Remove this ad

#1001 [url]

Jun 9 17 5:45 AM

Beardfist wrote:
China does have ghost town structures because of those problems, but it also has a ready-made solution to that problem: the massive amounts of country people who are literally not allowed to move to the cities without being treated as second-class citizens with barely any rights. It's going to have trouble moving people from the crowded population centers into the abandoned towns, but if it eases up regulation to allow the outsiders to come in all at once, it could have a solution. The problem, though, is that many of those properties charge expensive rents - which the countrygoers can't afford.

It's also a convenient way, from what I understand, to launder money as well as boost your supposed economic output. And a 'use it or lose it' approach with money given to regions. It's a whole lot of a mess to keep things looking strong on the outside, but there is still an iron base there. It will likely go into recession or depression even soon, but that is natural for economies in general.

ya - those ghost cities... it'll be fun to see what'll happen with them

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1002 [url]

Jun 9 17 7:26 AM

I'm sure the actual people reporting on all this know this already but keep going for all the clicks and people watching and so on - people are falling into this trap.

The trap being, you can't impeach someone just because you don't like them. There's a very high bar for impeachment and with good reason.

Let's look at Watergate. Technically not an impeachment because Nixon resigned first but it probably would have been if he didn't.

First, from the start of events that led to his resignation (and at that point, I really doubt anyone would have thought he was in involved - I mean, why would you?) it took like a year or two in total, didn't it?

Furthermore, I don't think it would have been possible without a lot of help from Nixon himself. If he'd just not recorded all that stuff or even had there been a convenient fire where all the tapes were stored the moment that guy first dropped a mention of them that led to their discovery, I very much doubt that things would have gone anywhere.

Finally ... and everyone who knows any basic US civics should know, you need a majority vote in the Congress Lower House and then a two-thirds vote (so 67 senators) in the Senate/Upper House. Nixon had a majority Democratic Lower and Upper House but even then, they still needed Republican senators to join in. It's a high threshold for a reason. I presume Nixon resigned because it was a fait accompli  that there were already enough votes. I know everyone reporting on this already knows this.

So maybe down the line things might change but it a) would have to be rock solid evidence of a very serious crime and b) even if that point is reached (which is never easy - and that's a good thing) - the process (Articles of Impeachment) would probably take a year or more. We're not and there's a good chance we'll never be at a), never mind b).

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1003 [url]

Jun 9 17 9:35 AM

Right. Placeholder here to remind me to come back here and start on my huge backlog of posts to debate on behalf of the Left Faction. First stop, saving the EPA (once I can find where all those posts about it were when it came up). Next stop Voter Fraud and the lack of thereof. No, not potentially inflammatory at all.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,944

#1004 [url]

Jun 9 17 10:58 AM

Beardfist wrote:
A large part of China's economy as an industrializing country was that. It's in a transition period, now, however. Their middle class is growing quickly, and buying up luxury goods from outside - and providing services and the usual habitations of an affluent society to boot. You're starting to see more construction, more high-quality manufacturing, and less demand for commodities like coal or iron - what manufacturing plants still exist are running afoul of proto-unions (especially chinese mining companies) and shifting to other industries, particularly military manufacture. Their double-digit growth has dropped to around 7% according to their figures, though as with much anything in China there's a certain dubiousness to whether or not that's accurate or buffed up (likely buffed up). Revolt, however, is not something I believe to be on the rise.
To be clear my point was if their growth falls below (what IIRC is) 5.5% they're facing revolt. It's not an issue of their middle class having to buy one last car, it's a system collapse.
.
.
Shan wrote:
Right. Placeholder here to remind me to come back here and start on my huge backlog of posts to debate on behalf of the Left Faction. First stop, saving the EPA (once I can find where all those posts about it were when it came up). Next stop Voter Fraud and the lack of thereof. No, not potentially inflammatory at all.
You also are 10 months overdue to explain how the raw data doesn't show Obama only narrowly defeating Romney in the electoral college in 2012. Also, what's with all the double and triple posting lately?

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Last Edited By: SmashLampjaw Jun 9 17 1:47 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#1007 [url]

Jun 12 17 3:43 AM

oh don't lock the thread

and ya, it'll be quite interesting to see how China will handle things. Considering that the chinese government has repeatedly showed that they are perfectly willing to use its military to crush dissent and uprisings, then I do not think that the country as a whole will collapse from such an economic recession.

