Discussion:
A Few Thoughts on the Future of America and the World
Add Reply
Jonathan
2021-08-01 23:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
With each new global crisis, whether WW2, the 2008 economic
depression or now COVID the same effect tends to happen.

America suffers less and recovers faster than the rest
of the world. Meaning with each new global meltdown
America and our closest allies move even...farther ahead
of the rest of the world.

And as we borrow more money, since the rest of the world
wants to get paid back, the world has an even greater
vested interest in our national well-being.

Which is the 'dirty little secret' of borrowing money
nations like Russia just don't comprehend.

Some might look at that tendency and think America
wants such global catastrophes. Nah, it's the
natural consequence of being the world's largest
free market democracy.

Next on that 'power list' has a third of our population
and spends a tenth on the military. We can barely
even see #2 from our heights.

If in 20 or 40 years or so climate change brings
another global calamity, how supreme will America
reign then?

These are great days to be an American and a liberal.
Poverty down 40% this year alone, largest decrease
in our history, GDP climbing 6% this quarter.

And that's before the massive basic and 'human' infrastructure
bills that should be coming soon.

And for those reply 'what about China'?

From a system science perspective, a hobby of mine, China
is destined to go the route of the former Soviet Union.
Eventually China will become a half dozen new free market
democracies, and like most of our former adversaries such as
Germany, Japan and even Vietnam, will become our newest
best friends and allies.



singin~



Timbuk 3 - The Future's So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades Lyrics

'Well I'm heavenly blessed and worldly wise
I'm a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
I'm doing all right, getting good grades
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades'





Thanks for reading.



Jonathan
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
a425couple
2021-08-03 15:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
With each new global crisis, whether WW2, the 2008 economic
depression or now COVID the same effect tends to happen.
America suffers less and recovers faster than the rest
of the world. Meaning with each new global meltdown
America and our closest allies move even...farther ahead
of the rest of the world.
Uhhh, You really think so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

But then, I guess this is your defense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth
Post by Jonathan
And as ------- big snip ----
And for those reply 'what about China'?
From a system science perspective, a hobby of mine, China
is destined to go the route of the former Soviet Union.
Eventually China will become a half dozen new free market
democracies, and like most of our former adversaries such as
Germany, Japan and even Vietnam, will become our newest
best friends and allies.
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near
approaching the internal problems that caused
the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is
greatly improving. And they know it.
Post by Jonathan
Timbuk 3 - The Future's So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades Lyrics
 'Well I'm heavenly blessed and worldly wise
  I'm a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes
  Things are going great, and they're only getting better
  I'm doing all right, getting good grades
  The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades'
http://youtu.be/QVjTTcEuhtM
OK. I'm glad somebody is happy and they know it!
Post by Jonathan
Thanks for reading.
Jonathan
Robert Carnegie
2021-08-03 16:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Post by Jonathan
With each new global crisis, whether WW2, the 2008 economic
depression or now COVID the same effect tends to happen.
America suffers less and recovers faster than the rest
of the world. Meaning with each new global meltdown
America and our closest allies move even...farther ahead
of the rest of the world.
Uhhh, You really think so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth
Post by Jonathan
And as ------- big snip ----
And for those reply 'what about China'?
From a system science perspective, a hobby of mine, China
is destined to go the route of the former Soviet Union.
Eventually China will become a half dozen new free market
democracies, and like most of our former adversaries such as
Germany, Japan and even Vietnam, will become our newest
best friends and allies.
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near
approaching the internal problems that caused
the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is
greatly improving. And they know it.
With exceptions that would be obvious if it wasn't
for the extremely thorough public and social media
censorship of the terrible persecution, of course.
J. Clarke
2021-08-03 19:43:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Post by Jonathan
With each new global crisis, whether WW2, the 2008 economic
depression or now COVID the same effect tends to happen.
America suffers less and recovers faster than the rest
of the world. Meaning with each new global meltdown
America and our closest allies move even...farther ahead
of the rest of the world.
Uhhh, You really think so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth
Post by Jonathan
And as ------- big snip ----
And for those reply 'what about China'?
From a system science perspective, a hobby of mine, China
is destined to go the route of the former Soviet Union.
Eventually China will become a half dozen new free market
democracies, and like most of our former adversaries such as
Germany, Japan and even Vietnam, will become our newest
best friends and allies.
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near
approaching the internal problems that caused
the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is
greatly improving. And they know it.
On the other hand they are on track to be emitting more greenhouse
gases than the rest of the world put together by the end of this
decade (they already emit more than the entire "developed" world).
Between 2005 and 2019 the _increase_ in their emissions was more than
the _total_ emissions of the US. If we accept the IPCC's clock and
want to survive, somebody is going to have to shut down their
emissions for them since they are clearly unwilling to do so. I
suspect that this will not be beneficial to their economy.
Post by a425couple
Post by Jonathan
Timbuk 3 - The Future's So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades Lyrics
 'Well I'm heavenly blessed and worldly wise
  I'm a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes
  Things are going great, and they're only getting better
  I'm doing all right, getting good grades
  The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades'
http://youtu.be/QVjTTcEuhtM
OK. I'm glad somebody is happy and they know it!
Post by Jonathan
Thanks for reading.
Jonathan
Jonathan
2021-08-10 23:05:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a425couple
Post by Jonathan
With each new global crisis, whether WW2, the 2008 economic
depression or now COVID the same effect tends to happen.
America suffers less and recovers faster than the rest
of the world. Meaning with each new global meltdown
America and our closest allies move even...farther ahead
of the rest of the world.
Uhhh, You really think so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth
Post by Jonathan
And as ------- big snip ----
And for those reply 'what about China'?
From a system science perspective, a hobby of mine, China
is destined to go the route of the former Soviet Union.
Eventually China will become a half dozen new free market
democracies, and like most of our former adversaries such as
Germany, Japan and even Vietnam, will become our newest
best friends and allies.
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near
approaching the internal problems that caused
the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is
greatly improving. And they know it.
I've read plenty of stories that dissent in China
is enormous, heavily repressed and censored.
Especially in the rural areas protesting against
incredibly corrupt local govts.


Protest and dissent in China
Wiki

"The number of annual protests has grown steadily since the
early 1990s, from approximately 8,700 "mass group incidents"
in 1993[1] to over 87,000 in 2005.[2] In 2006, the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimated the number
of annual mass incidents to exceed 90,000, and Chinese
sociology professor Sun Liping estimated 180,000 incidents
in 2010."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_and_dissent_in_China


There's a reason China is cracking down on the Hong Kong
democracy movement. They're afraid Hong Kong might
take over China via an out of control democracy
movement, the greatest fear of the CCP.
Post by J. Clarke
On the other hand they are on track to be emitting more greenhouse
gases than the rest of the world put together by the end of this
decade (they already emit more than the entire "developed" world).
Between 2005 and 2019 the _increase_ in their emissions was more than
the _total_ emissions of the US. If we accept the IPCC's clock and
want to survive, somebody is going to have to shut down their
emissions for them since they are clearly unwilling to do so. I
suspect that this will not be beneficial to their economy.
If you think corruption is bad in the west, it's nothing
compared to China. The almost unrestrained use of coal
is a sign.

"As of 2019, coal-powered energy accounted for more than 57%
of China's energy consumption. In 2020 alone, China added
38.4 gigawatts of coal-fired power to its capacity — more
than three times the combined amount built that year in
the rest of the world."
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/14/1000464866/china-has-promised-to-go-carbon-neutral-by-2060-but-coal-is-still-king


While in the US use of coal has almost been cut in half
since 2008.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a425couple
Post by Jonathan
Timbuk 3 - The Future's So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades Lyrics
 'Well I'm heavenly blessed and worldly wise
  I'm a peeping-tom techie with x-ray eyes
  Things are going great, and they're only getting better
  I'm doing all right, getting good grades
  The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades'
http://youtu.be/QVjTTcEuhtM
OK. I'm glad somebody is happy and they know it!
Not only do I love Miami and my job, but peace of mind
is the most precious thing in the universe. And right
now I have that in spades.

If Heaven is defined to be the pinnacle of existence in
the universe, well, looking around with my telescope
it appears to me being alive-and-aware defines jusst
that ultimate form of existence.

THIS IS HEAVEN!

We're already there and it only takes a moment for this
realization to take hold.

That means good, bad or indifferent this is
what Heaven is like, and every moment is the
gift of all gifts this universe can offer.

That realization is what I believe is meant by being
...'Born Again'. Where even pain and loneliness
becomes sources of joy and wonder.

I was able to experience the very same feeling
as dear Emily expressed in this wonderful poem
when she accepted the new mathematics that
Heaven and Earth = 1.

Or as she said the Supremest Earthly sum...



ONE blessing had I, than the rest
So larger to my eyes
That I stopped gauging, satisfied,
For this enchanted size.

It was the limit of my dream,
The focus of my prayer,—
A perfect, paralyzing bliss
Contented as despair.

