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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

In a very real way this is different then the america first isolationist protectionism employed during the depression. How much do you actually understand about economic history? Conservative talking points are cute, but only when they conform to the way the world actually works. Which is increasingly rare.

Do you mean years of classes taken or years worked in the field? How about you spankie - have any experience-well at all?

Do you mean years of classes taken or years worked in the field? How about you spankie - have any experience-well at all?

What field exactly? Are you an international economic policy maker? An economic historian? Senator? Think tanker?

What do you do? Because from where I sit it looks like armchair policymaking while you run your own business of some sort. Which is neat and all, but hardly makes you an expert on international macroeconomics. As for me I take classes. Also end your quotes your quoting yourself quoting me.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do you mean years of classes taken or years worked in the field? How about you spankie - have any experience-well at all?

What field exactly? Are you an international economic policy maker? An economic historian? Senator? Think tanker?

What do you do? Because from where I sit it looks like armchair policymaking while you run your own business of some sort. Which is neat and all, but hardly makes you an expert on international macroeconomics. As for me I take classes. Also end your quotes your quoting yourself quoting me.

What do you do again Shuma? Art?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do you mean years of classes taken or years worked in the field? How about you spankie - have any experience-well at all?

What field exactly? Are you an international economic policy maker? An economic historian? Senator? Think tanker?

What do you do? Because from where I sit it looks like armchair policymaking while you run your own business of some sort. Which is neat and all, but hardly makes you an expert on international macroeconomics. As for me I take classes. Also end your quotes your quoting yourself quoting me.

What do you do again Shuma? Art?

New media with selected other studies in economics, writing, and design. It's sort of an omnimajor that fuses computer sciences, art, design, and media history and design. I'm specializing in all forms of graphic art and design with the hopes of running my own design firm later in life. I don't hide my background, because I don't need too. The facts are all there, and hiding behind Rushes talking points is bad form.

Oh man, I totally missed it. Sorry.

But most lights in the house were out. The Flat Screen TV was on though. And the PC. And the DVD player.

ShumaGorath wrote:

New media with selected other studies in economics, writing, and design. It's sort of an omnimajor that fuses computer sciences, art, design, and media history and design. I'm specializing in all forms of graphic art and design with the hopes of running my own design firm later in life.

Finance, then International Business, then Law with a focus on corporate law and international trade (NAFTA especially). Clients are international clients-impacted by these effects daily.

I don't hide my background, because I don't need too. The facts are all there, and hiding behind Rushes talking points is bad form.

So who's talking points are you using then? My positions are more closely aligned with major unions on this issue.

So who's talking points are you using then? My positions are more closely aligned with major unions on this issue.

Which major unions? The ones who've been in dying industries for one or two decades? Having your opinions closely aligned to one of the bodies at risk to a poorly implemented cap and trade system doesn't make you impartial or right. It means that your opinions are closely aligned to those with a vested interest in seeing things maintained in their current (or most likely previous) status.

Finance, then International Business, then Law with a focus on corporate law and international trade (NAFTA especially). Clients are international clients-impacted by these effects daily.

Impressive. What is it you actually do for these clients? Men with impressive credentials ran our foreign and economic policy into the ground, and men with more impressive credentials than five of you and I put together are authoring the systems that you are disputing.

Experience isn't everything, clarity of position and thought are more important, as is a basic understanding of the foundations of business and international politick. I have a strong understanding of economic history and current political business climate, and you should have the same. So how about we leave the "Oh noez its the depressunz" and "Just who are you to talk on this issue" crap alone. First of all this is the internet, for all you know I could be german chancellor Angela Merkel and for all I know you could be a six thousand foot tall lava monster. So personal credentials are meaningless. Lets talk about the issue itself rather than eachother.

Just good to know the level of the expertise of the person I'm talking to, Merkel.

Six thousand foot tall lava monster. I like that. EDIT: moving on from this topic now.

Did Global Warming win or lose?

I hope it won, it's almost April and it's still way too cold.

No matter what, its all over when the zombies come...

Frazzled wrote:No they executed two people because tens of thousands were sickened and IIRC hundreds died.

Yes, and that's the same reason they are instituting environmental regulations. To avoid pissing off their 1 billion citizens.

Frazzled wrote:
So what, they are still shipping toys here with lead paint on them.