Oh sure, there will be plenty of unhappy people. There will be plenty of unemployed people. But there wont be any uprisings. At worst it'll become a bit like North Korea: With the military being the only well funded organization in the government, with everyone else just shutting up and getting with the program - or getting shot

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1008 [url]

Jun 12 17 4:00 AM

it's not that. It's when I think I've possibly tripped in forum etiquette (or know I have because I've been told in no uncertain terms) that I boot myself off the forums for at least 48 hours and often even longer.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 163

#1009 [url]

Jun 12 17 9:19 AM

SmashLampjaw wrote:

Beardfist wrote:
A large part of China's economy as an industrializing country was that. It's in a transition period, now, however. Their middle class is growing quickly, and buying up luxury goods from outside - and providing services and the usual habitations of an affluent society to boot. You're starting to see more construction, more high-quality manufacturing, and less demand for commodities like coal or iron - what manufacturing plants still exist are running afoul of proto-unions (especially chinese mining companies) and shifting to other industries, particularly military manufacture. Their double-digit growth has dropped to around 7% according to their figures, though as with much anything in China there's a certain dubiousness to whether or not that's accurate or buffed up (likely buffed up). Revolt, however, is not something I believe to be on the rise.

To be clear my point was if their growth falls below (what IIRC is) 5.5% they're facing revolt. It's not an issue of their middle class having to buy one last car, it's a system collapse.


 

I don't know that I entirely agree with that sentiment, as much as either of us is an expert on a country that intentionally obfuscates any bad information about it. Thought it is certainly true that the country has got enough ticking time bombs to lead to that, if the economy falls into a recession that strong. I just read an article about soil pollution, for example, and how it's going to grossly exacerbate the already-pressing problem of food stability in China. The country being forced to rely on greater amounts of imported food because of soil pollution will certainly put pressure on the economy to remain able to keep that up - all while the state needing funding to remedy the water and air pollution that drives health similarly down.

I suppose in the event of an economic contraction that strong, revolt isn't out of the question - but I don't think the Han majority will be the ones to spark it. I think it'll come from places like Xinjiang or Tibet, which have significant racial minorities who are already strongly oppressed by the government. Hong Kong could also symbolically revolt, given that the Umbrella movement (pro-self-autonomy) is already particularly strong there.

Last Edited By: Beardfist Jun 12 17 9:23 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,944

#1010 [url]

Jun 12 17 12:27 PM

@Shan - You punished yourself for double-posting by double-posting off-topic images...

...

...

.

Beardfist wrote:
I don't know that I entirely agree with that sentiment, as much as either of us is an expert on a country that intentionally obfuscates any bad information about it.
I'm with you on that. I take anything predictive of China with a grain of salt. I pretty much view this discussion as pure opinion sprinkled with facts, but it is fun to speculate about what's going to happen there. Regardless of how big a deal China is it goes without saying it's definitely a big deal.
.

Beardfist wrote:
Thought it is certainly true that the country has got enough ticking time bombs to lead to that, if the economy falls into a recession that strong. I just read an article about soil pollution, for example, and how it's going to grossly exacerbate the already-pressing problem of food stability in China. The country being forced to rely on greater amounts of imported food because of soil pollution will certainly put pressure on the economy to remain able to keep that up - all while the state needing funding to remedy the water and air pollution that drives health similarly down.
There's also the issue of technological advances. They really don't have much in the way of them. They steal IP from other countries, especially us, so it would be interesting to see what happens there if/when our next tech bubble bursts.
.
Beardfist wrote:
Hong Kong could also symbolically revolt, given that the Umbrella movement (pro-self-autonomy) is already particularly strong there.
IIRC the Chinese Army has a few thousand troops stationed there specifically because Hong Kong is kind of an oasis. My opinion on it is they never got around to oppressing Hong Kong like the rest of China because it made too much money, and they keep troops stationed there so people don't forget the government exists.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Last Edited By: SmashLampjaw Jun 12 17 12:31 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 163

#1011 [url]

Jun 12 17 1:23 PM

China has a surprising amount of green tech in the works, largely out of necessity for the CCP to stay on top. Its population is up in arms about the pollution I mentioned, and as Xi promised to 'increase China's prestige' on the global stage, he wants to maneuver China into the vacated 'world leader on green tech' spot. IIRC the country came second to the US in number of renewable energy plant installations last year, and it has been pumping a lot of money into that. The current cost of, well, fixing its environment is also so astronomically high that it ~has~ to find some breakthrough to avoid a horrifically diseased population for generations to come. It's also pumping a lot of money into its military, though it would be centuries before it comes anywhere close to what the US has at current. Outside of those fields, though, yeah, I'd certainly agree that the country isn't really innovating so much as sprinting along paths that other countries have already blazed before it.

