Miscellaneous News

JamesRed

New Member
Registered Member
So we agree that whether Asian-Americans move to Asia and deal with worse working environments with lower pay, its immaterial to Asian or American tech development.
This argument is often made by types that work for western governments but it has little relevance to the real world. The fact that pay is less in China does not mean that quality of life is less. America has a declining quality of life, China has a rising quality of life. You can earn lower wages in China and still have a better quality of life.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
China isn't growing at 5% per year till 2035. Even the NPC set China's target in 2022 at 5.5% and GDP growth goes down when per capita GDP increases. If anything, by 2035, esp. because of demographic and technology embargo headwinds, China would be lucky for 3% growth.
Ignoring due to futility of 10+ year predictions, but obviously, you made up numbers to your liking again.
That's unlikely. China simply has higher welfare costs with a larger population so China would need a much larger multiple of US GDP to match the US at 3.1% of GDP.
No, US is a welfare queen. During COVID, it was spamming people with money to keep its economy alive while China got by without any of that. The US put so much welfare on people, businesses couldn't find employees because welfare was a better option. Absolutely impossible in China. Different cultures; you cannot extrapolate by extending US behavior by population to China.
Not happening anytime in the next few decades.
I don't think you have any idea how long a few decades is. China is set to surpass the US in research spending in nominal GDP in 2025, growing at 16% while the US grew its budget by 3 percent. Mathematically speaking, that's roughly a 6 year gap for China to double the US counting from 2025, making it 2031. It's not perfectly accurate and could take a little longer or shorter because we're predicting a trend to continue as-is for nearly a decade but a few decades is definitely a number pulled out of someone's rear. On top of that, aside from imported materials, Chinese research runs on RMB, which means that nominal comparisons underestimate the extent as it should be a mix between nominal and PPP.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Which is why the US has more VC funding than China
Sorry, what? We were talking about research funding. Wanna talk about research or economic growth, China's faster at both. What's with the weird cherry-picking.
 
Last edited:

windsclouds2030

Senior Member
Registered Member
Funny clips on the United States Vice President -- from Poland 2022.03.10

KAMALA HARRIS: "I am here, standing here on the northern flank, on the eastern flank, talking about what we have in terms of the eastern flank and our NATO allies, and what is at stake at this very moment, what is at stake this very moment are some of the guiding principles..."

"I am here. Standing... here..." ::checks notes::
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Ignoring due to futility of 10+ year predictions, but obviously, you made up numbers to your liking again.

No, US is a welfare queen. During COVID, it was spamming people with money to keep its economy alive while China got by without any of that. The US put so much welfare on people, businesses couldn't find employees because welfare was a better option. Absolutely impossible in China. Different cultures; you cannot extrapolate by extending US behavior by population to China.

I don't think you have any idea how long a few decades is. China is set to surpass the US in research spending in nominal GDP in 2025, growing at 16% while the US grew its budget by 3 percent. Mathematically speaking, that's roughly a 6 year gap for China to double the US counting from 2025, making it 2031. It's not perfectly accurate and could take a little longer or shorter because we're predicting a trend to continue as-is for nearly a decade but a few decades is definitely a number pulled out of someone's rear. On top of that, aside from imported materials, Chinese research runs on RMB, which means that nominal comparisons underestimate the extent as it should be a mix between nominal and PPP.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sorry, what? We were talking about research funding. Wanna talk about research or economic growth, China's faster at both. What's with the weird cherry-picking.
You're dealing with a new and improved version of sleepystudent based on his America awesome and can't do no wrong type of pronouncements. Same tune different name.
 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
So thats it? The world calls for US containment and the Deagal predictions become a reality?

Anyone surprised by this? The PNAC document from 20 years ago talked about weaponized biovirus targeting certain races or ethnicities...

Least anyone forget, during the start of Covid remember it was all the talk about how due to ACE-2 receptors it hits Asains 4x times as hard?

Given these timings and coincidences (once in a century global outbreak right at the peak of US China rivalry in fact THE weeks of the signing of the Phase I deal in which China did not kowtow to Plaza Accord 2.0 and ostensibly started in China's logistical center of Wuhan and at the worst possible time of the year LNY during mass migration/movement of people etc )

I mean motive, means, oppurtunity ... its all there... there are capital murder cases routinely returning guilty convictions verdicts by US courts and American juries on much less circumstantial evidence than this...
I agree.

