|
On December 06 2010 14:46 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 14:36 vek wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life. I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great. "Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion. My point exactly, "Right now things are great" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it.
"
However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. "
This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
|
We do not compete on level playing field. We have so many environmental and worker regulation laws that they do not have.
China is investing in natural resources all over the world. THEY ARE DRILLING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO WHILE OBAMA SAYS WE CANT.
|
On December 06 2010 13:45 n00bination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 13:37 gfever wrote:
That is totally wrong, chinese people do hate the government, its just the government just squishes any sort of revolution be it either internet or on the streets. I have many chinese foreign students that say the same. They understand the situation, but its very hard when you have a government that is willing to pull tanks on you when your just holding a sign. Funny, because I have the exact OPPOSITE experience in China, and I spend a good 4 months there each year. The average Chinese person doesn't place too much emphasis on ideas about absolute freedom or liberty or whatnot. They DO care that the government is leading the nation to greater prominence internationally. I had a Beijing taxi driver talk to me for an entire 20 minute drive about how awesome the government was for it's role in advancing the economy. His argument was that nowhere else in the world could anybody see more automobiles. That may be an exaggeration, but it was evident he was very supportive of government policies. Sure, people crack jokes at the governments expense a lot, but it's never really inflammatory. They accept censorship and the like, so long as the government continues to help China forge its way forward.
From my experience in China, this is pretty much true. I said this before in some other thread, but the people in China, for the most part, really just don't care about freedom of speech and the like.
|
28100 Posts
Ya I completely agree. The Chinese seem to just go with the flow.
|
To the OP: I don't know why you had to put the whole going to an IVY and your whole "Im going to make six figures right after" bit, it doesn't contribute to the topic at all. I get you were trying to put an example to number 4 but it just came off as a way for you to brag.
Something to note though on this topic: Communist China especially during Mao Zedong's leadership was, to say the least, a lot of fake bluffing. During the Industrial Revolution (or great leap forward): propaganda was everywhere talking about the progress China was making and how it was quickly being a world power. There was a lot of fake statistics and in actuality, the standard of living quickly went down and there was actually a famine.
Now, I'm not saying that the same thing is happening here, obviously there is truth to how much China is making because we (The U.S.) borrow money from the wealthy country. However I am still looking at China as very showy and prideful and therefore any claims to things like a nuclear reactor are taken with a grain of salt. I mean just look at the beijing olympics, extremely flashy, and they truly aimed to take the olympics (which they did and had the most golds). However not with a lot of questionable scandals, there were tons of underage participants which the government helped fake, and girls who were actually boys and other things you can dig up. Because of things like this, it's fair to assume that their progress may not actually be as awesome as it seems. And with billions of people to take care of, I would hope their resources would be used to raise the average standard of living.
Again to clarify: I'm not trying to bag on China and say they are showoffs, but they are definitely nationalists that are very proud of their heritage. And just because they may eventually rise and be just as industrialized or more industrialized than us does not mean our country has "fallen". As much as I get what the OP is saying I think there are bigger things to worry about... like North Korea
|
On December 06 2010 14:50 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 14:46 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 14:36 vek wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life. I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great. "Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion. My point exactly, "Right now things are great" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it. " However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. " This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture.
No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years.
Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information.
EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic ><
|
I'm a born-and-bred American, but after having spent some time in East Asia the one difference in culture that sticks out the most is that this side of the world is hungry. They are hungry for progress, hungry for power, hungry for wealth: This side of the world is in it not just to catch up, but to surpass. You can literally feel the drive to get there pulsing from some communities. While I'm loathe to make broad generalizations, every day I am more convinced that Americans with all their riches grow fatter and more complacent, while east Asians are ravenous for success.
|
Didn't read the whole thread so sorry if someone has already addressed these points but:
The first problem here is that China's economy is one of the most stimulated ever. The whole thing is basically propped up by huge amounts of government spending. China's economy relies on the manufacturing opportunities that come from overseas because of its cheap labor. Labor that is kept cheap by the government which controls interest rates with power that makes the Fed here look like a pussy.
Now that's not to say that the Chinese can not solve these problems. However right now it looks unlikely they will. I think they recently abolished the agriculture tax but I can tell you farmers in China are not happy right now, and the power in China ultimately comes from these farmers. Just look at Mao ZiDong's rise to power.