I knew no more of want or cold,
Phantasms both become,
For this new value in the soul,
Supremest earthly sum.

The heaven below the heaven above
Obscured with ruddier hue.
Life’s latitude leant over-full;
The judgment perished, too.

Why joys so scantily disburse,
Why Paradise defer,
Why floods are served to us in bowls,—
I speculate no more.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a425couple
Post by Jonathan
Thanks for reading.
Jonathan
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Frank Scrooby
2021-08-11 08:03:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi all,

Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.

Prior to the Chinese Communist Party rise to power practically no ruler of all China had complete control over the country, and his or her descendants usually lost a bit chunk or all of the country within a life time after the successful leader's death. The actions of the modern Communist Party leadership seems to suggest that they understand this, and that they recognize that they are the successors and their existence is endangered by every single last sign of dissent or difference in their subjects (sorry loyal, brave, proud peasants workers).

During most of the AD portion of China's history the rule of thumb for rulers seems to have been to achieve military supremacy, then execute all the unnecessary courtiers, provincial governors, military leaders, concubines, children, wealthy merchants etc. from the previous leadership's ethnic group, steal their stuff and then replace the slaughtered with members of their own ethnic group.

The exception are (of cause) the Mongolians, who weren't Chinese, never became Chinese, and executed (or mass murdered) just enough people to convince all the survivors that cooperation and servitude was the only survival strategy with a hope of working. And even the fierce Mongolians didn't last too long, a couple of generations later and they were out too.

"China" is like ""Italy" a rough geographical location that was forged into a political entity by the crap-fest that was the latter half of the 19th century.

The mistake in predicting the future of any present nation state is to assume it will survive the current generation. Almost no one remembers Burgandy, or that Normandy was once a (powerful and independant) nation. Or the Holy Roman Empire (either one). Or the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which last quite some time if you consider the mess of complete idiots who tried to run the place. The only people who remember the Transvaal Republic and Oranje Vrui Staat are those who long for the re-establishment of those two states (I've met a few, they are completely bonkers, like Hitler's SS bonkers). I'm sure there are examples in Asia that I don't know about. And all the kingdoms and Empires and city states of the Americas that vanished into fable and poorly remembered oral history as soon as European diseases hit the shores of the Americas.

China might be gone tomorrow, and so might the US.

Regards
Frank
Paul S Person
2021-08-11 16:19:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.

The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will be
that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".

The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2021-08-11 18:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will be
that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)

Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
J. Clarke
2021-08-11 19:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will be
that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
Many of our actuaries are Chinese. I do not get the impression from
them that China is likely to erupt into internecine warfare any time
soon. And actuaries being actuaries, if there is a risk that
potentially affects their lives they will have assessed it to a high
degree of precision.
Paul S Person
2021-08-12 16:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will be
that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.

When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of "central
gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat endlessly".

The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.

So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or
not.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
James Nicoll
2021-08-12 16:57:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Paul S Person
2021-08-13 15:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
US subjects -- yes.

Non-citizen descendants of US subjects who had their citizenship
cancelled before the kid came along -- no.

Sixth-generation descendents of US subjects who migrated to another
country and never came back -- hasn't come up yet.

Locke amazed them because, among other things, he /carried his own
luggage/, something a Chinese official of his rank would /never/ do.
Even under Communism. He was clearly not-Chinese in other ways as
well. They weren't just amazed, of course; they were also confused.
IIRC my impression from the stories I read at the time. It's been a
while.

And it isn't the view of the Communist Chinese gummint I am referring
to; it is (again, IIRC) the view of the Chinese people -- and always
has been. Their migration to the USA started -- when? Mid-1800s? Their
migration to, say, Indonesia (IIRC) started much earlier.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2021-08-13 17:42:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."

https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/

These are problems I am unlikely ever to have.
--
Kevin R
Paul S Person
2021-08-14 17:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is the
responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly or not.

Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting from
city/town and moving up to county and State, not to mention the Feds.

Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/ mean that
you are not subject to the government. It merely means that you have
some influence in what that government does.
Post by Kevrob
These are problems I am unlikely ever to have.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2021-08-17 04:10:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is the
responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly or not.
Yes, the tax collectors are following orders.
Post by Paul S Person
Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting from
city/town and moving up to county and State, not to mention the Feds.
Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/ mean that
you are not subject to the government. It merely means that you have
some influence in what that government does.
There is the problem of what is sometimes called "extraterritorial application
of American law - criminal and/or civil."
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
These are problems I am unlikely ever to have.
--
--
Kevin R
Paul S Person
2021-08-18 15:44:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is the
responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly or not.
Yes, the tax collectors are following orders.
Post by Paul S Person
Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting from
city/town and moving up to county and State, not to mention the Feds.
Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/ mean that
you are not subject to the government. It merely means that you have
some influence in what that government does.
There is the problem of what is sometimes called "extraterritorial application
of American law - criminal and/or civil."
For any Americans/former Americans trapped in Afghanistan, the
/advantages/ of paying taxes on all of their income must be quite
apparent: those that are citizens will be assisted in leaving; those
that have renounced their citizenship, will not be.

You must /pay/ for the services you want to receive. And, when a
gummint is involved, that mostly involves paying taxes.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-08-18 17:57:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 21:10:08 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 12:57:28 PM UTC-4, James
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read
suggested, BTW, that your distinction between "actual
Chinese" and "Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China.
Apparently, the cultural expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes
regarding US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a
monarch, are subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our
Great (compound) Republic. The way the IRS treats ex-pats who
renounce US citizenship is an argument for calling us
"subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenshi
p-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is
the responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly
or not.
Yes, the tax collectors are following orders.
Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting
from city/town and moving up to county and State, not to
mention the Feds.
Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/
mean that you are not subject to the government. It merely
means that you have some influence in what that government
does.
There is the problem of what is sometimes called
"extraterritorial application of American law - criminal and/or
civil."
For any Americans/former Americans trapped in Afghanistan, the
/advantages/ of paying taxes on all of their income must be
quite apparent: those that are citizens will be assisted in
leaving; those that have renounced their citizenship, will not
be.
You must /pay/ for the services you want to receive. And, when a
gummint is involved, that mostly involves paying taxes.
One should not that only two countries tax ex-pats who still retain
citizenship: The US and Eritrea. The other 193 seem to have no
problem providing whatever support for their citizens abroad they
can regardless.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
p***@hotmail.com
2021-08-18 02:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is the
responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly or not.
Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting from
city/town and moving up to county and State, not to mention the Feds.
Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/ mean that
you are not subject to the government. It merely means that you have
some influence in what that government does.
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and UK,
a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British SUBJECTS.'

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Kevrob
2021-08-18 03:14:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is the
responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly or not.
Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting from
city/town and moving up to county and State, not to mention the Feds.
Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/ mean that
you are not subject to the government. It merely means that you have
some influence in what that government does.
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and UK,
a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British SUBJECTS.'
From the middle of the 20th century the law regarding the UK and the
Commonwealth has been amended, so that "subject" does not always
mean what it once did, and "citizen" is an important designation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law
--
Kevin R
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2021-08-18 09:59:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is the
responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly or not.
Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting from
city/town and moving up to county and State, not to mention the Feds.
Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/ mean that
you are not subject to the government. It merely means that you have
some influence in what that government does.
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and UK,
a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British SUBJECTS.'
The latter hasn't actually been the case for well over a century. But
lots of people seem to live in the past, particularly people who argue
politics on Usenet.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"For our younger readers - books are hardened bits
of the internet that have fallen off."
-- Rob Manuel
James Nicoll
2021-08-18 14:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is the
responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly or not.
Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting from
city/town and moving up to county and State, not to mention the Feds.
Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/ mean that
you are not subject to the government. It merely means that you have
some influence in what that government does.
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and UK,
a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British SUBJECTS.'
The latter hasn't actually been the case for well over a century. But
lots of people seem to live in the past, particularly people who argue
politics on Usenet.
There was a last gasp of Canada is BRITISH around 1960, as manifested in
the flag controversy (settled by adopting the Toronto Maple Leafs logo
with Montreal Canadiens colours) and a 1959 history text for Canadian
students in particular called the British Epic. Weirdly, its depiction
of the inexorable rise to glory of Britain (which seemed to be mostly
England) suddenly halted sometime in 1914. Also, while I don't have it
to hand, my memory is that it was extremely vague on matters east of
Agincourt.