I am ok with coincidences. But some things are just too suspicious. Since Trump's trade war with China started in 2018, there was the African swine fever, in addition to other bird-flu outbreaks in China. It devastated China's pork industry and disrupted China's poultry industry. China had to import pork from USA to cover the supply shortage. African swine fever is a known bioweapon used by the USA against Cuba to damage their pork industry, hence I'm extremely suspicious about that 2019 outbreak in China. Then in 2020 like you have said, Covid-19 appeared at the most devastating moment in China. There was the HK protests, Chinese bad press, and the trade war. Then a super virus appears on the eve of the Lunar New Year. Then Trump and his goons celebrated China's economic hardship. They also very quickly came up with the theories of the Wuhan wet market, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Very convenient theories to gaslight China and the world.

What conspiracy theory? The US can spin so much about the Wuhan lab theory and get the WHO involved. The WHO had visited the WIV already. But no one in WHO even thinks of visiting any of those 336 US biolabs around the world. Why? Why is the free world so quiet about those US biolabs? Covid-19 still cannot be traced till now. Everyone have been looking at China only. But there were so many circumstantial evidence in the US that are not being investigated by the WHO.

That is why it is so important for Russia to defeat Ukraine militarily. Decades of questioning and spying could not reveal what was going on in these 336 US biolabs around the world. But once Russia invades Ukraine, they were able to find ground breaking revelations on a number of these biolabs. We don't know if Russia could find the smoking gun for Covid-19 in Ukraine. But they may reveal a larger, sinister operation that is more than just Covid-19. Because international systems and rules in this world have been twisted by the US. Sometimes force is required to expose evil like this.
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
You don't need 10+ year predictions.
You were predicting what China's economy would look like in 2035. Right now is 2022. That is the definition of a 10+ year prediction.
None of the Tigers grew at 5% for the 15 years after they achieved 10K GDP per capita and all the Tigers had fewer headwinds than China with regards to demographics and technology embargo headwinds. 3% isn't outrageous; the IMF Article IV reports on China have China converging to 3% at the end of the decade anyway.
Is China a tiger? You keep trying to compare China to other countries because these other little countries can't challenge the US. But China has already done what they cannot do, and that is to grow its economy, technology, and military in the face of American challenge. Judge China by China, not by any other country.
Welfare costs like food and water instead of R&D costs. China and the US at equal GDP means than China has to spend some of that national income on the education, health, infrastructure, food, water, etc costs of 1.4bn people but the US only has to take care of 330M people which means the US has more money for R&D.
No. Not at all. Like I said, the US gives massive welfare allocation while China doesn't. Food and water costs aren't equal everywhere. You basically tried to ignore the fact that I pointed out, which is that the US hands out a lot of welfare to a lot of people, while China hands out far less welfare to far less people as a percentage of its population. You're trying to say that the US has X people, using X amount of welfare and China has 4X people so China needs 4X the welfare and that's demonstrably wrong.
US R&D expenses are growing at ~8% nominal per year. I'm not reading a think tank report that gets basic facts wrong.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I provided a paper from Nature putting the US research finding growth at 4.3% while China's at 17% average for the last several years. The SCMP paper said that it was 3% for the US and 16% for China in the last year. You can quote the section in the article that says 8% for the US because when I did ctrl+F "8%", I got nothing. And even if the US were expanding at 8% and China at 16-17%, by what math would it take China a few decades to double the US. Your inability to understand time and exponentials has painted you into a corner here.
Your US growth rate is wrong and given that wage growth in China is fairly rapid and the main expense in any country's R&D is labor costs, China's price advantage is nowhere near sustainable
We're not even getting into China's wage advantage, which is shrinking, but will always remain ahead of the US. The comparison was done in nominal GDP. Once we consider the effects of transferring the relevent parts to PPP, China's wage advantage comes into play.
It was about business dynamism which is best captured by VC funding, not R&D spending. R&D is nowhere near the best measure.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
China has a larger PPP economy, more businesses, faster tech innovation, everything growing faster. Those are the best measures of dynamicism.
You're dealing with a new and improved version of sleepystudent based on his America awesome and can't do no wrong type of pronouncements. Same tune different name.
I know. He's my loyal punching bag when I'm chilling at work.
 

SanWenYu

Captain
Registered Member
Loud noises from helicopters of the US occupation forces in Okinawa have been disturbing the locals. On March 10, the Japanese court of law in Naha, Okinawa issued the verdict that the Japanese government is at fault. The government must pay the local residents 1.34 billion yen in total for compensation.

This is the second time the Japanese government has been ordered to pay compensation to locals in Okinawa for the same reason. Last time, the government paid 950 million yens.

Perhaps one day we will see verdicts that punish Japanese government because American soldiers raped Japanese women.

1.png

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
A three-way video call March 8 with China’s President Xi Jinping and European leaders Francois Macron and Olaf Scholz raises the prospect of a diplomatic initiative that would have been unthinkable only weeks ago: China might mediate the Ukraine crisis, seizing the diplomatic high ground as a peacemaker.