People need to stop with these ideas that China can somehow acquire the US through the buying of its debt. China has its own economic problems to deal with and are not anywhere near where the US media makes them out to be in terms of a threat.
|
On December 06 2010 15:14 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 14:50 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 14:46 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 14:36 vek wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life. I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great. "Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion. My point exactly, "Right now things are great" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it. " However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. " This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture. No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years. Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information. EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic ><
The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change.
|
On December 06 2010 15:55 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 15:14 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 14:50 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 14:46 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 14:36 vek wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life. I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great. "Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion. My point exactly, "Right now things are great" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it. " However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. " This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture. No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years. Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information. EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic >< The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change.
I never dismissed the Tienammen square masacre but I avoided adressing it because it really has no place in this argument. 20 years ago the politcal scene within China looked very different compared to today, just like in 20 more years it will look equally as foreign. You can't transpose that incident into a discussion about Chinas political future as the country is developing so fast in so many areas. As has been made clear over the last 20 years China liberalised it's economic policies and has embraced the trend of globalisation here by making it a major player on the world scene. They have to much invested in the outside world to commit such atrocities again.
And I know that there is a rising middle class in China. But it is RISING and at the same pace that China is modernising it's workforce. And because Chinas new wealth is just beginning to trickle down to the masses it will be a while before we see a class with the political and economic clout required for social upheaval of the political system. And don't expect it to be a civil war or anything absurd like that. When the time comes it will be Chinas leaders who step down from their office for the good of the nation they sacrificed so much to build.
There was a really interesting article in a Time magazine by Fareed Zakaria a few weeks ago analysing Chinas economic growth and what it meant for America. I'm sure you would find it illuminating (I think he even adressed the atrocity in Tienammen square).
(educated does not = successful, you need economic muscle as well as intelligence. Which is why students have no power to influence governmental proceedings at his time)
|
On December 06 2010 16:19 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 15:55 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 15:14 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 14:50 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 14:46 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 14:36 vek wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life. I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great. "Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion. My point exactly, "Right now things are great" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it. " However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. " This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture. No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years. Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information. EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic >< The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change. I never dismissed the Tienammen square masacre but I avoided adressing it because it really has no place in this argument. 20 years ago the politcal scene within China looked very different compared to today, just like in 20 more years it will look equally as foreign. You can't transpose that incident into a discussion about Chinas political future as the country is developing so fast in so many areas. As has been made clear over the last 20 years China liberalised it's economic policies and has embraced the trend of globalisation here by making it a major player on the world scene. They have to much invested in the outside world to commit such atrocities again. And I know that there is a rising middle class in China. But it is RISING and at the same pace that China is modernising it's workforce. And because Chinas new wealth is just beginning to trickle down to the masses it will be a while before we see a class with the political and economic clout required for social upheaval of the political system. And don't expect it to be a civil war or anything absurd like that. When the time comes it will be Chinas leaders who step down from their office for the good of the nation they sacrificed so much to build. There was a really interesting article in a Time magazine by Fareed Zakaria a few weeks ago analysing Chinas economic growth and what it meant for America. I'm sure you would find it illuminating (I think he even adressed the atrocity in Tienammen square).
It was a very good article.
The recent BS china has employed in Tibet has been an absolute shit show. It's really not much different from the 1989 protests. China is absolutely willing to commit further atrocities.
And even assuming your scenario is correct about the trickle down of wealth increasing the clout of the average citizen, I think you're putting far too much faith in the leaders of the communist party. The party is loaded with corruption and cronyism, and there is no way that they would give up their cushy positions for the betterment of the country.
|
On December 06 2010 09:47 Consolidate wrote:
The question is why America can't or refuses to compete. Four reasons:
1. Disproportionate spending related to Iraq/Afghanistan War
2. Subservience to it's grossly corrupt and inefficient service sector.
3. A perpetually distracted and permanently short-sighted Congress
4. A lazy and complacent public.
Number 4 is the most important factor.
I disagree. I think that number 3 is the most important factor. China, because of the way it's government is constructed, has the ability and opportunity to set long range economic goals, and long range policies for achieving those goals. This is not true in the United States, because of the short-sightedness of Congress. New administrations and majorities are brought in every 2/4/6 years, bringing new tax polices and changes in the role of government in the economy. If and when China catches the United States in terms of GDP at PPP per capita, I think that this will be the main reason. The United States government has no plan for how to facilitate growth through 2025; they're much more concerned with growing their poll numbers through the 2012 elections.
