintended consequences etc.

 

To be blunt at this time I don't think people are intelligent or mature enough at this time to handle that much democracy. Maybe if we come up with a system to teach politics, economics and other social elements in schools at a deeper level and as unbiasly as possible and ppl understood things better then it might work

 

But based on ppls lack of understanding of everything in general having population influence policy to that degree to me is no different than a patient that doesn't understand squat about the complexities of the human body trying to tell a doctor how he should be treated because he's got a certain symptom completely oblivious as to how that treatment might do more harm than good to him for a variety of reasons

 

As for the aspect of increased social safety nets, more progressive taxes to make wealthy pay a higher share etc as a general rule I think that's beneficial. But the only thing I'll say about that is that the more tax revenue a Country takes from individuals and businesses and private sector to run their own government programs the more critical it is for the government to be competent, efficient and know what they are doing

 

While I think an economy run with more emphasis on equality and redistribution (within reason) is generally a positive thing, I do believe it's still possible to do more harm than good if the government doesn't invest the resources it collects properly or efficiently and with a good plan because if that's the case then your draining capital out of the private sector without enough to show for it to make the positives outway the cons

 

Sorry for the long answer but that's my general take on it

 

[GagaSine 7,464]

10 hours ago, Economy said:

I don't see how that's relevant to what im talking about

 

Your talking about regressive distribution of wealth and regressive taxation which is a totally seperate thing to what I was talking about. I was talking about economic systems and means of production and resource alocation. A system can be capitalist without having that kind of tax structure. It's a totally seperate thing to the issue we were discussing

 

I don't disagree that those things u brought up are a problem btw and we've discussed them before. I'm just saying they aren't what define a system. The US for example has been capitalist for a very long time now but didn't have issues with regressive taxes till last few decades in fact it was quite progressive but it doesn't mean the US wasn't capitalist. How progressive or regressive a tax system is doesn't really define the type of economy at its core. Those are more superficial policies that come and go and get changed as parties and leader change, they aren't part of the macro-economic foundational system at its root

 

 

Well I just mean I don’t think that is entirely “efficient”, I can think of hundreds of examples where the way capitalism runs is not particularly efficient, unless you’re only talking about increasing profits and ignoring the human cost. But even then, people would spend more if they got paid more. I guess it’s not possible to be completely efficient anyway.

[Economy 52,845]

6 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

Well I just mean I don’t think that is entirely “efficient”, I can think of hundreds of examples where the way capitalism runs is not particularly efficient, unless you’re only talking about increasing profits and ignoring the human cost. But even then, people would spend more if they got paid more. I guess it’s not possible to be completely efficient anyway.

I think ur thinking more about redistribution and more equality. That's not quite the same as socialism vs capitalism

 

The US used to have very high taxes on the rich many decades ago but it was still a capitalist free enterprise. It had a few socialist attributes but at its core it was still capitalism. These free handouts to the rich and regressive taxes is what many call "chrony capitalism" or a corrupt form of it. It's not what defines capitalism.

 

Capitalism basically is the idea of free market and private companies doing the investing of products and innovation. Taxing the rich more to pay for programs doesn't make a society not capitalist. Many like to refer to Countries like in Northern Europe as socialist because of their emphasis on more distribution. But by definition that's not accurate, they are still capitalist.

 

Now ppl use the word socialism in different contexts and as long as we agree what we're talking about I'm not one to put too much emphasis on the technical definitions of a word as I think the point were discussing is more important than how a word is being used.

 

I'm just trying to explain what I was talking about in the comment that's all.