Hong Kong is, though it's dissipating somewhat. When the British turned the territory over to China in ...94? they did so on the agreement that Hong Kong could maintain its sovereignty as a city-state, but still be incorporated into the greater Chinese body. This has always been somewhat true - Hong Kong is essentially ruled by a committee 'democratically elected,' but the only candidates allowed to run are vetted by the CCP - which also intervenes and manipulates things if there's even a chance of someone hostile to the CCP getting elected. The Party knows that if it tried overt domination, it would face open resistance - which would be bad for stability in Xinjiang and Tibet as well. It has instead used a policy of establishing barriers - Hong Kong is free to operate within them, but anyone that comes close to criticizing the Party faces retribution. Several booksellers selling anti-party publications went missing between 2015-2016, only to turn up later in mainland jails and claim that they had been captured illegally crossing the border (Chinese police and courts don't operate within HK, so these confessions were likely coerced after kidnapping). Hong Kong is a popular cyberpunk setting, I think, because it already has that shadowy, unaccountable government-control element in place that you don't see in many areas of the world.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,944

#1012 [url]

Jun 12 17 4:15 PM

Well if China is really cleaning up their act, maybe they can shoot for only having the second-highest carbon footprint in the world instead of the first. I still firmly recognize the Greenhouse Effect (under any name) as a crock, but the world stage is still using that as their main act.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1013 [url]

Jun 12 17 10:35 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
Well if China is really cleaning up their act, maybe they can shoot for only having the second-highest carbon footprint in the world instead of the first. I still firmly recognize the Greenhouse Effect (under any name) as a crock, but the world stage is still using that as their main act.

How so is the Greenhouse Effect/Global Warning/Climate Change that then?

Quote    Reply   

#1014 [url]

Jun 13 17 1:09 AM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
Well if China is really cleaning up their act, maybe they can shoot for only having the second-highest carbon footprint in the world instead of the first. I still firmly recognize the Greenhouse Effect (under any name) as a crock, but the world stage is still using that as their main act.

Well - the reason that Trump didn't like the Paris accords is that it calculates emissions using forests as a deduction. China has shitloads of forests, so despite poluting like crazy, they can offset that enough via their amounts of forests to not look like the biggest poluter

I think the math would have them as the worst ones if not for their amounts of forested areas - and china hasn't exactly been good at keeping tabs on how much they cut down for logging, construction and increased agriculture area.

as for greenhouse effects and such - then.... dude - come on. It is real. We might not be able to predict 100% what it'll do, but it is there

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

its been well know since the 19th century that CO2 has a greenhouse effect - and we've only detected more of it

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1015 [url]

Jun 13 17 1:47 AM

webkilla wrote:

SmashLampjaw wrote:
Well if China is really cleaning up their act, maybe they can shoot for only having the second-highest carbon footprint in the world instead of the first. I still firmly recognize the Greenhouse Effect (under any name) as a crock, but the world stage is still using that as their main act.

Well - the reason that Trump didn't like the Paris accords is that it calculates emissions using forests as a deduction. China has shitloads of forests, so despite poluting like crazy, they can offset that enough via their amounts of forests to not look like the biggest poluter

I think the math would have them as the worst ones if not for their amounts of forested areas - and china hasn't exactly been good at keeping tabs on how much they cut down for logging, construction and increased agriculture area.

as for greenhouse effects and such - then.... dude - come on. It is real. We might not be able to predict 100% what it'll do, but it is there

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

its been well know since the 19th century that CO2 has a greenhouse effect - and we've only detected more of it

image

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,098

#1016 [url]

Jun 13 17 3:19 AM

Ironically, I just read Michael Crichton's novel State Of Fear, which takes on not only global warming but environmental politics and science in general.  It was written in 2004, but one of the things it mentions is that the upper atmosphere of Earth has NOT gotten hotter.  And after two decades all the dire predictions such as increasing storms and natural disasters have failed to take place.

​The Piltdown Man fooled 'em for 30 years.  And belief in that was a result of scientific politics rather than genuine science findings.  If you think that scientists are pure in heart and are not influenced by money and politics, boy are you naive.

Quote    Reply   

#1017 [url]

Jun 13 17 3:54 AM

Believe what you want - most of that lovely climate science is based on very heavily reproduced experiments and measurements. You might not like what it says, but that doesn't make it less true

...and honestly, why the hell would NASA lie about it? Their game is spaceships, not weather forecasts.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1018 [url]

Jun 13 17 4:03 AM

webkilla wrote:
Believe what you want - most of that lovely climate science is based on very heavily reproduced experiments and measurements. You might not like what it says, but that doesn't make it less true

...and honestly, why the hell would NASA lie about it? Their game is spaceships, not weather forecasts.

