It really doesn't sound that way. You sound like the cost advantage is more important to you than making them clean up their act. You say; "How are supposed to make them clean up their act? It's their country. We can't tell them what to do." Answer; we buy their shit for too cheap. Make it cost the same as it would if it were manufactured in a country that takes care of the environment -- fair trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
China has not been cleaning up in the past and that's why Dread is so scandalized. It is until recently, with climate change initiatives worldwide that China is starting to go greener. Chinese government has its own climate change research team, and I know that because I met a famous british filmmaker who interviewed them. China will not go greener because of fair trade (a western anglosaxon concept), they will do it because it is profitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Not very effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Funny, it feels to me sometimes that British people take even more offense than Amerikans when people question their tactics. I just don't think you can quite pin this issue as a cultural. In any country you will find tons of people offended by the slightest things.Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
For instance, unlike Dread's experience, my experience with Chinese people studying in the US is that they are not nationalistic but agnostic: focused on the task at hand. The few times I have heard Chinese people praising their country is in a joke format. (a joke pointed at the US, of course)
Curiously chinese in my country use to unite and do not like to get together with non chinese.
I got to meet chinese because of a friend of mine.
My experience in American forums has been a bit bitter.
That is definitely part of it. They rely more on manufacturing. But it's also a function of how the government promotes growth at any cost; if there is no economic growth, the justification for the one-party state becomes weaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's also a function of a government that is simply corrupt at every level. Developers and industrialists can just pay off the right people to get around any regulations that might be on the book.
I should point out that everyone was really friendly. And the place just felt safe, even in the neighborhoods I was told were "bad". Though the people there have really really crappy crowd dynamics when it comes to doing something like riding the subway. In New York, people on the platform wait for the subway car to empty, then cram in. In Shanghai and Hong Kong, it becomes like a football rush as soon as the subway doors open. Everyone just shoves and doesn't wait for people to exit the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Which reminds me of another oddity-- in the US we board planes starting with the back rows, then the middle rows and then the front. This makes boarding more orderly and faster. In China, they just tell everyone to line up and then board all at once. It's total chaos.
But I did have fun. It was really interesting and I saw cool stuff. Then I went to Australia, which was near-total bliss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
This is Tokyo, though.
Getting around regulations is the equivalent of virtual deregulation. That's capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
What matters is not growth, but how this growth trickles down to people, so growth translates into higher wages.
US allowed jobs to be exported to China by trying to keep dollar up, since it is good for government bonds albeit US citizen, and this causes loss of liquidity through trade deficit and also government deficit and debt. Less jobs also means lower wages since the balance of supply and demand in the job market changes.
The apparent underpricing of yuan not only is caused by chinese transations that helped dollar to remain up, but also because of the preference of China for production and US preference for finances, and also the spending/saving culture of Americans and Chinese. US exported inflation with devaluation of yuan, which was contained by the culture of saving money that chinese had. So this is how China did not suffer deflation and US did not suffer inflation.
It seems to me that China based its capitalism on the ideas of Adam Smith: Deregulation (getting around regulations) and production of physical goods that delivers value added backed by goods. US changed this model for a model of speculative financial casino that creates money that is not backed by goods (toxic assets), and also the mechanisms to transfer the losses to third parties. In other words, US would produce money, and the rest of the world would produce goods. This model allowed exporting inflation and acquire huge amounts of debt without visible effects for a while.
US bankers thought they could be more creative than the adverse to risk model of the Medici in the middle age. Some people estimate that US would lose all manufacturing jobs by 2027 with this model, so the only jobs US citizens could have should be government jobs.
US citizens also based the model of capitalism on ideology, where the key is to make money, thinking that money is wealth and price equals value. Those apparently harmless differences create an economy that risks to emulate the same mistakes of the middle age spanish empire that considered that gold was wealth and created an unsustainable model.
that's pretty stupid as by those rules no one can say anything abur anything to anyone resulting in no change at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
You're arguing for status quo. Which is stupid, cause if everyone felt the same way your rulers would be free to chop of your head for no reason other than that you're a subject and they're not.
If you have any rights at all it is because of the fact people/countries refused to shut up despite not being perfect.
Perfection does not exist, perfection is utopia.
As for your suggestion: maybe you should practice what you preach and and work on yourself instead of telling us what we should or shouldn't do?
Ahem:
Illustration:Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
India just sank into the ocean, a billion people are killed. The fact you probably do not like what I just said proves india just sank into the ocean.
The moment your posts are 100% free of fallacy, you get the right to criticize to talk about posts from other people ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
No. I advocate sustainable change, which means not to impose from outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ivan80
If a real sustainable change is to happen, it should be by convincing those in the country about the need of change.
They are the only ones who can change things.
I have convinced people in my country, and I have caused change.
I see US exporting crisis in several waves and I am not saying "US needs to be controlled". Why?
Because if a real change is going to happen, it only could come from Americans.
I may feel pain about those who suffer in US, financial homeless refugees, but in the end only American citizens or government can change their country.
Similarly, if a change is going to take place in China, it should either come from their people or their government.
There are people living like slumdogs. I also feel pain about them, and I bet that what motivates Dreadnaught is also pain for seeing this.
Imposed change from outside will only create more resistance, making statu quo stronger. Chinese feel offended when someone tells them they are ignorants and they should do this or that.
Mexico is a closer example of a society that has lots of problems. And it is closer to US. Unlike China, Mexican government are doing exactly the opposite of what is good for any country. At least you see China having climate change research and going greener somehow. In Mexico you see exactly what is needed to sink a nation.
Nowadays not even US can control itself.
And certainly China is too big to be controlled by a foreigner.
They have almost 1/3 of human race there.
This is a falacy. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Is the previous statement free of falacy? :p
Indeed, almost, they're just a little over 13.3% short of that mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
I know it's a fallacy. I was mimicking yours.Quote:
This is a falacy. ;)
More like 1/5th then ...
Come on even I know that 13,3 is somewhere in the 1/7th region.
Yes but I meant it's 13.3% less than a third. Or more than a third of a third less than a third.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I don't know how to state this any more unclear.