Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Yeah, China is really one huge bubble. The question is just weather it bursts in 5, 10, 15, or maybe even 20 years.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose it should be clarified that the instability the middle class brings is because China is a totalitarian government.
That's kind of what I'm pointing out.... a strong middle class inevitably leads to the desire for a more free and open society. Here in the US and our shrinking middle class, we're starting to lose out on "good" political discourse and thus we're seeing that legislation being passed greatly helps the business elites, as opposed to the people.
@Easy E, they do have elections..... just not the way most of us in the US would consider.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose it should be clarified that the instability the middle class brings is because China is a totalitarian government.
That's kind of what I'm pointing out.... a strong middle class inevitably leads to the desire for a more free and open society. Here in the US and our shrinking middle class, we're starting to lose out on "good" political discourse and thus we're seeing that legislation being passed greatly helps the business elites, as opposed to the people.
@Easy E, they do have elections..... just not the way most of us in the US would consider.
It helps the very small top, or the very small bottom. Leaving the middle to founder.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose it should be clarified that the instability the middle class brings is because China is a totalitarian government.
That's kind of what I'm pointing out.... a strong middle class inevitably leads to the desire for a more free and open society. Here in the US and our shrinking middle class, we're starting to lose out on "good" political discourse and thus we're seeing that legislation being passed greatly helps the business elites, as opposed to the people.
@Easy E, they do have elections..... just not the way most of us in the US would consider.
Yes, so do High Schools. For prom King and Queen.
During the Gilded Age (and times of national dispute) the ballot box has been a way for the outraged democratic voters to let off their steam without bringing down the whole system. China doesn't have such a mechanism.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
It helps the very small top, or the very small bottom. Leaving the middle to founder.
Well... sorta.... The basic run down I got was, you have to be a card carrying party member. Your city/district party council votes on who in the council is sent up to the next level, the next level council votes on who is sent to the provincial council, the provincial council votes on who is sent to the state, and finally the "federal" level, with the federal level choosing the "top" council, which Xi Jinping is currently the leader of. The fed. level then confirms selections for the city councils so that the lowest level of government is always filled.
Of course, the mayor of a town/city is actually 2nd in command, as the Party Secretary for the city/town is the guy who's actually in charge.
So, the people never really vote (part of the upheaval and riots in Hong Kong, as they felt the Party was not upholding the contract that put them back under Chinese control once the British left) on very much, and even if there is a vote, it seems to be largely symbolic.
It helps the very small top, or the very small bottom. Leaving the middle to founder.
Well... sorta.... The basic run down I got was, you have to be a card carrying party member. Your city/district party council votes on who in the council is sent up to the next level, the next level council votes on who is sent to the provincial council, the provincial council votes on who is sent to the state, and finally the "federal" level, with the federal level choosing the "top" council, which Xi Jinping is currently the leader of. The fed. level then confirms selections for the city councils so that the lowest level of government is always filled.
Of course, the mayor of a town/city is actually 2nd in command, as the Party Secretary for the city/town is the guy who's actually in charge.
So, the people never really vote (part of the upheaval and riots in Hong Kong, as they felt the Party was not upholding the contract that put them back under Chinese control once the British left) on very much, and even if there is a vote, it seems to be largely symbolic.
Oh I was talking more about our own system and the path that it has been taking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 20:55:46
To be fair to China, they're not the only nation with problems.
Japan: economy that has flatlined for years and has its own demographic problems in store.
My country: Uncertain future with EU referendum, a housing crisis, a pension crisis, and another property bubble waiting to go POP!
The United States of America: on the verge of either electing as president a corporate shill who is economical with the truth (Clinton), a moron who likes evicting people from their houses (Trump) or Sanders, a man who, if elected President, will struggle to get a bagel passed through Congress, never mind any legislation. Hell, Sanders will make Obama look like a Republican party hero.