My brother had it as a history text in 1970 but it was gone by the time
I hit grade 9 in 1975, replaced by texts that acknowledged stuff like
WWI and WWII.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Paul S Person
2021-08-18 15:48:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Kevrob
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Paul S Person
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
Which is surprisingly similar to the view the US takes regarding
US subjects.
My normal knee jerk is that Canuckistanians, who have a monarch, are
subjects, while we USAians are citizens of our Great (compound) Republic.
The way the IRS treats ex-pats who renounce US citizenship is an argument
for calling us "subjects."
https://moodysprivateclient.com/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you/
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Minor point: the IRS does what the /law/ requires. Congress is the
responsible party here. Whether it /behaves/ responsibly or not.
Americans are subject to laws at all sorts of levels, starting from
city/town and moving up to county and State, not to mention the Feds.
Being a citizen in a republic or even a democracy does /not/ mean that
you are not subject to the government. It merely means that you have
some influence in what that government does.
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and UK,
a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British SUBJECTS.'
The latter hasn't actually been the case for well over a century. But
lots of people seem to live in the past, particularly people who argue
politics on Usenet.
There was a last gasp of Canada is BRITISH around 1960, as manifested in
the flag controversy (settled by adopting the Toronto Maple Leafs logo
with Montreal Canadiens colours) and a 1959 history text for Canadian
students in particular called the British Epic. Weirdly, its depiction
of the inexorable rise to glory of Britain (which seemed to be mostly
England) suddenly halted sometime in 1914. Also, while I don't have it
to hand, my memory is that it was extremely vague on matters east of
Agincourt.
My brother had it as a history text in 1970 but it was gone by the time
I hit grade 9 in 1975, replaced by texts that acknowledged stuff like
WWI and WWII.
I /think/ we, in the States, had a history book that extended to WWII,
or maybe even Korea, but we ran out of time somewhere in the Great
Depression. Or maybe Pearl Harbor.

For a comparatively young country, we still have a /lot/ of history.

Perhaps the authors of the Epic decided that, since nobody was likely
to even /reach/ 1914 in the time allotted, there was no point in
moving on any further.

Or maybe they felt that, after that, the Epic wasn't so Epic any more.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2021-08-19 03:48:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 10:12:11 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:

[snip]
Post by James Nicoll
There was a last gasp of Canada is BRITISH around 1960, as manifested in
the flag controversy (settled by adopting the Toronto Maple Leafs logo
with Montreal Canadiens colours) ......
I see the blanc et rouge on the flag. Where's the bleu?
Le Habs use all 3, non?

I saw fans flying this on Stanley Cup coverage this spring:

https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ca_misc.html#trcf

It has a bit of blue.
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Joe Bernstein
2021-08-21 21:33:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by p***@hotmail.com
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and
UK, a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British
SUBJECTS.'
The latter hasn't actually been the case for well over a century. But
lots of people seem to live in the past, particularly people who argue
politics on Usenet.
My father, born in 1922, considered that he'd grown up a British
subject. Was he living in the past?

The Wikipedia article cited in another reply suggests that the status
"subject" certainly survived the 1948 law, but for people like my Dad,
ended in 1981. (By which time he was dead. But he'd naturalised as
an American before that.)

-- JLB
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2021-08-21 22:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by p***@hotmail.com
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and
UK, a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British
SUBJECTS.'
The latter hasn't actually been the case for well over a century. But
lots of people seem to live in the past, particularly people who argue
politics on Usenet.
My father, born in 1922, considered that he'd grown up a British
subject. Was he living in the past?
Yes. In 1689 after the Civil War (no, not *that* one) the English Bill
of Rights declared the power of the Crown as being subservient to
Parliament.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
The Daily Mail should be forced to print the words
'The Paper That Supported Hitler' on its masthead,
just so that there is something that's true on the
front page every day. -- Mark Thomas
Joe Bernstein
2021-08-27 01:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by p***@hotmail.com
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and
UK, a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British
SUBJECTS.'
The latter hasn't actually been the case for well over a century. But
lots of people seem to live in the past, particularly people who argue
politics on Usenet.
My father, born in 1922, considered that he'd grown up a British
subject. Was he living in the past?
Yes. In 1689 after the Civil War (no, not *that* one) the English Bill
of Rights declared the power of the Crown as being subservient to
Parliament.
My. How misinformed the rest of the world is.

<https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject>

| Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United
| Kingdom was called a 'British subject'.
|
| All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred
| to as 'British subjects' until January 1983. However, this was not
| an official status for most of them.
|
| Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects.

But are they misinformed about the date - is it well past 2083 right
now - or are they misinformed about British terminology?

Here we find the US Department of State in 1866 using the term you
say was then outdated by nearly two centuries:

<https://www.google.com/books/edition/Widow_of_Andrew_Cunningham_Late_a_Britis/4PIMAAAAYAAJ>

Here's Charles Dickens doing it a little earlier:

<https://www.google.com/books/edition/Little_Dorrit/UWtOAQAAMAAJ?pg=PA422> [1]

Gosh, it must be wonderful to be better informed about British
English than all these people.

-- JLB

[1] ObSF: All I got when I looked for the phrase in Jane Austen was,
of all things, horror anthologies.
<https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22British+subject%22+inauthor:Jane+inauthor:Austen&num=10>
Paul S Person
2021-08-27 15:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 01:42:20 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by p***@hotmail.com
A vague memory from a discussion of differences between the USA and
UK, a Brit wrote, 'YOU are American CITIZENS; WE are British
SUBJECTS.'
The latter hasn't actually been the case for well over a century. But
lots of people seem to live in the past, particularly people who argue
politics on Usenet.
My father, born in 1922, considered that he'd grown up a British
subject. Was he living in the past?
Yes. In 1689 after the Civil War (no, not *that* one) the English Bill
of Rights declared the power of the Crown as being subservient to
Parliament.
My. How misinformed the rest of the world is.
<https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject>
| Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United
| Kingdom was called a 'British subject'.
|
| All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred
| to as 'British subjects' until January 1983. However, this was not
| an official status for most of them.
|
| Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects.
But are they misinformed about the date - is it well past 2083 right
now - or are they misinformed about British terminology?
Here we find the US Department of State in 1866 using the term you
<https://www.google.com/books/edition/Widow_of_Andrew_Cunningham_Late_a_Britis/4PIMAAAAYAAJ>
<https://www.google.com/books/edition/Little_Dorrit/UWtOAQAAMAAJ?pg=PA422> [1]
Gosh, it must be wonderful to be better informed about British
English than all these people.
-- JLB
[1] ObSF: All I got when I looked for the phrase in Jane Austen was,
of all things, horror anthologies.
<https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22British+subject%22+inauthor:Jane+inauthor:Austen&num=10>
Ah, search engines -- always willing to find whatever you /don't/
want.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2021-08-12 18:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will be
that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true, but
everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of "central
gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or
not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Magewolf
2021-08-12 20:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord
driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to
counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will be
that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested, BTW,
that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and "Chinese-Americans"
was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true, but
everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of "central
gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened was
more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords took
advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual insurrection
occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer the
traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position to
lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.

The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting to
explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for the
rest of my probable lifespan.
J. Clarke
2021-08-12 20:14:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:10:25 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord
driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to
counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will be
that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested, BTW,
that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and "Chinese-Americans"
was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true, but
everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of "central
gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened was
more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords took
advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual insurrection
occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer the
traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position to
lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.
The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting to
explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for the
rest of my probable lifespan.
What internal problems do they have waiting to explode? Running out
of minorities to persecute?
Magewolf
2021-08-13 19:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord
driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity
to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will
be that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true, but
everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of "central
gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position
to lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.
The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting
to explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for the
rest of my probable lifespan.
What internal problems do they have waiting to explode? Running out of
minorities to persecute?
A lot of China's economic growth has been based on smoke and mirrors,
fudged numbers,robbing peter to pay paul, and outright lying. The most
obvious example of this are the ghost cities but there are countless
more. As long as the money kept pouring in from the outside they could
get away with it but that had been slowing for a while and the recent
plague has made it even worse so they are going to have to do something
soon. And that something is not going to be pretty.
J. Clarke
2021-08-13 22:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 19:20:32 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord
driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity
to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will
be that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true, but
everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of "central
gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position
to lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.
The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting
to explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for the
rest of my probable lifespan.
What internal problems do they have waiting to explode? Running out of
minorities to persecute?
A lot of China's economic growth has been based on smoke and mirrors,
fudged numbers,robbing peter to pay paul, and outright lying. The most
obvious example of this are the ghost cities but there are countless
more. As long as the money kept pouring in from the outside they could
get away with it but that had been slowing for a while and the recent
plague has made it even worse so they are going to have to do something
soon. And that something is not going to be pretty.
I thought their economic growth was mostly from the US replacing
American union labor with Chinese slave labor. Now they've got enough
foreign trade that if the US cuts them off it's no big deal. And they
could always go digest Russia if they needed a diversion.
Magewolf
2021-08-14 19:14:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:10:25 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless
warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments
of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period
will be that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the
"warlords" are "Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true,
but everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of
"central gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat
endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position
to lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.
The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting
to explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for
the rest of my probable lifespan.
What internal problems do they have waiting to explode? Running out
of minorities to persecute?
A lot of China's economic growth has been based on smoke and mirrors,
fudged numbers,robbing peter to pay paul, and outright lying. The most
obvious example of this are the ghost cities but there are countless
more. As long as the money kept pouring in from the outside they could
get away with it but that had been slowing for a while and the recent
plague has made it even worse so they are going to have to do something
soon. And that something is not going to be pretty.
I thought their economic growth was mostly from the US replacing
American union labor with Chinese slave labor. Now they've got enough
foreign trade that if the US cuts them off it's no big deal. And they
could always go digest Russia if they needed a diversion.
China's problem is that Chinese slave labor is no longer the cheapest
labor pool.
Lynn McGuire
2021-08-18 01:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:10:25 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless
warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments
of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period
will be that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the
"warlords" are "Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true,
but everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of
"central gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat
endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position
to lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.
The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting
to explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for
the rest of my probable lifespan.
What internal problems do they have waiting to explode? Running out
of minorities to persecute?
A lot of China's economic growth has been based on smoke and mirrors,
fudged numbers,robbing peter to pay paul, and outright lying. The most
obvious example of this are the ghost cities but there are countless
more. As long as the money kept pouring in from the outside they could
get away with it but that had been slowing for a while and the recent
plague has made it even worse so they are going to have to do something
soon. And that something is not going to be pretty.
I thought their economic growth was mostly from the US replacing
American union labor with Chinese slave labor. Now they've got enough
foreign trade that if the US cuts them off it's no big deal. And they
could always go digest Russia if they needed a diversion.
China's problem is that Chinese slave labor is no longer the cheapest
labor pool.
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field