Also, you claim the service industry as "grossly corrupt and inefficient." Can you provide evidence for this? Personally, I would have to say that this is flat out wrong. While there are many factors that go into measuring productivity, most economists agree that worker productivity has risen with the decline in manufacturing jobs as those workers become educated and take service jobs.
|
^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that...
|
Number one reason I love the constant "oh my god the sky is falling china is going to dominate the united states in 20 years?"
They said the same thing about Japan in the 1980's. Whooooooops.
Gotta love short memories.
|
On December 06 2010 16:26 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 16:19 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 15:55 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 15:14 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 14:50 pfods wrote:On December 06 2010 14:46 frantic.cactus wrote:On December 06 2010 14:36 vek wrote:On December 06 2010 12:14 frantic.cactus wrote:
As a well educated middle class emerges they will question their government. This is always the way with Authoritarian regimes. When this happens China has to either get in line with the rest of the Democratic world or fall by the wayside.
The general feeling among people according to my uncle is that people support the government because the government is supporting the people and doing great things to improve everyones quality of life. I'm sure if things weren't going so well people would want to do something about it but right now things are great. "Democracy" these days seems slow and corrupt in my opinion. My point exactly, "Right now things are great" However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. What happens when China heavy handed government starts getting in the way of trade or contraversial public policy. What we must remember is the current governmental organisation has done a great job getting their country populace out of the paddy fields and into the factories but the step up to where the majority of the population are working white collar jobs is yet to come and when it does it's bringing the winds of change with it. " However we're talking about the China of the future an cannot judge the political motivations of the population by the current concensus on the street. " This is a rather damning statement for you to say, considering you too are arguing about the future political motivations of the country, only your reasoning is based off of nothing but conjecture. No, not conjecture. I'm forming a hypothesis based on historical trends and wherever there has been industrilasation social reform follows. The best example of this is the Great British industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century. It brought about a new class "the middle class" who became wealthy and they demanded change to the traditional process of only the Aristocracy (the ruling class) being able to decide governmental policy. And they got it, a group of people overturned a tradition that dated back almost 1000 years. Funnily enough last year I had to write a paper on Political reform in authoriterian states and chose Singapore as my case study. My reasoning is based on many hours studying the political and historical views of some of the greatest thinkers on the subject and my own thesis which was formed from this information. EDIT: I'm also horribly Dyslexic >< The already IS a rising middle class in china, and things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can just dismiss Tienanmen square as if it doesn't have any correlation. Educated college students and educated citizens in general(most likely coming from middle class familes) demanded reform, and they even had a moderate amount of support in the government (Zhou Enlai and those who supported his power struggle). Then the Chinese government had them slaughtered. That was a call to reform right there, and it was stamped out almost immediately and covered up. I just don't see how you this situation will be ANY different based solely on a burgeoning middle class, when history shows that economic inequality or a dire economic situation, are far more motivational forces for people demanding change. I never dismissed the Tienammen square masacre but I avoided adressing it because it really has no place in this argument. 20 years ago the politcal scene within China looked very different compared to today, just like in 20 more years it will look equally as foreign. You can't transpose that incident into a discussion about Chinas political future as the country is developing so fast in so many areas. As has been made clear over the last 20 years China liberalised it's economic policies and has embraced the trend of globalisation here by making it a major player on the world scene. They have to much invested in the outside world to commit such atrocities again. And I know that there is a rising middle class in China. But it is RISING and at the same pace that China is modernising it's workforce. And because Chinas new wealth is just beginning to trickle down to the masses it will be a while before we see a class with the political and economic clout required for social upheaval of the political system. And don't expect it to be a civil war or anything absurd like that. When the time comes it will be Chinas leaders who step down from their office for the good of the nation they sacrificed so much to build. There was a really interesting article in a Time magazine by Fareed Zakaria a few weeks ago analysing Chinas economic growth and what it meant for America. I'm sure you would find it illuminating (I think he even adressed the atrocity in Tienammen square). It was a very good article. The recent BS china has employed in Tibet has been an absolute shit show. It's really not much different from the 1989 protests. China is absolutely willing to commit further atrocities. And even assuming your scenario is correct about the trickle down of wealth increasing the clout of the average citizen, I think you're putting far too much faith in the leaders of the communist party. The party is loaded with corruption and cronyism, and there is no way that they would give up their cushy positions for the betterment of the country.
Tibet is a weird situation. The 17 Point Agreement made between the PLA and the Dali Lama near the end of the Chinese Civil War granted China sovereignty but allowed for the region to remain autonomous. The Dali Lama later fled the country and renounced the agreement. China responded in kind.