I'm Smash Lampjaw, I have several black belts in free-form forum combat but a couple of links, one from an ultra-left organisation full of tree-hugging hippies and another from some sort of skeptics organisation is going to change my mind instantly.

How long have you been here webkilla? I mean have you even being paying attention?

Methinks you need to pull your head out of your Scandinavian commie-pinko bubble and smell the coal smelters firing up again.

This is not how we do virtual hand to hand here unless we're trying to throw a fight for our bookie.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 163

#1019 [url]

Jun 13 17 5:40 AM

Well, rapid industrialization does tend to do that to a country. And while people may feel dubiously over the effect of greenhouse emissions, the immediate concerns of poisoned air, soil, water, and food are a pinch too hard for China to ignore - as well as the widespread damage to ecological species that's also resulted from all that alongside the rapid development of hitherto hinterlands.

Global warming is far too political of a concept now to get anywhere, and I've personally long since passed the point where I think it's even worthwhile to debate. Yes, there are some people on either side who have really done their homework - but most simply adhere to their tribe's stance on it religiously. And, ironically, most would generally agree with taking steps to reduce pollution and punish people who pollute. When the BP oil rig exploded, no one said 'well, this is negligible and it's fine if it happens again.' After Fukushima, no one said 'well, it's totally fine to use these old, outdated, poorly repaired reactors that were designed for a time when the sea level was far lower than it currently is.' No one opens up a bottle of pesticide to marinade their veggies in. But scummy companies and government mismanagement leads all this kind of shit to happen, because there's so little accountability for polluting - and honest businesses that make an effort to be ecologically-minded don't often find a market reward for it, especially if they don't operate primarily in an urban center. This becomes even more evident as you climb up to corporations, which are even less responsive to any pushback to bad environmental policy (thanks to being comfortable insulated by the government from competition).

And this is essentially why I land center-left. Too much regulation or abuse of regulatory power - which the Obama admin did, and the Bureau of Land Management always does - is counterproductive and doesn't help anything, because then the pendulum swings back to 'eh! fuck that! let's dump in the river again!' rather than the market coalescing around new norms such as 'we don't fucking put the nuke waste in the fucking breadbasket.' A completely market-based solution only seems to work if you make the assumption that companies will be held accountable, will generally be honest, and will not be protected by abuse of the legal or interest-group-based system - all things that I don't see happening. Modest regulation that is generally palatable seems like just about the only way to not bring about massive ecological damage for short-term profits -- and prompts more efficient innovators to unsettle cumbersome, sloppy incumbent companies. Teddy McFuckin Roosevelt certainly expanded the power of the federal government too far for my tastes, but the push towards conservation is one I can still agree with as important, even if designating areas reserves isn't really an efficient way to do it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,955

#1020 [url]

Jun 13 17 5:52 AM

Long Tom wrote:
Ironically, I just read Michael Crichton's novel State Of Fear, which takes on not only global warming but environmental politics and science in general.  It was written in 2004, but one of the things it mentions is that the upper atmosphere of Earth has NOT gotten hotter.  And after two decades all the dire predictions such as increasing storms and natural disasters have failed to take place.

​The Piltdown Man fooled 'em for 30 years.  And belief in that was a result of scientific politics rather than genuine science findings.  If you think that scientists are pure in heart and are not influenced by money and politics, boy are you naive.

That's not irony, that's just a coincidence.

Interesting facts:

Michael Crichton was more than an inch taller than James Comey.

I think he might have put himself through medical school as a novelist.

After State of Fear, this happened.

There's reason to believe that he was in fact a colossal asshole due to events like (but not restricted to) this, unfortunately. I did like Airframe, though.

Michael Crowley=small[edit]

In 2006, Crichton clashed with journalist Michael Crowley, a senior editor of the magazine The New Republic. In March 2006, Crowley wrote a strongly critical review of State of Fear, focusing on Crichton's stance on global warming.[92] In the same year, Crichton published the novel Next, which contains a minor character named "Mick Crowley", who is a Yale graduate and a Washington, D.C.-based political columnist. The character was portrayed as a child molester with a small penis.[93] The character does not appear elsewhere in the book.[93] The real Crowley, also a Yale graduate, alleged that by including a similarly named character Crichton had libeled him.[94]
 

Last Edited By: Shan Jun 13 17 6:00 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help