Where are these toys? Unless you're operating under the pretense that all US consumer controls are completely without merit I don't see how you can justify your stance without being horribly irrational.

Frazzled wrote:
They are still burning bad coal and building coal plants by the bushel.

Coal is coal. There are small differences in the overall chemical makeup, but those differences are largely irrelevant. You're also ignoring the notion that China is working pretty hard to modernize its power grid. This means filtration of emissions, clean energy, and a host of other things. All meant to ensure reasonable standards of air quality in the interests of public health.

Frazzled wrote:
They're still basing thousands of missiles across the strait from Taiwan.

What does that have to do with anything?

Frazzled wrote:
They're still killing people in Tibet.

And we're still killing people in Iraq. More of them too.

Frazzled wrote:
They're still supporting the nightmare of North Korea.

Probably because they generally support all states making sovereign claims.

Frazzled wrote:
Your faith in the new Fascist power, which is what they have become, is misplaced.

Its only faith if its blind Fraz.

Frazzled wrote:No they executed two people because tens of thousands were sickened and IIRC hundreds died. So what, they are still shipping toys here with lead paint on them. They are still burning bad coal and building coal plants by the bushel. They're still basing thousands of missiles across the strait from Taiwan. They're still killing people in Tibet. They're still supporting the nightmare of North Korea. Your faith in the new Fascist power, which is what they have become, is misplaced.

Only Barney can save us now.

What the sweet moogly googly are you talking about? Honestly, where did any of that come from?

I remember having a conversation one time, talking about the effectiveness of German tanks in WWII, and whether their impressive effectiveness was worth the incredible number of man hours put into manufacturing each one, when compared to the less effective but simply manufactured Shermans and T-34s. All of a sudden a lady we both kind of knew launched into this screed about how the Nazis were very evil and how dare any of suggest otherwise. Apparently to her suggesting that Germans tanks were quite good meant defending their genocide, or something.

I’m guessing you’ve made the same mistake. Dogma and I were talking about Chinese regulation, saying that it did exist, albeit highly inefficient, corrupt and prone to over-reaction. At no point did anyone suggest they were a model of environmental regulation, or did anyone comment at about their foreign policy towards Tibet, Taiwan or North Korea.

And no, they’re not fascist. Fascism has a meaning, albeit a loose one, and it doesn’t just mean evildoers. China is authoritarian, non-democratic, corrupt and several other bad things. It isn’t fascist.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Experience isn't everything, clarity of position and thought are more important, as is a basic understanding of the foundations of business and international politick.

Good lord! You're channeling O'Brien.

Help! I'm trapped in the 101 quote box!

sebster wrote:I remember having a conversation one time, talking about the effectiveness of German tanks in WWII, and whether their impressive effectiveness was worth the incredible number of man hours put into manufacturing each one, when compared to the less effective but simply manufactured Shermans and T-34s. All of a sudden a lady we both kind of knew launched into this screed about how the Nazis were very evil and how dare any of suggest otherwise. Apparently to her suggesting that Germans tanks were quite good meant defending their genocide, or something.

lol godwins you loose the thred

Orkeosaurus wrote:lol godwins you loose the thred

Except if you take it as an analogy, it was my part in the other story that was talking about nazis, so I was Godwinning me, not Fraz. So, umm, Sig Heil or something.

Actually Fascism is appropriate. Not Nazis- classical Fascism. If you analyze the Chinese government, in the urban centers it has shifted to classical Fascism. It hasn't been communist in 30 years.

OT or maybe on topic, but no coal is not the same. Different types of coal burn much less cleanly than others (one of my clients works on scrubbers and other filter systems). The coal China uses is the dirty kind. Regardless coal burns dirtier than gas/nuclear/sun/wind. Shift production to China and its powered by dirtier generation techniques, directly harming the environment more than if those products were made in developed countries.

Frazzled wrote:Actually Fascism is appropriate. Not Nazis- classical Fascism. If you analyze the Chinese government, in the urban centers it has shifted to classical Fascism. It hasn't been communist in 30 years.

Well obviously not Nazis, that be even farther out. But China doesn't fit classical fascism either. Where's the notion of social darwinism. The fixation on human will as a power all by itself? The ultra-aggressive foreign policy?

Nah, if you stretch fascism to include China then it ends up fitting to just about any authoritarian, non-democratic state and then what's the point of the word?

