Miscellaneous News

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Yes, I know there was a good reason why the Chinese imperial system was set up in the way it did. However, with hindsight, we can see certain structural factors led to China developing differently from the West and a lot of that is cultural.

I also suspect the cultural emphasis in China on farmers and bureaucrats had a lot do with China's uniquely huge population size and density. Lots of people providing cheap labor is good but it also means more rules and organization are needed to keep the system from falling from entropy.

That's why there is a higher emphasis on bureaucratic management and large-scale agriculture in China rather than a community of self-sufficient individuals like in the West, especially in the USA. Rural towns can be more democratic and libertarian because there is a lot of space and few people living there. In contrast, large urban cities cannot be so with limited space and lots of people, so they are run in a more top-down fashion and tend to be more socialist.
not even the west in general. Spain, Italy and Greece were the centers of the west since Roman times, where are they now? Spain was first mover in the Americas too yet the Spanish Navy today is just... not the Spanish Navy of 1500.

Even as late as the 1500s, some Europeans lived in mud huts and didn't even have writing when Chinese, Indians (and other Europeans) already had thousands of years of literature, art, technology, etc. Norse kings would launch Crusades to pacify these 'pagan barbarians' even more brutal than the Middle East.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
Interesting news from the UK election today is that Jeremy Corbyn has won a seat as an independent despite all odds

Sadly I don't think he will accomplish much more.

Anti-imperialists like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are simply not allowed to succeed in Western sham democracies. The power of capital and the warmongering elite is simply too strong to overcome.
 
Last edited:

FriedButter

Major
Registered Member

Eventine

Junior Member
Registered Member
In an agrarian society the farmers are more important than merchants and artisans. Even in the US, urbanization only exceeded 50% in 1920 while industrialization of the US began in 1860's.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you cannot have 90% of the population as farmers and treat them like shit, while expecting a stable society.

the most important distinction of societies before industrialism wasn't in technology, as everyone had roughly the same technology from 200 BC to 1200 AD with only minor differences. Even guns were not the determining factor - Chinese, Turks, Persians and Indians had guns and cannons too. Up to 1700, most empires were stable once the New World got stabilized. Even colonization of the Americas, while hugely disruptive globally, didn't change the status quo for Spain much. They didn't go on a conquering spree with American resources, after all.

It wasn't until industrialization, steel, railroads, repeating rifles and steam engines that African tribes could be conquered due to the huge logistical challenges. And the US succeeded in the defeat of the Plains Natives where Spain failed because even horses, iron armor and guns were not enough, but railroads and steam engines were.

the most important distinctions of preindustrial societies was 1. internal cohesion, 2. population size, 3. historical records

that is why European kings spent tons of time and money fighting wars between Catholicism and Protestantism, and sponsoring illuminated gold plated Bibles. It wasn't that they really cared about obscure church doctrines, it was because allowing a religious split in your country weakens 1/3 of the fundamental determinants of state power and making the church unhappy weakens another 1/3.

that is also why Chinese rulers put tons of emphasis on the bureaucrat, scholar and farmer class and sponsored works of history by the bureaucrats, even to the exclusion of other forms of literature like the novel (which was unpopular until the Ming). Internal cohesion, population size through food production and keeping a detailed historical record were the extraordinary parts, everything else is just doing the “best known practices" that's worked for the past 1000 years and solving specific problems.

I suspect that the Chinese model with some updates may end up being the right one in the end, as low hanging fruit of technologies are picked.
There's a certain aspect of Western culture that encourages and obsesses over the seeking of novelty, which still persists to this day as the US continues to spend far more money on basic research, even though applied research would have served its industries more. I don't find this same urge in Eastern cultures, and it's possible it has to do with significant differences in the foundational structure of these societies, where Eastern societies just didn't have a class comparable to the European entrepreneur.

By which I mean, China obviously did have merchants; and it did have bankers. But if you look at their maturity vis-a-vis Europe's during the 16th and 17th centuries, they strike you as being rather rudimentary. Commercial banking, financial instruments, and capital markets were much better developed in the West than they were in China, and that's still the case today. Yet private entrepreneurs were critical to the success of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain - it was they who provided the impetus for inventors seeking upward mobility and who laid the foundations for such inventions via the patents system.