Lynn
J. Clarke
2021-08-18 06:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:10:25 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless
warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments
of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period
will be that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the
"warlords" are "Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true,
but everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of
"central gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat
endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position
to lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.
The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting
to explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for
the rest of my probable lifespan.
What internal problems do they have waiting to explode? Running out
of minorities to persecute?
A lot of China's economic growth has been based on smoke and mirrors,
fudged numbers,robbing peter to pay paul, and outright lying. The most
obvious example of this are the ghost cities but there are countless
more. As long as the money kept pouring in from the outside they could
get away with it but that had been slowing for a while and the recent
plague has made it even worse so they are going to have to do something
soon. And that something is not going to be pretty.
I thought their economic growth was mostly from the US replacing
American union labor with Chinese slave labor. Now they've got enough
foreign trade that if the US cuts them off it's no big deal. And they
could always go digest Russia if they needed a diversion.
China's problem is that Chinese slave labor is no longer the cheapest
labor pool.
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Frank Scrooby
2021-08-18 07:29:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.

Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.

And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.

Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.

IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels at mid-20th century type rates.

In other words we need to let them screw over the environment in direct proportion to the damage already done, but only on a much larger scale because their populations are so much larger.

Some how a planet running on thorium fueled fission reactors just doesn't look that bad from over here.

Regards
Frank
J. Clarke
2021-08-18 14:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Post by Frank Scrooby
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.
If China can't make steel that's more market for the rest of us.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
Now that I will buy.
Post by Frank Scrooby
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels at mid-20th century type rates.
Anybody who is not at a first world standard of living should
certainly be brought there, but using non-greenhouse-emitting energy.
China rose from an insignificant emitter of greenhouse gases to the
largest emitter in the world (and not by a tiny margin, they emit more
than the entire rest of the developed world combined) _after_ they
signed Kyoto.
Post by Frank Scrooby
In other words we need to let them screw over the environment in direct proportion to the damage already done, but only on a much larger scale because their populations are so much larger.
There are certainly idiots out there who think that the environment
_cares_ about "per capita" and "fairness" but they aren't yet
mainstream.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Some how a planet running on thorium fueled fission reactors just doesn't look that bad from over here.
There are all kinds of options.
John Halpenny
2021-08-18 15:31:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Post by Frank Scrooby
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.
If China can't make steel that's more market for the rest of us.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
Now that I will buy.
Post by Frank Scrooby
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels at mid-20th century type rates.
Anybody who is not at a first world standard of living should
certainly be brought there, but using non-greenhouse-emitting energy.
China rose from an insignificant emitter of greenhouse gases to the
largest emitter in the world (and not by a tiny margin, they emit more
than the entire rest of the developed world combined) _after_ they
signed Kyoto.
Post by Frank Scrooby
In other words we need to let them screw over the environment in direct proportion to the damage already done, but only on a much larger scale because their populations are so much larger.
There are certainly idiots out there who think that the environment
_cares_ about "per capita" and "fairness" but they aren't yet
mainstream.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Some how a planet running on thorium fueled fission reactors just doesn't look that bad from over here.
There are all kinds of options.
The "first world standard of living" is designed in Europe, built in China, programmed in India, and installed by Mexicans. Without them it would collapse in a week.

John

John
J. Clarke
2021-08-18 16:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:31:03 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
Post by John Halpenny
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Post by Frank Scrooby
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.
If China can't make steel that's more market for the rest of us.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
Now that I will buy.
Post by Frank Scrooby
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels at mid-20th century type rates.
Anybody who is not at a first world standard of living should
certainly be brought there, but using non-greenhouse-emitting energy.
China rose from an insignificant emitter of greenhouse gases to the
largest emitter in the world (and not by a tiny margin, they emit more
than the entire rest of the developed world combined) _after_ they
signed Kyoto.
Post by Frank Scrooby
In other words we need to let them screw over the environment in direct proportion to the damage already done, but only on a much larger scale because their populations are so much larger.
There are certainly idiots out there who think that the environment
_cares_ about "per capita" and "fairness" but they aren't yet
mainstream.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Some how a planet running on thorium fueled fission reactors just doesn't look that bad from over here.
There are all kinds of options.
The "first world standard of living" is designed in Europe, built in China, programmed in India, and installed by Mexicans. Without them it would collapse in a week.
So you're saying that civilization will instantly collapse if imports
of Chinese goods are blocked? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
And I don't believe I own anything other than an 80 year old Leica,
some light bulbs, and a few power tools that was "designed in
Europe"--there's only one of those that is unique and could not be
replaced with designed in US or designed in Japan.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-08-18 17:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 08:31:03 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 10:45:12 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their
hydrocarbons are now imported since Daqing Oil Field
(their super giant reservoir) and others are in decline.
They are also importing a lot of coal from the USA and
Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off
their coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still
have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested
in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will
not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red
Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining
lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a
'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already
annoyed. If they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China
is at this point a fraction of a percent of the US market,
which is overall only about 10% of production. The largest
single export market is Brazil.
Post by Frank Scrooby
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global
steel trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.
If China can't make steel that's more market for the rest of
us.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
Now that I will buy.
Post by Frank Scrooby
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics
is that China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up"
with the West in terms of economic per capita strength but
letting them burn fossil fuels at mid-20th century type
rates.
Anybody who is not at a first world standard of living should
certainly be brought there, but using non-greenhouse-emitting
energy. China rose from an insignificant emitter of greenhouse
gases to the largest emitter in the world (and not by a tiny
margin, they emit more than the entire rest of the developed
world combined) _after_ they signed Kyoto.
Post by Frank Scrooby
In other words we need to let them screw over the environment
in direct proportion to the damage already done, but only on
a much larger scale because their populations are so much
larger.
There are certainly idiots out there who think that the
environment _cares_ about "per capita" and "fairness" but they
aren't yet mainstream.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Some how a planet running on thorium fueled fission reactors
just doesn't look that bad from over here.
There are all kinds of options.
The "first world standard of living" is designed in Europe,
built in China, programmed in India, and installed by Mexicans.
Without them it would collapse in a week.
So you're saying that civilization will instantly collapse if
imports of Chinese goods are blocked? Sorry, but it doesn't
work that way. And I don't believe I own anything other than an
80 year old Leica, some light bulbs, and a few power tools that
was "designed in Europe"--there's only one of those that is
unique and could not be replaced with designed in US or designed
in Japan.
Not to mention how little stuff from China is actually arriving in
the US right now.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2021-08-18 15:57:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:45:07 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Maybe the miners need to consider other forms of employment.

And the owners remediation.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Frank Scrooby
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.
If China can't make steel that's more market for the rest of us.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
Now that I will buy.
Post by Frank Scrooby
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels at mid-20th century type rates.
Anybody who is not at a first world standard of living should
certainly be brought there, but using non-greenhouse-emitting energy.
China rose from an insignificant emitter of greenhouse gases to the
largest emitter in the world (and not by a tiny margin, they emit more
than the entire rest of the developed world combined) _after_ they
signed Kyoto.
And exactly /when/ did Commies start keeping their promises?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Frank Scrooby
In other words we need to let them screw over the environment in direct proportion to the damage already done, but only on a much larger scale because their populations are so much larger.
There are certainly idiots out there who think that the environment
_cares_ about "per capita" and "fairness" but they aren't yet
mainstream.
The environment doesn't care, but more people means more resources
will be needed in toto.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Frank Scrooby
Some how a planet running on thorium fueled fission reactors just doesn't look that bad from over here.
There are all kinds of options.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Chrysi Cat
2021-08-18 16:16:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:45:07 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Maybe the miners need to consider other forms of employment.
And the owners remediation.
All right; you want to tell us how to GET them to ACCEPT that they need
to consider other forms of employment (or, better yet, to get them to be
the first folks where "employment for employment's sake" isn't
considered necessary, and we can all just enslave robots and live off
what the robot _isn't_ taking home as wages/salary?)