OT or maybe on topic, but no coal is not the same. Different types of coal burn much less cleanly than others (one of my clients works on scrubbers and other filter systems). The coal China uses is the dirty kind. Regardless coal burns dirtier than gas/nuclear/sun/wind. Shift production to China and its powered by dirtier generation techniques, directly harming the environment more than if those products were made in developed countries.

I didn't know that. Interesting.

Admittedly this is Wiki
-A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy.

-Definitely not Chairman Mao's Communism at this point, although the repression is still there.

Frazzled wrote:
OT or maybe on topic, but no coal is not the same. Different types of coal burn much less cleanly than others (one of my clients works on scrubbers and other filter systems). The coal China uses is the dirty kind. Regardless coal burns dirtier than gas/nuclear/sun/wind. Shift production to China and its powered by dirtier generation techniques, directly harming the environment more than if those products were made in developed countries.

That depends on what your standard of cleanliness is. Dirty coal tends to have a profoundly negative affect on the immediate environment by contributing to local phenomena like acid rain, smog, and ground water contamination. This happens because dirty coal is composed of more than just carbon. It also contains various trace minerals which do not oxidize, but are still pumped into the atmosphere. When considering global pollution these variables aren't terribly relevant, as the primary factor is CO2 generation. That stays essentially consistent with the amount of power generated.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
OT or maybe on topic, but no coal is not the same. Different types of coal burn much less cleanly than others (one of my clients works on scrubbers and other filter systems). The coal China uses is the dirty kind. Regardless coal burns dirtier than gas/nuclear/sun/wind. Shift production to China and its powered by dirtier generation techniques, directly harming the environment more than if those products were made in developed countries.

That depends on what your standard of cleanliness is. Dirty coal tends to have a profoundly negative affect on the immediate environment by contributing to local phenomena like acid rain, smog, and ground water contamination. This happens because dirty coal is composed of more than just carbon. It also contains various trace minerals which do not oxidize, but are still pumped into the atmosphere. When considering global pollution these variables aren't terribly relevant, as the primary factor is CO2 generation. That stays essentially consistent with the amount of power generated.

The standard of amount of pollution given off. Coal is scientifically classed at at least two different levels for pollution effects. This is from a company that has to certify scrubbers for different types to measure/remove pollutants from power plants.

China generally has access to the dirtier coal and burns that. Its a location specific thing. Different regions have differnt types, just like different grades of oil. We have both but our friends the Clinton's locked out a massive amount of it by declaring it a preserve.

Frazzled wrote:Admittedly this is Wiki
-A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy.

-Definitely not Chairman Mao's Communism at this point, although the repression is still there.

Not wiki's finest moment, really. You're right that it definitely isn't Mao's China, but that's never been in dispute. But without the populism, the fixation on will and the ultra-aggressive foreign policy then it loses all meaning.

We have both but our friends the Clinton's locked out a massive amount of it by declaring it a preserve.

We're not exactly starving for coal, we're one of the planets most coal rich nations, even with the environmental protections placed to prevent destructive strip mining.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Admittedly this is Wiki
-A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy.

-Definitely not Chairman Mao's Communism at this point, although the repression is still there.

Not wiki's finest moment, really. You're right that it definitely isn't Mao's China, but that's never been in dispute. But without the populism, the fixation on will and the ultra-aggressive foreign policy then it loses all meaning.

We're OT but its an interesting discussion item. Is China going Fascist. Probably should be its own thread.
Preface: urban areas only

*Populism-Its extremely populist-they still have the fine parades and pics running about.
*aggressive foreign policy? I'd submit thats not a requirement. Spain was definitely Fascist, and Argentina was defined as Fascist for a period of time. Having said that CHina is becoming increasingly aggressive via non-military routes and in regards to Taiwan. Its military is growing by leaps and bounds and they see themselvesas the successor to the US in the region.
*Fixation on will-You have a stronger point there. However, I'd note the cult of personality exists, just sublimated in the urban centers by the Cult of the Dollar.

Last year when they had earth hour in Australia the cut in power was withing the regular standard deviation for that night of the week, and power use jumped by over 5% in the hour after earth hour.