Years ago, and this is based on my interpretation of American history, the likes of Clinto and Trump would have been laughed out of the room if they had declared their intention to run for 1600.
Yes, China has problems, but so does everybody else.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I don't think that's a question. The level of power that China wields, and the danger it is facing, is a much greater concern then say Britain (no offense intended).
Also, unlike Britain, and the US, China is dumping a ton of money into expanding it's military capabilities, while we both seem to be intent on maintaining, or shrinking our military capabilities. That is also a cause for concern. For a nation that is on the verge of economic collapse, to be ramping its military up, is a very troubling sign.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 21:47:34
djones520 wrote: I don't think that's a question. The level of power that China wields, and the danger it is facing, is a much greater concern then say Britain (no offense intended).
Also, unlike Britain, and the US, China is dumping a ton of money into expanding it's military capabilities, while we both seem to be intent on maintaining, or shrinking our military capabilities. That is also a cause for concern. For a nation that is on the verge of economic collapse, to be ramping its military up, is a very troubling sign.
The world survived the collpase of the USSR, I'm sure it'll survive the collapse of China, should it happen.
As for your own nation, I think rumours of the demise of the USA have been greatly exagerated.
IMO, the USA is exactly where Britain was around the year 1900. Yes, countries such as the USA and Germany were challenging British hegemony, but Britain was still a global beast, exactly like the USA is in our time. Challenges are lying in wait for the USA along the road, and with good leadership and vision, the USA can meet them, but remains to be seen.
But as I've said many a time before, the USA, like Britain in 1900, still passes the superpower test:
In 1900, only one nation on earth could move 100,000 troops from Europe to Africa (or anywhere else) in record time (Britain in the Boer war)
In 2016, only one nation on earth can move 100,000 troops to anywhere in the world in record time, say 4-5 days? And that's the USA.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Easy E wrote: So what ended Britain as a Superpower? A war with a rival upstart regional Power.
I think that's what a lot of people are concerned about with China.
It's a complicatede answer, TBO. Two World Wars obviously didn't help, but Britain finished WW1 in a very healthy position. Ironically, during the 1920s, the British Empire, reached its peak with control over a 1/4 of the globe.
Even during the 1930s, when it was supposedly 'weak' its commerical infleunces on every continent, its defence spending which dwarfed everybody else, and its global influence, was still streets ahead of everybody else. The USA was richer, but lagged behind in global infleunce stakes back then.
It was WW2 that finshed the Empire. The finances were poor, the USA was on a roll, and the colonies were demanding independence, and rightfully so.
Still, I suppose 200 years was a good run and our legacy lives on in our offspring, the USA
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
djones520 wrote: I don't think that's a question. The level of power that China wields, and the danger it is facing, is a much greater concern then say Britain (no offense intended).
Also, unlike Britain, and the US, China is dumping a ton of money into expanding it's military capabilities, while we both seem to be intent on maintaining, or shrinking our military capabilities. That is also a cause for concern. For a nation that is on the verge of economic collapse, to be ramping its military up, is a very troubling sign.
The world survived the collpase of the USSR, I'm sure it'll survive the collapse of China, should it happen.
Yes, but in what form?
China collapsing would be orders of magnitude worse than what happened with the USSR, as that resulted in new markets opening up. China is interconnected with the world economy in ways the USSR is not. If China takes a hit, we are all taking that hit.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Increased consumption is a solution to the issue of being completely dependent on exports. But a larger middle class causes its own problems. They'll not just be wanting stuff that is produced domestically, nor will all of your domestic production be desired by them since its largely been designed for people with different tastes in other countries and cultures, plus they will have more free time(which means more political activism and free thinking, not things that a communist regime wants).
Sure, except that the whole point of market economics is that producers adapt. Producers inside China, and elsewhere in the world, will adapt to supply whatever it is that the growing Chinese middle class demands.