That "little" issue is a *major* contributor to "the question of why no
one other than a Republican has won a majority in a WV, Coal-Belt PA,
East Kentucky, or East Tennessee county since the beginning of the coal
crash". They only WANT to be miners. And it wouldn't matter if you could
pay them *more* to do something else (or even "nothing").
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Frank Scrooby
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.
If China can't make steel that's more market for the rest of us.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
Now that I will buy.
Post by Frank Scrooby
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels at mid-20th century type rates.
Anybody who is not at a first world standard of living should
certainly be brought there, but using non-greenhouse-emitting energy.
China rose from an insignificant emitter of greenhouse gases to the
largest emitter in the world (and not by a tiny margin, they emit more
than the entire rest of the developed world combined) _after_ they
signed Kyoto.
And exactly /when/ did Commies start keeping their promises?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Frank Scrooby
In other words we need to let them screw over the environment in direct proportion to the damage already done, but only on a much larger scale because their populations are so much larger.
There are certainly idiots out there who think that the environment
_cares_ about "per capita" and "fairness" but they aren't yet
mainstream.
The environment doesn't care, but more people means more resources
will be needed in toto.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Frank Scrooby
Some how a planet running on thorium fueled fission reactors just doesn't look that bad from over here.
There are all kinds of options.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
J. Clarke
2021-08-18 17:00:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:45:07 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Maybe the miners need to consider other forms of employment.
And the owners remediation.
All right; you want to tell us how to GET them to ACCEPT that they need
to consider other forms of employment (or, better yet, to get them to be
the first folks where "employment for employment's sake" isn't
considered necessary, and we can all just enslave robots and live off
what the robot _isn't_ taking home as wages/salary?)
That "little" issue is a *major* contributor to "the question of why no
one other than a Republican has won a majority in a WV, Coal-Belt PA,
East Kentucky, or East Tennessee county since the beginning of the coal
crash". They only WANT to be miners. And it wouldn't matter if you could
pay them *more* to do something else (or even "nothing").
I don't think that they "only want to be miners". They want a job
that pays as well as mining, but nobody is coming up with any.

If you pay them more to do nothing, that they will resist--that is
charity and nobody wants to live on charity.
r***@rosettacondot.com
2021-08-18 19:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:45:07 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Maybe the miners need to consider other forms of employment.
And the owners remediation.
All right; you want to tell us how to GET them to ACCEPT that they need
to consider other forms of employment (or, better yet, to get them to be
the first folks where "employment for employment's sake" isn't
considered necessary, and we can all just enslave robots and live off
what the robot _isn't_ taking home as wages/salary?)
That "little" issue is a *major* contributor to "the question of why no
one other than a Republican has won a majority in a WV, Coal-Belt PA,
East Kentucky, or East Tennessee county since the beginning of the coal
crash". They only WANT to be miners. And it wouldn't matter if you could
pay them *more* to do something else (or even "nothing").
I don't think that they "only want to be miners". They want a job
that pays as well as mining, but nobody is coming up with any.
Not being forced to move to "the city" is important as well.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
J. Clarke
2021-08-18 21:39:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:45:07 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Maybe the miners need to consider other forms of employment.
And the owners remediation.
All right; you want to tell us how to GET them to ACCEPT that they need
to consider other forms of employment (or, better yet, to get them to be
the first folks where "employment for employment's sake" isn't
considered necessary, and we can all just enslave robots and live off
what the robot _isn't_ taking home as wages/salary?)
That "little" issue is a *major* contributor to "the question of why no
one other than a Republican has won a majority in a WV, Coal-Belt PA,
East Kentucky, or East Tennessee county since the beginning of the coal
crash". They only WANT to be miners. And it wouldn't matter if you could
pay them *more* to do something else (or even "nothing").
I don't think that they "only want to be miners". They want a job
that pays as well as mining, but nobody is coming up with any.
Not being forced to move to "the city" is important as well.
There aren't any jobs to speak of in "the city" anyway so that's not
an issue.
David Johnston
2021-08-29 17:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:45:07 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
That would be news to a lot of people in Appalachia. US coal
production is down 36% from 15 years ago.
Post by Frank Scrooby
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
The coal miners and coal mining lobby groups are already annoyed. If
they're more annoyed so what? In any case, China is at this point a
fraction of a percent of the US market, which is overall only about
10% of production. The largest single export market is Brazil.
Maybe the miners need to consider other forms of employment.
And the owners remediation.
All right; you want to tell us how to GET them to ACCEPT that they need
to consider other forms of employment (or, better yet, to get them to be
the first folks where "employment for employment's sake" isn't
considered necessary, and we can all just enslave robots and live off
what the robot _isn't_ taking home as wages/salary?)
That "little" issue is a *major* contributor to "the question of why no
one other than a Republican has won a majority in a WV, Coal-Belt PA,
East Kentucky, or East Tennessee county since the beginning of the coal
crash". They only WANT to be miners. And it wouldn't matter if you could
pay them *more* to do something else (or even "nothing").
I don't think that they "only want to be miners". They want a job
that pays as well as mining, but nobody is coming up with any.
They reacted reeeeeally negatively to Hilary Clinton suggesting a
retraining program so they could get jobs to replace those dying coal
mining jobs.
Paul S Person
2021-08-18 15:54:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal extraction industry.
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels at mid-20th century type rates.
I've always found that puzzling.

I would have thought that /apply the lessons learned/ to /skip several
of the ecologically-nastier steps/ would have made more sense.

But perhaps the goal was to have them take a few centuries to succeed.
If they can succeed.
Post by Frank Scrooby
In other words we need to let them screw over the environment in direct proportion to the damage already done, but only on a much larger scale because their populations are so much larger.
Some how a planet running on thorium fueled fission reactors just doesn't look that bad from over here.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Magewolf
2021-08-18 19:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have
tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal
extraction industry.
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just
hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also
annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite
possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade
as well. So that will be even more angry people.
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that
China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in
terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels
at mid-20th century type rates.
I've always found that puzzling.
I would have thought that /apply the lessons learned/ to /skip several
of the ecologically-nastier steps/ would have made more sense.
But perhaps the goal was to have them take a few centuries to succeed.
If they can succeed.
Coal is cheap and China and to a lesser extent India only care about the
"environment" to the point they can use it to get goodies from the West.
J. Clarke
2021-08-18 21:40:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 19:52:16 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have
tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal
extraction industry.
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just
hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also
annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite
possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected' government.
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel trade
as well. So that will be even more angry people.
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that
China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in
terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil fuels
at mid-20th century type rates.
I've always found that puzzling.
I would have thought that /apply the lessons learned/ to /skip several
of the ecologically-nastier steps/ would have made more sense.
But perhaps the goal was to have them take a few centuries to succeed.
If they can succeed.
Coal is cheap and China and to a lesser extent India only care about the
"environment" to the point they can use it to get goodies from the West.
China sells goodies to the west, what they get back is money.
Magewolf
2021-08-19 19:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<<much snipped>>
Post by J. Clarke
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their
hydrocarbons are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super
giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal
from the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
Problem with that strategy is that Western governments still have
tremendous amounts of money and political power invested in the coal
extraction industry.
Making China pay more (or cutting them off altogether) will not just
hurt your nation's relationships with the Jolly Red Dragon, but also
annoy all the coal miners and coal mining lobby groups, and quite
possibly lead to the downfall of a 'democratically elected'
government.
And cutting off China's access to coal will hurt the global steel
trade as well. So that will be even more angry people.
Western politicians are too gutless to risk it, even if it is the right thing to do.
IIRC the current thinking in global climate change politics is that
China and India "need" to be allowed to "catch up" with the West in
terms of economic per capita strength but letting them burn fossil
fuels at mid-20th century type rates.
I've always found that puzzling.
I would have thought that /apply the lessons learned/ to /skip several
of the ecologically-nastier steps/ would have made more sense.
But perhaps the goal was to have them take a few centuries to succeed.
If they can succeed.
Coal is cheap and China and to a lesser extent India only care about the
"environment" to the point they can use it to get goodies from the West.
China sells goodies to the west, what they get back is money.
Money is goodies, as are diplomatic concessions.
Paul S Person
2021-08-18 15:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
n Wed, 18 Aug 2021 02:10:16 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:48:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Magewolf
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:10:25 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless
warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments
of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period
will be that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the
"warlords" are "Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true,
but everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of
"central gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat
endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position
to lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.
The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting
to explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for
the rest of my probable lifespan.
What internal problems do they have waiting to explode? Running out
of minorities to persecute?
A lot of China's economic growth has been based on smoke and mirrors,
fudged numbers,robbing peter to pay paul, and outright lying. The most
obvious example of this are the ghost cities but there are countless
more. As long as the money kept pouring in from the outside they could
get away with it but that had been slowing for a while and the recent
plague has made it even worse so they are going to have to do something
soon. And that something is not going to be pretty.
I thought their economic growth was mostly from the US replacing
American union labor with Chinese slave labor. Now they've got enough
foreign trade that if the US cuts them off it's no big deal. And they
could always go digest Russia if they needed a diversion.
China's problem is that Chinese slave labor is no longer the cheapest
labor pool.
And their energy costs are rapidly rising. Much of their hydrocarbons
are now imported since Daqing Oil Field (their super giant reservoir)
and others are in decline. They are also importing a lot of coal from
the USA and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqing_Oil_Field
If true we should do the environment a favor by cutting off their
coal.
But ... but ... but then the Coal Country would go into recession, and
we can't have that.