The electricity companies have to provide a 'baseload' just in case it was a fizzer, but when they saw a slight drop in useage they cut production from the most expensive power generators first... the snowy mountains hydroelectric scheme, then a gas turbine generator in NSW. So the cleanest generators went offline first, the brown coal generators kept on pumping out power.

Australia has no nuclear, negligable wind and solar power.

Also what was the point of France joining in, over 85% of its power is generated by nuclear... carbon free.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Also what was the point of France joining in, over 85% of its power is generated by nuclear... carbon free.

Nuclear fuel is neither renewable nor in particularly great supply. Energy conservation assuming people can do it (which they can't/won't) is about more than just reducing the carbon footprint.

Frazzled wrote:We're OT but its an interesting discussion item. Is China going Fascist. Probably should be its own thread.
Preface: urban areas only

*Populism-Its extremely populist-they still have the fine parades and pics running about.
*aggressive foreign policy? I'd submit thats not a requirement. Spain was definitely Fascist, and Argentina was defined as Fascist for a period of time. Having said that CHina is becoming increasingly aggressive via non-military routes and in regards to Taiwan. Its military is growing by leaps and bounds and they see themselvesas the successor to the US in the region.
*Fixation on will-You have a stronger point there. However, I'd note the cult of personality exists, just sublimated in the urban centers by the Cult of the Dollar.

That’s not really populism though. Populism is rhetoric that casts the people against the elites (with the speaker obviously on the side of the people). I don’t see that in China at all, instead the rhetoric is all about inclusiveness and everyone in China always getting along together, even when it's obviously not true.

Fair point on aggressive foreign policy. I guess paranoia or hostility would fit better than 'aggressive' at which point China fits the bill to a large degree.

I'm not trying to minimise the potentially unstable political situation in China. There's a lot of inequity and social tension that's currently being covered by promises of a growing economy and future prosperity... which only works while that growing economy stays in place. It isn't a healthy political environment, I just don't think fascist fits as a descriptor.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Also what was the point of France

Debate rages. Essentially we think it's ultimate destination is to be a car park.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:We're OT but its an interesting discussion item. Is China going Fascist. Probably should be its own thread.
Preface: urban areas only

*Populism-Its extremely populist-they still have the fine parades and pics running about.
*aggressive foreign policy? I'd submit thats not a requirement. Spain was definitely Fascist, and Argentina was defined as Fascist for a period of time. Having said that CHina is becoming increasingly aggressive via non-military routes and in regards to Taiwan. Its military is growing by leaps and bounds and they see themselvesas the successor to the US in the region.
*Fixation on will-You have a stronger point there. However, I'd note the cult of personality exists, just sublimated in the urban centers by the Cult of the Dollar.

That’s not really populism though. Populism is rhetoric that casts the people against the elites (with the speaker obviously on the side of the people). I don’t see that in China at all, instead the rhetoric is all about inclusiveness and everyone in China always getting along together, even when it's obviously not true.

Fair point on aggressive foreign policy. I guess paranoia or hostility would fit better than 'aggressive' at which point China fits the bill to a large degree.

I'm not trying to minimise the potentially unstable political situation in China. There's a lot of inequity and social tension that's currently being covered by promises of a growing economy and future prosperity... which only works while that growing economy stays in place. It isn't a healthy political environment, I just don't think fascist fits as a descriptor.

Fair points Sebbie. We'll have to agree to disagree. I will state its a weird situation in that you have the urban/commercial part, but its my udnerstanding the hinterlands are pretty old school Chinese communist.

Frazzled wrote:
Fair points Sebbie. We'll have to agree to disagree. I will state its a weird situation in that you have the urban/commercial part, but its my udnerstanding the hinterlands are pretty old school Chinese communist.

What do you mean by hinterlands? There are large swathes of China (Northwest/Southwest esp.) that are almost completely uninhabited. There also massive stretches of farm land to the east that fit the definition of rural, but would in no way approach the standard used to reference rural communities in the United States. Both of these regions tend heavily towards communism due to a combination of the limited availability of land (Eastern farms), or a limited availability of resources (Western desert/grassland).

Actually, you don't even need to consider that kind of nuance to get at the issue. The United States (9,629,091 km2) and China (9,598,094 km2) are almost identical in terms of total land area. However, China has 138 people packed into each of those km2. The US has only 31.

Edit: Not trying to be combative, just trying to point out that there are reasons that free enterprise hasn't taken hold in China.