Political activism I will grant you, as the middle class grows and becomes more affluent and comfortable they will demand greater freedoms and a more open, less corrupt society. That’s a big issue for the Chinese political class. And given how the political class is so inter-connected with the wealthy elite, it becomes a serious class issue as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: Maybe I'm a bit behind on the times, but didn't China have an overpopulation problem? Did they make a swing too far that'll decimate them?
No, the overpopulation issue is still there. This is more of a demographics issue, by tightening population strictly and so suddenly, the population has slowed it’s growth, but all that reduction has been in a couple of generations. The result is that as many Chinese people are leaving the workforce, there’s nowhere near as many entering it.
And then on top of that there’s an issue with gender balance. China has a massive bias towards boys, and so when people were only allowed one child, they wanted it to be a boy. So if they had a girl first, well the lucky ones were dumped at orphanages. The end result is loads more boys than girls. We’re all nerds on this site, we know what it’s like to turn up at a party that’s all boys, there’s no fun at a sausage fest. Imagine that in a whole country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Which is somewhat ironic when you pause to consider the shrinking middle class in the US, and the burgeoning one in China
You have to remember how relative these terms are. In China the middle class starts at household incomes of around $20,000.
And to be fair to everyone, every country always has problems. When an issue is resolved or goes away, we find something new to get scared about. That's just kind of what we do - not just in economics but health, technology, anything, just think of things to get scared about.
The difference with problems in most of the developed is the plausible worst case scenarios are 'hard recession followed by zero growth for a generation or two'. In China it's more 'economic meltdown that leads to political meltdown'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: So what ended Britain as a Superpower? A war with a rival upstart regional Power.
Not really though. The end of British power is really an economic one - over time the colonies came to cost more, while the resources they provided were worth less. By the time WWII rolled around the whole set up was probably a net drain.
The notion that Britain spent its wealth to defeat Germany is a romantic one, but ultimately flawed. While Britain spent vast sums in each war, it kept hold of its Empire*. If that Empire was still as great a producer of wealth as it had been before then Britain would have recovered in no time. Compare then to the US, which also spent vast sums (in WWII, anyway). But they grew their national power. Because they also kept their underlying economic model, and their underlying economic model wasn’t in decline. A large and growing population with constantly expanding productivity was leaving the colonial system in its dust.
*Well, it dismantled most of its Empire after WWII. But that in itself is part of the tale – is anyone going to argue that Britain would have returned to global superpower if it had kept India and the rest?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It was WW2 that finshed the Empire. The finances were poor, the USA was on a roll, and the colonies were demanding independence, and rightfully so.
The UK was already done. If it was still a global superpower, then it could have comfortably paid for a war in which it played as second fiddle to France, then Russia, and then as third fiddle to Russia and the US.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/02/19 03:24:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Not really though. The end of British power is really an economic one - over time the colonies came to cost more, while the resources they provided were worth less. By the time WWII rolled around the whole set up was probably a net drain.
The notion that Britain spent its wealth to defeat Germany is a romantic one, but ultimately flawed. While Britain spent vast sums in each war, it kept hold of its Empire*. If that Empire was still as great a producer of wealth as it had been before then Britain would have recovered in no time. Compare then to the US, which also spent vast sums (in WWII, anyway). But they grew their national power. Because they also kept their underlying economic model, and their underlying economic model wasn’t in decline. A large and growing population with constantly expanding productivity was leaving the colonial system in its dust.
*Well, it dismantled most of its Empire after WWII. But that in itself is part of the tale – is anyone going to argue that Britain would have returned to global superpower if it had kept India and the rest?
Can't a guy get away with some flippancy and hyperbole in the OT anymore.
Good points all around guys.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
In most countries, the existence of a credit system isn't controversial. Past financial information is used to predict whether individuals will pay their mortgages or credit card bill in the future.
But China is taking the whole concept a few steps further. The Chinese government is building an omnipotent "social credit" system that is meant to rate each citizen's trustworthiness.