 

Also to what u said at the end, yes people spend more if they make more (more fairredistribution can help with that). But better redistribution does not increase the total amount that can be consumed, it just means the rich consume less and the average person can consume more relative to the rich

 

A service or good still has to be produced before it can be consumed. So the issue with over staffing or inneficient production of goods that you tend to see with Government Owned Corporations is that if the government ran too many companies like that the economy could be so unproductive that even better distribution wouldn't offset lower productivity for the average person

 

If the middle class owns only 30% of a $100 Billion economy it's still more wealth than owning 50% of a $60 Billion economy

 

So while I support better redistribution via more progressive taxes, socialism at a deeper level than that or even communist where government took more direct control of operations in the economy, production of goods and resource allocation is something I'd never support unless governments learned to be more efficient

 

The government is better for a lot of things than the private sector but producing a good or service with as little resources as possible is not one of them because they never whatch their bottom line as closely as a private company trying to make a profit

 

So having the government own the company plant that manufacturers your shoes or a bag of chips might not be a particularly good idea. There has never been a country that I can think of that went that direction that was particularly prosperous. Even if the unemployment rate was low people were still poor. Creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs in redundant positions that aren't needed don't truly help the economy because your holding back productivity. That labor can be better used producing something else

[GagaSine 7,464]

@Economy I am talking more about how capitalism is actually currently functioning than the definition or how it work in books. I’m not saying socialism/government controlled production would be better, I just see a lot of evidence in the way capitalism is currently implemented in the west that it is valuing efficiency at all.

[Economy 52,845]

20 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

@Economy I am talking more about how capitalism is actually currently functioning than the definition or how it work in books. I’m not saying socialism/government controlled production would be better, I just see a lot of evidence in the way capitalism is currently implemented in the west that it is valuing efficiency at all.

No I get that. It's just that u replied to a comment where we were discussing government controlled production (or at least a much more active role) so it sounded like you were in favour of it.

 

You also brought up the regressive tax issues along with capitalism so I'm just saying the tax system in itself is a little seperate to economic system

 

Cuz again a more government controlled socialist economy can have a more flat tax too while a nation can still be capitalist at its core while still having progressive taxation for better redistribution

 

So I was just making it clear that taxation levels is not what defines socialism or capitalism (at least in the technical definition context we were discussing in the comment) cuz ur reply seemed to imply capitalism was bad because of how were favouring the rich with giveaways and low taxes. Regressive or even flat taxes is not necessarily a requirement of capitalism and in fact in the early days of capitalism before powerful lobbiests it wasn't

[shelby loved 384]

Anyone here want to fall in love and move to China with me?

[Guest]

The joking around in this thread is in very poor taste. It doesn't make you look cool or edgy. It makes you look ignorant and in some cases straight up stupid.

[Better Day 5,766]

10 hours ago, Economy said:

If I'm not mistaken part of the idea of democratic socialism is that the population gets a vote on policy (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Tbh I don't think the majority of the population understands most things well enough for that to work. The complexity of offsetting factors, net benefits vs backfiring of policies and unintended consequences doesn't seem to be something the majority of people go deep into and I think that's extremely important for policy making. Most people tend to favour a policy because there's a problem they've identified and that policies intent is to fix it but then there's not always much consideration on whether or not it would actually work, what are the possible downsides and unintended consequences etc.

 

To be blunt at this time I don't think people are intelligent or mature enough at this time to handle that much democracy. Maybe if we come up with a system to teach politics, economics and other social elements in schools at a deeper level and as unbiasly as possible and ppl understood things better then it might work

 

But based on ppls lack of understanding of everything in general having population influence policy to that degree to me is no different than a patient that doesn't understand squat about the complexities of the human body trying to tell a doctor how he should be treated because he's got a certain symptom completely oblivious as to how that treatment might do more harm than good to him for a variety of reasons

 

As for the aspect of increased social safety nets, more progressive taxes to make wealthy pay a higher share etc as a general rule I think that's beneficial. But the only thing I'll say about that is that the more tax revenue a Country takes from individuals and businesses and private sector to run their own government programs the more critical it is for the government to be competent, efficient and know what they are doing

 

While I think an economy run with more emphasis on equality and redistribution (within reason) is generally a positive thing, I do believe it's still possible to do more harm than good if the government doesn't invest the resources it collects properly or efficiently and with a good plan because if that's the case then your draining capital out of the private sector without enough to show for it to make the positives outway the cons

 

Sorry for the long answer but that's my general take on it

 

https://vittana.org/15-democratic-socialism-pros-and-cons

[Economy 52,845]

11 minutes ago, Miss Dolly said:

https://vittana.org/15-democratic-socialism-pros-and-cons

Just finished reading it and pretty much sums up a lot of the thoughts I already had!