During the same period in China, the educated class competed to become imperial bureaucrats, poets, and artists; and invention was never given much encouragement except when the state found a particular need. Indeed, this still seems to be the case today as China continues to sponsor very targeted research serving strategic needs, rather than invest in an entrepreneurial sense. To this end, while the down side of excessive financialization is becoming obvious, I wonder if China might have too little financialization for the engine of innovation.
 

henrik

Senior Member
Registered Member
There's a certain aspect of Western culture that encourages and obsesses over the seeking of novelty, which still persists to this day as the US continues to spend far more money on basic research, even though applied research would have served its industries more. I don't find this same urge in Eastern cultures, and it's possible it has to do with significant differences in the foundational structure of these societies, where Eastern societies just didn't have a class comparable to the European entrepreneur.

By which I mean, China obviously did have merchants; and it did have bankers. But if you look at their maturity vis-a-vis Europe's during the 16th and 17th centuries, they strike you as being rather rudimentary. Commercial banking, financial instruments, and capital markets were much better developed in the West than they were in China, and that's still the case today. Yet private entrepreneurs were critical to the success of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain - it was they who provided the impetus for inventors seeking upward mobility and who laid the foundations for such inventions via the patents system.

During the same period in China, the educated class competed to become imperial bureaucrats, poets, and artists; and invention was never given much encouragement except when the state found a particular need. Indeed, this still seems to be the case today as China continues to sponsor very targeted research serving strategic needs, rather than invest in an entrepreneurial sense. To this end, while the down side of excessive financialization is becoming obvious, I wonder if China might have too little financialization for the engine of innovation.

For financialization they need to print more money and pump more into the economy, for propping up the stock markets, to create the wealth effect. More ipos like Ant financial and Bytedance on the Hong Kong stock market are needed to restore confidence in the financial markets.
 

quim

Junior Member
Registered Member
Between the 18th and 20th centuries, western cities recorded the fastest population growth due to the migration of the excessive rural population, who could no longer find enough rural jobs and needed to migrate to avoid starving. London, Paris, New York, Vienna, Milan, Berlin doubled and tripled in size in a short space of time, as did other secondary western cities.

This rapid and constant urban growth created a huge demand and available urban workforce that attracted investment to industries, which then grew like never before. Without demand there is no incentive to supply. Competition between companies to meet this growing demand has led to increased productivity and technological evolution.

On the other hand, Imperial China and Japan, although they also had large cities, appear to have stagnated like big villages rather than evolving into a full urban society until the 20th century, perhaps mainly due to a lack of true regional power competition, as others have noted. Now this is the past and China is the current world industrial powerhouse, after experiencing its rural exodus and encouraged by western competition. The competition woke up China.
 
Last edited:

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
For financialization they need to print more money and pump more into the economy, for propping up the stock markets, to create the wealth effect. More ipos like Ant financial and Bytedance on the Hong Kong stock market are needed to restore confidence in the financial markets.
No. Legislation, regulatory and justice/courts reforms are necessary otherwise if the entrepreneurs/investors are worried that the state can confiscate their assets(or make them take huge valuation losses), or make them close shop at the snap of its fingers, they would rather move their new wealth outside which makes the net effect to be 0

Simply pouring more money is not the solution. It's part of it, but not all of it. The other systematic reforms required are far more complex and require much thinking and contemplation, it basically involves what is the relationship between the state, the private companies, investors and citizens
 

pmc

Major
Registered Member
All I've ever seen come out of India is plans, plans, and more plans. Yet hardly anything ever appears in reality. Big hype on Tesla, but nothing happened in reality. Big hype on India-Iran-Afghanistan-CAS corridor, but nothing happened in reality. And now we have the dumbest plan of the ages - the IMEC - consisting of India, which is neither a major importer from nor exporter to Europe, wanting to ship the imaginary goods from India by sea to Dubai where they will be offloaded and put on rail through multiple countries and warzone to Haifa to be loaded again onto ships to Europe.
You are confusing Musk visits with Tesla hype. Tesla does not have much standing in Mideast and i am sure India does not want to become a basket case like others who do not understand Arabic Soft Power. I think you should research more everything that you wrote and see what you can find. Gulf Arabs set the direction whether its French Dassault or UAE Edge group and than India follows it.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Randomuser

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So are Indians still going to claim him now? Or are they going to pretend they never supported him like the bandwagoners they are?

This is the truth about these positions. You can boast an Indian became PM or CEO in the west but at the end of the day they can be easily be replaced. Indians think they got it all figured out because the west is acting too nice to them. Once the sentiment changes, its gonna be rough for them.
 

Hitomi

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So are Indians still going to claim him now? Or are they going to pretend they never supported him like the bandwagoners they are?

This is the truth about these positions. You can boast an Indian became PM or CEO in the west but at the end of the day they can be easily be replaced. Indians think they got it all figured out because the west is acting too nice to them. Once the sentiment changes, its gonna be rough for them.
They are going to claim he is a Pakistani instead or something.
 
Top