Oh, wait ...
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2021-08-18 15:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
China's problem is that Chinese slave labor is no longer the cheapest
labor pool.
It may not be the _cheapest_, but it still is one of the cheapest that has
access to modern factories, and which has the proper habits and
training not to turn a factory into a ruin within weeks.

China's only real competitor is India in that regard.

And China is planning for that eventuality - hence, the Belt and Road
initiative. Eventually, they will manage what had evaded the capitalist
West: putting factories in Africa.

John Savard
p***@hotmail.com
2021-08-18 02:36:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord
driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity
to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will
be that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/
overseas Chinese are still part of the Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true, but
everyone else does.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of "central
gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
Unfortunately, it looks like the central government is in the position
to lock down the country forever. Social credit score for eternity.
The only good news is that they have so many internal problems waiting
to explode that their focus is going to have to be mostly inward for the
rest of my probable lifespan.
What internal problems do they have waiting to explode? Running out of
minorities to persecute?
_A lot of China's economic growth has been based on smoke and mirrors,
_fudged numbers, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and outright lying.

Tell me about it.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Paul S Person
2021-08-13 15:50:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:08:54 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:17:43 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 01:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Exactly.
The only likely difference in the next "warring states" period will be
that the "states" are "People's Republics" and the "warlords" are
"Commissars".
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
The Chinese government does not make this distinction, it's true, but
everyone else does.
My recollection of the articles I read at the time is that, in point
of fact, "every" (meaning, of course, "most" or "a typical") Chinese
person did not make the distinction either. To be Chinese was to be
Chinese, no matter what part of the world you lived in, and to be
Chinese was to be part of the Middle Kingdom.
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
We appear to be discussing the apparent historical pattern of "central
gummint, warring states, central gummint, repeat endlessly".
Except that's a gross oversimplification. China's history isn't
significantly more cyclical than anyone else's.
That may well be, but it is still a pattern that has repeated in
China.

Not being immune from a general pattern does, indeed, mean that you
are affected by it.
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by J. Clarke
The impression I have is that, in some cases at least, what happened
was more that the central gummint became irrelevant and the warlords
took advantage of the situation, not that some sort of actual
insurrection occurred.
So you may want to see if this holds up as a historical pattern or
not.
I don't believe it will. The present culture in China is no longer
the traditional parochial one.
The present /government/ is very much the same. High officials behave
as did the Mandarins. High Party officials in the USSR did the same:
/they/ had country houses, just as the nobility had before them.

And there have been signs of local province gummints behaving in ways
opposed to the central gummint. All that is needed is for this to
become general, and for the local military units to be co-opted by the
local Central Committee, and the central government will, indeed, fade
away just as Marx is said to have predicted. Leaving the provinces as
separate "states".

That's the problem with totalitarianism: you have to control
/everybody/. You cannot have any exempt groups, no matter how high
their rank. And this, by itself, breeds insanity in the ruler and
opposition in everybody else.

The General's Plot failed, but not because the totalitarian regime
nipped it in the bud. It failed because the target moved away from the
bomb (IIRC).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Michael F. Stemper
2021-08-13 17:18:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:23:49 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
Not me.
When Locke was appointed Ambassador, the stories I read suggested,
BTW, that your distinction between "actual Chinese" and
"Chinese-Americans" was unknown in China. Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
If I recall correctly, James Michner portrayed this in _Hawaii_.

In the 19th century, migrants came from China to Hawai'i. They all
considered themselves to be Chinese. They sent money back to the
families they left behind.

Kee Mun Ki (maybe that was his name) came to Hawai'i and married
a Chinese woman who had come there from another village. But, she
was never referred to as his wife. Rather, she was called something
along the lines of "Wu Chow's Auntie". (I think because their first
child was named Kee Wu Chow, but it's been several years.)

During the remainder of his life, Kee Mun Ki continued to send money
back to his "real wife".
--
Michael F. Stemper
87.3% of all statistics are made up by the person giving them.
Quadibloc
2021-08-18 15:37:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Apparently, the cultural
expectation is that /all/ overseas Chinese are still part of the
Middle Kingdom.
I do remember that a video on YouTube, apparently by a propaganda arm
of the government of the PRC, talking about China's prospects in making
its own microchips...

began by noting that Lisa Su and Jensen Huang were Chinese.

That would have been relevant if the attitude once commonly held
about black people was today commonly held about the Chinese - that they
were a mentally-deficient race halfway between real (white) humans and
the apes. As far as I know, however, _very_ few people think of the Chinese
in this fashion.

In any case, this could be taken as a data point in favor of your statement,
particularly as the video did not specifically state they were of Chinese
origin or ancestry, so as to avoid confusing the statement in the video with
an incorrect claim that they were citizens of the PRC.

John Savard
Frank Scrooby
2021-08-13 07:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi all
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:19:46 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
The vocabulary changes. The culture remains.
Has either of you ever been to China, or talked to any Chinese people?
(Not Chinese-Americans, but actual Chinese.)
I contact with "Chinese" people is limited to a few people (yes like 7 of them, including a very nice Chinese American lady who sold me a nice watch while I was in Las Vegas, before the turn of the century) living outside of China, some of them are second or third generation born outside of China.

Their opinions might not represent the world view of all Chinese but this is what I got:

1) They have little to no desire to go back 'home', either for economic, social or religious reasons. Most are Christians, a couple are Muslims, and another was a Confucian thinker (that is how he described himself).

2) They still regard themselves as Chinese, although a couple do make the distinction of being Chinese but from a distinct ethnic group, or geographical region.

3) They all want to get what remaining family they have in China out. This is not as crazy as it sounds because the 1 child policy has really cut into Chinese reproduction rates.

4) They have no interest in supporting the current or future government of China, and very little expectation that things will get better without getting a lot, lot worse.

5) They expect "China" to endure, but sometimes (and this is the analogy one of them gave me), only as the shattered ceramic bowl that has been carefully put back together again by a master craftsman with lots of superglue (made in China of cause), and much love.

With the exception of one young lady who was working at the IT company I was employed at (who went on to become a supermodel in Singapore because of her height), all these folk were merchants of some sort, selling everything from everything made from plastic to cheap "Chinese" food (which turns out to not be an authentic Chinese recipe, but rather the popular one that sells better to the local population).
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Because your descriptions sure don't match what I've seen and heard.
YMMV. I'm in South Africa, where the Chinese population is very small (I don't know the number but it must be below 200K). Their economic power is much, much bigger. Like I said, merchants, and they are good at what they do. You are undoubtedly being exposed to a bigger population and sample size.

Kind regards
Frank
Jonathan
2021-08-18 22:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Prior to the Chinese Communist Party rise to power practically no ruler of all China had complete control over the country, and his or her descendants usually lost a bit chunk or all of the country within a life time after the successful leader's death. The actions of the modern Communist Party leadership seems to suggest that they understand this, and that they recognize that they are the successors and their existence is endangered by every single last sign of dissent or difference in their subjects (sorry loyal, brave, proud peasants workers).
During most of the AD portion of China's history the rule of thumb for rulers seems to have been to achieve military supremacy, then execute all the unnecessary courtiers, provincial governors, military leaders, concubines, children, wealthy merchants etc. from the previous leadership's ethnic group, steal their stuff and then replace the slaughtered with members of their own ethnic group.
The exception are (of cause) the Mongolians, who weren't Chinese, never became Chinese, and executed (or mass murdered) just enough people to convince all the survivors that cooperation and servitude was the only survival strategy with a hope of working. And even the fierce Mongolians didn't last too long, a couple of generations later and they were out too.
"China" is like ""Italy" a rough geographical location that was forged into a political entity by the crap-fest that was the latter half of the 19th century.
The mistake in predicting the future of any present nation state is to assume it will survive the current generation. Almost no one remembers Burgandy, or that Normandy was once a (powerful and independant) nation. Or the Holy Roman Empire (either one). Or the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which last quite some time if you consider the mess of complete idiots who tried to run the place. The only people who remember the Transvaal Republic and Oranje Vrui Staat are those who long for the re-establishment of those two states (I've met a few, they are completely bonkers, like Hitler's SS bonkers). I'm sure there are examples in Asia that I don't know about. And all the kingdoms and Empires and city states of the Americas that vanished into fable and poorly remembered oral history as soon as European diseases hit the shores of the Americas.
China might be gone tomorrow, and so might the US.
From a system science perspective a free market democracy
has the tendency to establish order from within, to
self-organize. Which is the same process nature uses
for say an old growth forest, with similar characteristics
like being highly adaptive resilient and creative.

Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html

This is a system that follows power law behavior where
in ideal form is like a pyramid comprised of many
thin horizontal layers, with each layer having the
same total power as any other. For instance the
very top layer, the leader, would have the same
total power as the very bottom, the people.

This natural distribution of power causes the
entire 'pyramid' to, in the words of the
founder of the science of self organization
Stuart Kauffman 'to tremble with Adam Smith-like
invisible hands'.

Or create a whole that is more than it's sum
and evolve.

While a dictatorship of any form, whether
corrupt capitalism, military or religious
has a top down power structure that is
highly brittle in character, poorly adapted
and generally produces a vicious cycle of
every growing resistance met by ever growing
repression that has only one logical ending.

Such a top down structure is almost destined
to collapse, sooner or later.

While a societal system based on the Darwinian
evolution we all know and love is destined
to produce the kind of natural beauty we
all take for granted while strolling in
a nearby forest.

But as for America in particular, the ideal
power structure found in nature would be
the old 80-20 law. Where 80% of the power
or wealth would be in the hands of the
top 20%.

Sadly America's power structure is dangerously
top heavy around 98-2% or worse.

That's the most important reform this nation needs
a more equitable or natural power distribution.
As such a top heavy structure essentially begins
to act like a dictatorship with all of the
inherent weaknesses.


Jonthan
Post by Frank Scrooby
Regards
Frank
--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Kevrob
2021-08-19 03:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Prior to the Chinese Communist Party rise to power practically no ruler of all China had complete control over the country, and his or her descendants usually lost a bit chunk or all of the country within a life time after the successful leader's death. The actions of the modern Communist Party leadership seems to suggest that they understand this, and that they recognize that they are the successors and their existence is endangered by every single last sign of dissent or difference in their subjects (sorry loyal, brave, proud peasants workers).
During most of the AD portion of China's history the rule of thumb for rulers seems to have been to achieve military supremacy, then execute all the unnecessary courtiers, provincial governors, military leaders, concubines, children, wealthy merchants etc. from the previous leadership's ethnic group, steal their stuff and then replace the slaughtered with members of their own ethnic group.
The exception are (of cause) the Mongolians, who weren't Chinese, never became Chinese, and executed (or mass murdered) just enough people to convince all the survivors that cooperation and servitude was the only survival strategy with a hope of working. And even the fierce Mongolians didn't last too long, a couple of generations later and they were out too.
"China" is like ""Italy" a rough geographical location that was forged into a political entity by the crap-fest that was the latter half of the 19th century.
The mistake in predicting the future of any present nation state is to assume it will survive the current generation. Almost no one remembers Burgandy, or that Normandy was once a (powerful and independant) nation. Or the Holy Roman Empire (either one). Or the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which last quite some time if you consider the mess of complete idiots who tried to run the place. The only people who remember the Transvaal Republic and Oranje Vrui Staat are those who long for the re-establishment of those two states (I've met a few, they are completely bonkers, like Hitler's SS bonkers). I'm sure there are examples in Asia that I don't know about. And all the kingdoms and Empires and city states of the Americas that vanished into fable and poorly remembered oral history as soon as European diseases hit the shores of the Americas.
China might be gone tomorrow, and so might the US.
From a system science perspective a free market democracy
has the tendency to establish order from within, to
self-organize. Which is the same process nature uses
for say an old growth forest, with similar characteristics
like being highly adaptive resilient and creative.
Which Hayek called "spontaneous order."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order#Markets
Post by Jonathan
Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html
This is a system that follows power law behavior where
in ideal form is like a pyramid comprised of many
thin horizontal layers, with each layer having the
same total power as any other. For instance the
very top layer, the leader, would have the same
total power as the very bottom, the people.
This natural distribution of power causes the
entire 'pyramid' to, in the words of the
founder of the science of self organization
Stuart Kauffman 'to tremble with Adam Smith-like
invisible hands'.
Or create a whole that is more than it's sum
and evolve.
While a dictatorship of any form, whether
corrupt capitalism, military or religious
has a top down power structure that is
highly brittle in character, poorly adapted
and generally produces a vicious cycle of
every growing resistance met by ever growing
repression that has only one logical ending.
Such a top down structure is almost destined
to collapse, sooner or later.
While a societal system based on the Darwinian
evolution we all know and love is destined
to produce the kind of natural beauty we
all take for granted while strolling in
[snip]
--
Kevin R
Jonathan
2021-08-29 23:58:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jonathan
Post by Frank Scrooby
Hi all,
Isn't the whole history of China one long story of endless warlord driven internal warfare interrupted only by brief moments of unity to counter external threats.
Prior to the Chinese Communist Party rise to power practically no ruler of all China had complete control over the country, and his or her descendants usually lost a bit chunk or all of the country within a life time after the successful leader's death. The actions of the modern Communist Party leadership seems to suggest that they understand this, and that they recognize that they are the successors and their existence is endangered by every single last sign of dissent or difference in their subjects (sorry loyal, brave, proud peasants workers).
During most of the AD portion of China's history the rule of thumb for rulers seems to have been to achieve military supremacy, then execute all the unnecessary courtiers, provincial governors, military leaders, concubines, children, wealthy merchants etc. from the previous leadership's ethnic group, steal their stuff and then replace the slaughtered with members of their own ethnic group.
The exception are (of cause) the Mongolians, who weren't Chinese, never became Chinese, and executed (or mass murdered) just enough people to convince all the survivors that cooperation and servitude was the only survival strategy with a hope of working. And even the fierce Mongolians didn't last too long, a couple of generations later and they were out too.
"China" is like ""Italy" a rough geographical location that was forged into a political entity by the crap-fest that was the latter half of the 19th century.
The mistake in predicting the future of any present nation state is to assume it will survive the current generation. Almost no one remembers Burgandy, or that Normandy was once a (powerful and independant) nation. Or the Holy Roman Empire (either one). Or the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which last quite some time if you consider the mess of complete idiots who tried to run the place. The only people who remember the Transvaal Republic and Oranje Vrui Staat are those who long for the re-establishment of those two states (I've met a few, they are completely bonkers, like Hitler's SS bonkers). I'm sure there are examples in Asia that I don't know about. And all the kingdoms and Empires and city states of the Americas that vanished into fable and poorly remembered oral history as soon as European diseases hit the shores of the Americas.
China might be gone tomorrow, and so might the US.
From a system science perspective a free market democracy
has the tendency to establish order from within, to
self-organize. Which is the same process nature uses
for say an old growth forest, with similar characteristics
like being highly adaptive resilient and creative.
Which Hayek called "spontaneous order."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order#Markets
Exactly. And the point I'm making is this
spontaneous order or self-organization
is a universal process common to nothing less
than all visible order in the universe.

Placing Darwinian evolution in abstract terms
has shown us that evolution is not limited
to biological systems, but that everything
in the universe evolves via a process
common to all.

For instance the universe itself, life and mind
as shown in the links below, in addition to
markets and society.

Even the fundamental constants evolve. Haven't
you wondered how it's possible for the universal
constants to have been set 'just right' at the
start of the universe so that now 15 billion
years later they are exactly right for life
to exist?

Called the unsolved 'fine-tuning problem'
in cosmology.

A forest steadily evolves and maintains
just the right conditions for life too.



Order out of Randomness: Self-Organization Processes in Astrophysics
Space Science Reviews
volume 214, Article number: 55 (2018)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-018-0489-2


OXFORD ACEDEMIC

BioSciece

Self-organization, Natural Selection, and Evolution: Cellular Hardware
and Genetic Software

"When Wöhler produced urea using a purely chemical process, it
changed the way we perceived biology, as it showed that the
substances of physical and living systems are identical.