By 2020, everyone in China will be enrolled in a vast national database that compiles fiscal and government information, including minor traffic violations, and distils it into a single number ranking each citizen.
That system isn't in place yet. For now, the government is watching how eight Chinese companies issue their own "social credit" scores under state-approved pilot projects.
One of the most high-profile projects is by Sesame Credit, the financial wing of Alibaba. With 400 million users, Alibaba is the world's biggest online shopping platform. It's using its unique database of consumer information to compile individual "social credit" scores.
Users are encouraged to flaunt their good credit scores to friends, and even potential mates. China's biggest matchmaking service, Baihe, has teamed up with Sesame to promote clients with good credit scores, giving them prominent spots on the company's website.
"A person's appearance is very important," explains Baihe's vice-president, Zhuan Yirong. "But it's more important to be able make a living. Your partner's fortune guarantees a comfortable life."
As a person living in China, I had been wondering what those ratings that people have been showing off were.
This idea seems like it could be a good idea. A giant database where all of a person's actions (good and bad) are cataloged for future employers and businesses to cross reference to ensure that their employees are what they claim they are. It's not as if this information is not already available to them. The only thing it is doing is making it quicker and easier to access (and it cuts down on the number of middleman that have to be bribed).
What I am not sure about is the notion of then trying to append a value to all of this information. A single value that tries to cover the entirety of a person's economic and social activities will run into the same problems as Dwarf Fortress' morale system, where when all the factors are summed together with Uric the dwarf eating a good meal, sleeping in a good bed, admiring fine works of art, and watching his wife get ripped to shreds by goblins leads to a pleasant day because all of the small positive factors outweigh the large negative factor. A single social credit rating will run into the same problem where people that regularly commit small infractions, which can be as small as purchasing items not deemed to be proactive according to the article, will be rated the same as people that have committed a single large infraction, such as a crime. In the same vein, people that have a history of trying to flake on loans may end up with a decent rating because they are a model citizen and support the Party.
I feel that this could be a decent idea, but I am worried that the oversimplification of the results into a single rating will be detrimental to its effectiveness as a tool for judging other people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 16:46:33
That is a good video that does a decent job of explaining how the system could be implemented. Too bad it is blocked in China.
We are definitely seeing people adopt the system as a game to be competed with. One of the local security guards is currently very proud of his score while a teacher seems intent on catching up. The benefits that they provide are negligible, but the "my number is bigger than yours" is playing a role in encouraging people to use the system.
Kilkrazy wrote:if they had four children each it would help.
I was not aware of that part of the law, and it's interesting that China has racial discrimination within a population that to outsiders seems relatively homogenous. I knew about the different languages and religions, but not that the Chinese consider themselves to be different races.
It seems a bit like white British feeling themselves composed of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh races, (Whatever a 'race' means.)
Psienesis wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: if they had four children each it would help.
I was not aware of that part of the law, and it's interesting that China has racial discrimination within a population that to outsiders seems relatively homogenous. I knew about the different languages and religions, but not that the Chinese consider themselves to be different races.
It seems a bit like white British feeling themselves composed of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh races, (Whatever a 'race' means.)
Those are nationalities, and England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland are separate nations (either currently or historically), and lots of people from three of those areas consider themselves to be living under occupation by a foreign nation... which, technically, I guess, they are.
Why wouldn't the Chinese consider themselves separate ethnic groups, considering that they are a nation made up of many different ethnicities? Americans most certainly do, sometimes dividing themselves down along whatever state they live in (compare Georgians to Louisianans to Texans, as an example), not to mention whatever nation their ancestors came from, even if that was two hundred years ago.
I was about to post something similar to what Psienesis did, the ethnic/cultural relation still seems to carry an incredible amount of much weight on this planet, irrespective of race or national origin. Tribalism is still alive and well in most of the world, face paint or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/09 02:53:38
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 