For the past decade, China’s territorial ambitions in the South China Sea, intervention in Hong Kong and border skirmishes with India have left it in relative diplomatic isolation. But the Ukraine crisis opens an opportunity for a diplomatic revolution that could position China as a peacemaker.

The tragic combination of American overreach and Russian overreaction has left the world in a diplomatic vacuum. By seeking to extend NATO to the Russian border, Washington persuaded Moscow that its objective was the strategic encirclement of Russia.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
OPINION COMMENTARY

Russia’s Failure Is China’s Gain

This isn’t another cold war. Due to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the world has become more dangerous than it’s been since World War II.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has inaugurated a new era of political competition but not a new cold war. The American people and their leaders need to prepare for a new kind of geopolitical competition—more intense, more dangerous and more aggressive than anything since World War II. Bismarck, Metternich and Louis XIV’s world of unrestrained power to achieve national objectives is back. And while the immediate threat is Russia, the more formidable one is China.

Throughout the Cold War, the great powers employed direct forces in only a handful of instances. Korea was the only conventional engagement from either bloc. The Soviets conducted limited actions within the Eastern bloc, most notably in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. intervention in Vietnam were both distinctly unconventional wars. American operations in Grenada and Panama, like Soviet deployments throughout Africa and the Middle East, were limited in scope and intensity.

By contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a massive conventional offensive, with its military component supporting maximal political goals—the Ukrainian regime’s destruction and replacement with a puppet government and likely the annexation of southern Ukraine. Russia seems unlikely to achieve its maximalist political goals without an open-ended force commitment, one that could push Russian society to the breaking point. The Kremlin may shift tack, seeking a settlement that gives it preference in or control over southern Ukraine and some guarantee against Ukrainian membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Regardless of the outcome, Moscow’s actions demonstrate that force is the final arbiter between nations. Force is particularly viable in situations where states are beyond a clear security agreement. Taiwan is the clearest state in this circumstance. Like Ukraine, it is affiliated with American security structures but formally outside them. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan has no strategic depth. Also unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is crucial to the global economic order—its semiconductor production sustains high-technology production internationally. That last consideration speaks directly to Taiwan’s defense: A ruinous war around the island would trigger economic effects that make the Ukraine crisis look like a daily stock-market dip. Nevertheless, with great-power force having been resurrected as a governing norm in international affairs, we should expect its increased use.

This is particularly crucial when considering Beijing’s interests and actions. China, or more specifically Xi Jinping’s Chinese Communist Party, has made its long-term intentions toward Taiwan clear. Mr. Xi sees a reclaimed Taiwan as the crown jewel in his legacy, the best way to solidify his role as the man responsible for reviving China as a great power and setting it on the path to global dominance. Even if NATO proves diffident in Ukraine, we can expect a strong Western defense of Taiwan because of the latter’s economic importance and centrality in America’s Indo-Pacific defense posture. Even so, we can expect Mr. Xi’s China to modify its calculus, recognizing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine might have a desensitizing effect and make an attack on Taiwan less shocking than it would otherwise be.

The broader question is of the organization of Eurasian security. One would expect the Russian invasion to formalize the return to traditional great-power politics, what theorists of international relations call “multipolarity,” a system in which multiple political and military centers of gravity exist. Russia, China and the U.S.—and perhaps Europe, depending on the Ukraine question’s settlement—can be expected, so the argument goes, to secure their own “spheres of influence,” dominating specific regions of the world and ceding others. The world, we will hear, is returning to the 19th century, albeit absent that era’s overwhelmingly Eurocentric geostrategic rhythm.

This prediction is alluring and wrong. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has little impact on Chinese incentives, and China remains the crucial actor. The Communist Party under Mr. Xi—and perhaps since Deng Xiaoping, depending on how politically sophisticated it is—drew a unique lesson from the Soviet collapse. The Soviets failed not because they didn’t integrate capitalist insights into their economy, but because they never went far enough in their external expansion.

Soviet Russia failed to grasp that it couldn’t coexist with any other power. The only way for an imperial dictatorship like the U.S.S.R. or Nazi Germany to survive is through absolute domination. Soviet leaders after Stalin progressively lost sight of this reality, and by Leonid Brezhnev’s death in 1982 they had become reactive to an increasingly assertive Western military-strategic approach.

The world has many dictatorships—the Kim family’s in North Korea, the increasingly kleptocratic Iranian theocracy and the Castro regime in Cuba, to cite obvious examples. But none of these are nearly big and powerful enough to be structurally disruptive in the way the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were—or China is today. Some sort of external economic dependence is inevitable, even if only on an autarkic bloc. And that bloc, Chinese leaders realized, is naturally brittle. Internal dissent can be managed only if the world at large is properly ordered. Hence the Communist Party’s drive for absolute dominance.

To be continued...
 
Top