Beginning with Turing (1952), and continuing with Nicolis
and Prigogine (1977), Kauffman (1993), and many others, a
similar change in perspective is currently under way.
We now know that life is not only made up of the same substances
as the inorganic world but also that life's processes are often
the same as those we see in the natural world.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/11/879/328810


MIT
Self-Organization and Artificial Life
Carlos Gershenson,

In this review, we discuss the fundamental aspects of
self-organization and list the main usages within three
primary ALife domains, namely

“soft” (mathematical/computational modeling),
“hard” (physical robots), and
“wet” (chemical/biological systems) ALife.

https://doi.org/10.1162/artl_a_00324
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jonathan
Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html
This is a system that follows power law behavior where
in ideal form is like a pyramid comprised of many
thin horizontal layers, with each layer having the
same total power as any other. For instance the
very top layer, the leader, would have the same
total power as the very bottom, the people.
This natural distribution of power causes the
entire 'pyramid' to, in the words of the
founder of the science of self organization
Stuart Kauffman 'to tremble with Adam Smith-like
invisible hands'.
Or create a whole that is more than it's sum
and evolve.
While a dictatorship of any form, whether
corrupt capitalism, military or religious
has a top down power structure that is
highly brittle in character, poorly adapted
and generally produces a vicious cycle of
every growing resistance met by ever growing
repression that has only one logical ending.
Such a top down structure is almost destined
to collapse, sooner or later.
While a societal system based on the Darwinian
evolution we all know and love is destined
to produce the kind of natural beauty we
all take for granted while strolling in
[snip]
--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Joe Bernstein
2021-08-21 21:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Scrooby
The mistake in predicting the future of any present nation state is
to assume it will survive the current generation. Almost no one
remembers Burgandy, or that Normandy was once a (powerful and
independant) nation. Or the Holy Roman Empire (either one). Or the
Kingdom of Jerusalem, which last quite some time if you consider
the mess of complete idiots who tried to run the place. The only
people who remember the Transvaal Republic and Oranje Vrui Staat
are those who long for the re-establishment of those two states
(I've met a few, they are completely bonkers, like Hitler's SS
bonkers). I'm sure there are examples in Asia that I don't know
about. And all the kingdoms and Empires and city states of the
Americas that vanished into fable and poorly remembered oral
history as soon as European diseases hit the shores of the Americas.
China might be gone tomorrow, and so might the US.
Um.

There's a fair amount of turnover among states these days, sure.
Since my birth, South Vietnam, East Germany, one of the Yemens,
Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union have all gone away. As have a few
colonial entities.

But that's a quite different matter from predicting the future of a
particular state.

In pre-modern history, something reasonably understandable as China
has been united 221 BC to AD 220, AD 581 to 907, AD 1271 to 1912.
Note that the interregnum between Qing and PRC was just 37 years, one
*tenth* of those between Han and Sui, and between Tang and Yuan.
Chinese unity is not, then, a given, but is a pretty common pattern
in history to date. Granted, loosely controlled borderlands may
separate - at present, China is down Taiwan, Mongolia, and some of
the northeast from its maximum Qing extent - but it strikes me as a
bad bet that there'll be a disintegration of the Chinese heartland in
my lifetime, or my nieces' and nephew's.

Let's call Alaska and Hawaii loosely controlled US borderlands; then
the US has been basically the same land since around 1850, and united
for all but four years of that. This isn't a patch on the Chinese
record, but suggests that we've at least *recently* been stable.

In both areas we see a trend toward stability, too. I suspect modern
technology is more a help than a hindrance to border maintenance.

The countries that have died in my lifetime were mostly products of
Cold War rivalries splitting a nationality - East Germany, South
Vietnam, and pick a Yemen. Yugoslavia and the Russian Empire which
became the Soviet Union were older transnational states that died
under democratic episodes.
Post by Frank Scrooby
I'm sure there are examples in Asia that I don't know
about.
Well, depends what you count as a nation-state. A notable omission
in Southeast Asia is Champa, split between Cambodia and Vietnam; I'm
not sure it was a nation-state, but it existed relatively recently.
But more of the recent history of Asia has been the splitting up of
unstable empires: the Mughal/British in South Asia, the Ottoman in
Southwest, the French in Southeast, the Russian in Central. The way
India keeps adding more and more states suggests that at some level,
it isn't *fully* a nation-state yet, that there remain massive ethnic
differences, of course Pakistan has split in my lifetime, and plenty
would like Burma to do so. But empires have a much worse record for
survival than do nation-states, and much of Asia is now nation-states.

Your discussion also seems to imply that states ending is no big deal.
But actually, ends as calm and organised as East Germany's are the
exception, not the rule. Yugoslavia and Yemen are cautionary tales,
and consider also Partition. The fall of the Japanese Empire
occasioned war in China and Korea, at least, and was the background
to war in Southeast Asia too. Palestinian refugees are heirs of the
end of a colonial state.

Do we in the US have such bleakness in our future? It's more
plausible than it would've been in, say, 1990, but still not all
*that* plausible. As for China, I wouldn't expect it until, at the
very least, everyone who remembers the last disunity is dead.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer <***@gmail.com>
Kevrob
2021-09-02 05:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:

[snip]
Take a look at this list of the greatest
horrors of the 20th century.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
NOT ONE of them involved a conflict between
two legitimate democracies. Not since the
War of 1812 perhaps.
Our young republic was pretty flawed as a "democracy."
We still had chattel slavery and did not yet have universal
(white) manhood suffrage. Britain's Great Reform Act was
more than 15 years in the future (1832) along with legislation
affecting Scotland and Ireland, whose individual parliaments
had been merged into the English one in 1707 and 1800.
That would strongly imply if the world were
full of legitimate democracies wars and
such other horrors would be a thing of
the past.
Not the worst wars in history, but there are some,
depending how one draws the line for "democracy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democracies

Where this useful term crops up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy
--
Kevin R
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-08-03 20:42:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near
approaching the internal problems that caused
the breakup of the Soviet Union.
You wouldn't. And won't. Until the China that is today no longer
exists.
Post by a425couple
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is
greatly improving. And they know it.
Everything we know about the economy of China is propaganda carefully
written and filtered by the government. Anybody who believes
otherwise is either a fool, or a tool.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-08-03 22:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by a425couple
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near
approaching the internal problems that caused
the breakup of the Soviet Union.
You wouldn't. And won't. Until the China that is today no longer
exists.
Post by a425couple
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is
greatly improving. And they know it.
Um.....

https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-lying-flat-movement-standing-in-the-way-of-chinas-innovation-drive/

That's just one search on "China lie flat".
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Everything we know about the economy of China is propaganda carefully
written and filtered by the government.
To the best of their ability, yes.

But there are cracks in the wall.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-08-03 22:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by a425couple
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near
approaching the internal problems that caused
the breakup of the Soviet Union.
You wouldn't. And won't. Until the China that is today no longer
exists.
Post by a425couple
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is
greatly improving. And they know it.
Um.....
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-lying-flat-movement-stan
ding-in-the-way-of-chinas-innovation-drive/
That's just one search on "China lie flat".
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Everything we know about the economy of China is propaganda
carefully written and filtered by the government.
To the best of their ability, yes.
And they've very good at it, with millennia of experience.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But there are cracks in the wall.
There are, but they are impossible to identify reliably. *Nothing*
about China can be taken at face value.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Magewolf
2021-08-04 19:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:37:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near approaching the internal
problems that caused the breakup of the Soviet Union.
You wouldn't. And won't. Until the China that is today no longer
exists.
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is greatly improving. And
they know it.
Um.....
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-lying-flat-movement-stan
ding-in-the-way-of-chinas-innovation-drive/
That's just one search on "China lie flat".
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Everything we know about the economy of China is propaganda carefully
written and filtered by the government.
To the best of their ability, yes.
And they've very good at it, with millennia of experience.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But there are cracks in the wall.
There are, but they are impossible to identify reliably. *Nothing*
about China can be taken at face value.
There is such rampant corruption and number fudging at every level of
government that I think China does not really know how it's economy is
going.
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-08-04 19:27:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
On Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:37:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near approaching the internal
problems that caused the breakup of the Soviet Union.
You wouldn't. And won't. Until the China that is today no longer
exists.
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is greatly improving. And
they know it.
Um.....
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-lying-flat-movement-stan
ding-in-the-way-of-chinas-innovation-drive/
That's just one search on "China lie flat".
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Everything we know about the economy of China is propaganda carefully
written and filtered by the government.
To the best of their ability, yes.
And they've very good at it, with millennia of experience.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But there are cracks in the wall.
There are, but they are impossible to identify reliably. *Nothing*
about China can be taken at face value.
There is such rampant corruption and number fudging at every level of
government that I think China does not really know how it's economy is
going.
Entirely possible.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-08-04 20:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
On Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:37:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
I am not seeing that China is anywhere near approaching the
internal problems that caused the breakup of the Soviet
Union.
You wouldn't. And won't. Until the China that is today no
longer exists.
The welfare and wealth of it's citizens is greatly
improving. And they know it.
Um.....
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-lying-flat-movement-st
an ding-in-the-way-of-chinas-innovation-drive/
That's just one search on "China lie flat".
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Everything we know about the economy of China is propaganda
carefully written and filtered by the government.
To the best of their ability, yes.
And they've very good at it, with millennia of experience.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But there are cracks in the wall.
There are, but they are impossible to identify reliably.
*Nothing* about China can be taken at face value.
There is such rampant corruption and number fudging at every
level of government that I think China does not really know how
it's economy is going.
I suspect you're right. And what they do know, they probably don't
much like. So they make up what they want the world to believe and
pretend it's true.

Wbhich isn't all *that* different from the US these days.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Loading...