 

Ultimately tho it further reinforces my point that there's a lot of pros and cons with a system like that and that in order for there to be a net benefit (pros outwaying cons) of such a system having a very competent government that can allocate resources well is very critical. That way the downsides are not as prominent while the positives shine to their full potential

 

But another layer to consider is also cultural attitudes from the population. One of the cons mentioned is how ppl could potentially be less motivated to put forward their best if they are guaranteed a decent living eitherway. The me first mentality common in western world would have to go. Ppl would need to adopt a mentality of working towards common goals and be willing to do things for the benefit of others and not just themselves. 

 

Such a strong cultural shift would be much easier said than done and to be totally honest I think visionaries or idealists like Bernie Sanders over estimate the general populations work ethic and drive in situations where it doesn't benefit themselves 

[Akiki 3,900]

On 12/26/2020 at 9:59 PM, gumzy3000 said:

Honestly, I think its a bit scary China is becoming the next super power. They have one of the WORST human rights record on the planet. If you think the the USA is bad, China is even worse. And no, this is not racist or xenophobic but its true. You should see what they are doing to the Muslims, minorities, Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Its scary living in a world with no freedom. 

Totally forgot that USA is a beacon of light. 

American is messed up in many ways. China is no good but America isn't far behind. 

[Economy 52,845]

18 hours ago, Enigma said:

Everyone on here is shitting on China, the entire Republican Party is shitting on China, and I’ve never met a Democrat who was very found of China. Chill out.

Trump initially banned Chinese people (as in the nationality) from China, not people that came back from China at large, which was ****ing stupid and seemed racist.

You being worried about data being sold is very funny considering the US knows everything about you and is spying on everyone already.

If you really think Western society has “values” you’re wrong. What we have is development. Human rights generally come with that. But we started out as slave-owner white supremacists countries. We were never about morals.

A country with morals wouldn’t have workers in the third world just because they can exploit them. A country with morals wouldn’t overthrow leaders from third world country for their own interest. A country with morals wouldn’t kill civilians in the sake of oil. 

Please. The US is an imperialist country with no morals. 

And no, this isn’t me defending China. China is ****ing awful. But guess what? There isn’t always a “good side”. We’re not in a Marvel movie.

The amount of tea in this post

 

It's actually a pet peeve of mine when the developed world tries to act all morally superior to poor nations all the time. Like we have a lot of our own shady and morally sketchy stuff going on even now not just during settlement times.

 

You can argue no one alive today was at fault for the attrocities of Countries like the US and Canada during slavery years and native abuse. But the fact is NOW we still are full of blood on our hands and human rights violations

 

We claim to end slavery... What about the slave child in Africa making our shoes or the guy in China or Phillipines or Taiwan who made our computers in a 14 hour, 6 day a week work schedule with almost no work breaks and getting payed next to nothing

 

That's still slavery were benefiting from, just not on our own soil

 

Another hypocrisy is environment. The developed world blames developing world for rising emissions and being slower to switch to renewables than rich countries...

 

But guess what, that pollution in Asia or growing emissions in Africa and South America is made to manufacture stuff WE consume in North America, Europe, Australia and Japan. So that's still OUR environmental impact in developed world. If those countries only produced what they consumed their ecological footprint would be next to nothing

 

Take out high consumption nations: USA, Canada, UK, European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand and global warming would essentially stop

 

Again acting morally superior when were nothing but hypocritical