The 2008 riots started with Tibetian attacks attacks against the Han Chinese in the area. That much is clear. Exact information illustrating the extent of China's crackdown is unclear. Outside sources estimate that roughly 1000 Tibetian rioters were detained with a portion sent to 're-education camps'.
China views Tibet as a separatist movement. Under the previously mentioned 17 Point Agreement, Tibet is technically under China's sovereign rule. Tibetans claim that the agreement is void due to the fact that it was obtained by force. That is largely irrelevant. Hawaii are also forcibly coerced into joining the United States, but so many mainland Americans have moved there that the remnants of Hawaii's separatist movement his been effectively silenced.
What America did to Hawaii is what China is doing to Tibet. More and more Han Chinese are populating the area to the point where a separatist sentiment will disappear.
No nation had recognized Tibet under the independent rule of the Dali Lama. However, during the Cold War, the US began using Tibet as a sticking point against China. The current Dali Lama is hopelessly in bed with the US.
What should happen is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to independence. What will happen is the gradual assimilation of Tibet into mainland China. In 50 years time, Tibet will be to China what Hawaii is the the United States.
Taiwan, on the other hand, will likely remain independent from China. China is pragmatic enough to realize that the opportunity has long passed. China officially claims sovereignty over Taiwan, but that is merely an empty statement to save face. In given time, I fully expect China to 'officially' cede control. The relationship between the Taiwanese and Chinese is better than most people expect.
|
On December 06 2010 17:01 fearlessparagon wrote:
^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that...
Well, when I think of the service industry I think of doctors, lawyers, professors, computer scientists, and yes, even financial analysts.
Despite the fact that SOME people are in the business of swindling idiots who want to throw some money at random stocks, most professionals in these fields provide valuable services that require a college or higher level education. Labeling the ENTIRE service industry as corrupt and inefficient when in fact there's only a minority of one particular area that is corrupt (but certainly not inefficient) is pretty misleading.
Although I'll have to agree with you that many government services are pretty inefficient. I hate the DMV.
|
On December 06 2010 17:03 Two_DoWn wrote:
Number one reason I love the constant "oh my god the sky is falling china is going to dominate the united states in 20 years?"
They said the same thing about Japan in the 1980's. Whooooooops.
Gotta love short memories.
Same things have been said of many things many times throughout history. In some cases they were correct, in others wrong. What's your point?
Also don't put in quotes what isn't verbatim.
|
Part of China's meteoric rise is within its huge population base - since it's still undergoing industrialization, it still has space to grow markets by expanding industrialization to more and more groups within the region to increasingly transform a foundation of rural peasants into "modern" development. However, this is not infinite - while it may shoot to the top, the main difficulty is actually staying there - people forget that these same statements were frequently made about Japan in around the 1980s, until Japan hit its peak in the 1990s and fell into a period of stagnation.
Plus, I don't agree with the sentiment that America is "fucked" if this happens, I don't see any massive catastrophe were this to happen anyways.
|
Well it's kinda sad because as i am 23, I have voted for 3 senators, and 1 president, All of whom said they would either, not go to war, get us out of a war, or end the war,(definitively) also eliminate the giant "national defense budget" Which is really just the Hire American's to police your country business, that our citizens finance, and certain individuals profit from.
Yet None of said public representatives did anything, it's all just a big joke on capital hill Let's see how rich we can get, and these guy's(and gals) are the pro gosu's of lying and stealing +getting rich. If an American politician is opening his/her mouth they are lying, it's a fact.
|
On December 06 2010 17:20 barkles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 17:01 fearlessparagon wrote:
^ I dunno. When I think of services I think of DMVs and government agencies. When OP said "grossly corrupt and inefficient" he meant the financial sector in America. You don't really need evidence for that... Well, when I think of the service industry I think of doctors, lawyers, professors, computer scientists, and yes, even financial analysts. Despite the fact that SOME people are in the business of swindling idiots who want to throw some money at random stocks, most professionals in these fields provide valuable services that require a college or higher level education. Labeling the ENTIRE service industry as corrupt and inefficient when in fact there's only a minority of one particular area that is corrupt (but certainly not inefficient) is pretty misleading. Although I'll have to agree with you that many government services are pretty inefficient. I hate the DMV.
Hm. You're right. I apologize for generalizing the entire service sector. I should have said financial sector. That said I do feel American doctors are overpaid. Physicians benefit too much from the free market. The health-care industry in general grossly exploits the fact that people will pay pretty much anything to keep from not dying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
