Miscellaneous News

jli88 said:

Why so anti-India? The India hate on this forum is sometimes bordering on racist. It is in fact prudent for China to watch out for India. India will have a huge labour advantage over China in coming decades. Even if they are able to use it half as efficiently as China, they will be on par.

Click to expand...

Brother, a large population doesn't necessarily equate to a labor advantage. We all know that low-skilled jobs are gradually disappearing.
For example, a textile factory in the last century might have needed tens of thousands of employees, while a modern, upgraded factory might only need a few hundred. These few hundred workers may require higher skills, but the factory's products are of more consistent quality and more cost-competitive.
With technological advancements, if technological levels aren't improved, a large population can even become a burden.
Those clichés that claim a massive population guarantees economic benefits should have stopped long ago.
I personally have no good feelings towards India, but I will try my best to explain the issues surrounding India to you in a rational way.

Bellum_Romanum said:

I'm unclear which specific indicators suggest India will soon match Chinese capabilities; productivity, creative industries, advanced manufacturing, and patent generation don't seem to support that trajectory.

As for the racism charge, there's a distinction between racial prejudice and uncomfortable truths. If criticism is factually grounded, calling it racism may be a category error.

Click to expand...

China's incredible success outshines India, and makes it look way behind, when outside China and East Asian developing countries, India has done pretty well for itself. And given demographic changes, India can probably sustain a medium growth level (6-8%) for longer duration of time.

Only time will tell, but if we are talking about events on the scale of a 15-20 years, India will matter if they do even modestly good. It's already the 4th/5th largest economy.

PopularScience said:

So you understand automation?

Click to expand...

Automation has existed since the industrial revolution, it makes labor more productive, however labor is still able to find its way out if it has any competitive advantage over machines.

Also, a completely automated world, where labor is no longer relevant at all, is a nightmare for China, because then natural resource endowment will matter more, an area where China is significantly behind the West which has 4 times the land mass of China, and in general world domination.

Puss in Boots said:

Brother, a large population doesn't necessarily equate to a labor advantage. We all know that low-skilled jobs are gradually disappearing.
For example, a textile factory in the last century might have needed tens of thousands of employees, while a modern, upgraded factory might only need a few hundred. These few hundred workers may require higher skills, but the factory's products are of more consistent quality and more cost-competitive.
With technological advancements, if technological levels aren't improved, a large population can even become a burden.
Those clichés that claim a massive population guarantees economic benefits should have stopped long ago.
I personally have no good feelings towards India, but I will try my best to explain the issues surrounding India to you in a rational way.

Click to expand...

I both agree and disagree with you.

Automation/Technology makes people more productive, however established historical patterns until now mean that people just migrate to newer avenues of jobs, higher scale etc. So automation/technology is instrumental in production/capita. But the overall production/GDP is still multiplied by capita.

Until now, there has never been a fundamental decoupling of either production or consumption aggregates from total humans.

plawolf said:

because otherwise they will find themselves lined up right next to Trump when the Democrats come for their revenge.

Click to expand...

Doubt that will happen considering you have Democrats pushing for more funding because apparently the issue is "lack of training" for the spineless dumbfucks.

jli88 said:

I both agree and disagree with you.

Automation/Technology makes people more productive, however established historical patterns until now mean that people just migrate to newer avenues of jobs, higher scale etc. So automation/technology is instrumental in production/capita. But the overall production/GDP is still multiplied by capita.

Until now, there has never been a fundamental decoupling of either production or consumption aggregates from total humans

Click to expand...

You could try having AI analyze your viewpoint and see where the contradictions lie!
I'm not an economics expert, but my common sense tells me that the data you mentioned is inaccurate.
The statement underestimates the power of technology-driven per capita productivity and overestimates the "rigid binding" of population to total output. History has proven that once the Malthusian trap is crossed (where technology breaks the resource constraints on population), economic growth relies primarily on productivity, and automation/AI is accelerating this trend. In the future low-fertility era, this decoupling will be even more evident—total output may continue to grow even as population declines, provided that technological progress continues. The original assertion that they have "never been decoupled" does not align with economic history and represents an overly conservative inference.

Chevalier said:

Forget Uighur sterilisation and Tibetan organ trafficking, we bring to you from the American anglosphere, the very best testicle crushers inspired by alleged Jewish interrogators of German SS prisoners:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2015456039714406460

if they’re so brazen about abusing prisoners and human rights abuses (going by their definition), I find it difficult to imagine trump accepting electoral defeat And potential prosecution .

Click to expand...

There is no mass outrage over this because the victims are minorities with dubious legal status. Once a white person like Good or Pretti gets manhandled like this expect massive backlash against the MAGAs, which will prompt Mango Musso to launch Operation Trudeau-Daddy against Cuba.

Puss in Boots said:

You could try having AI analyze your viewpoint and see where the contradictions lie!
I'm not an economics expert, but my common sense tells me that the data you mentioned is inaccurate.
The statement underestimates the power of technology-driven per capita productivity and overestimates the "rigid binding" of population to total output. History has proven that once the Malthusian trap is crossed (where technology breaks the resource constraints on population), economic growth relies primarily on productivity, and automation/AI is accelerating this trend. In the future low-fertility era, this decoupling will be even more evident—total output may continue to grow even as population declines, provided that technological progress continues. The original assertion that they have "never been decoupled" does not align with economic history and represents an overly conservative inference.

Click to expand...

Here is AI responding to you:

While your view correctly identifies the potential of AI to break individual resource constraints, it overlooks the Network Effect of aggregate scale: technology is a multiplier ($M$), but population remains the essential base ($B$), and total GDP ($T = B \times M$) cannot be sustained if the base vanishes, as evidenced by Japan's 'rising robots' failing to offset a shrinking workforce's fiscal and growth pressures. Furthermore, productivity gains are subject to technological convergence, meaning that as AI-driven efficiency becomes a global commodity, the competitive advantage shifts back to the sheer size and connectivity of a nation's human network. Crucially, GDP is a measure of transactions, and since there has never been a 'consumption decoupling,' an economy requires a human population to provide the demand and utility that give automated production its value—without a human consumer base, a factory's theoretical output generates no actual economic movement.

_killuminati_ said:

Since the Juice takeover of TikTok, my feed is full of "Iran revolution happening" and paid agents asking "why people don't support a Free Iran like Free Palestine?" type of Israeli propaganda. It's quite funny because 90% of the audience on TikTok is not buying the propaganda. Every attempt at propaganda is responded with these flooding the comments:
View attachment 168664View attachment 168665

Those dumbass Irani revolutionaries living in the West really f*cked this one up by associating with Israel.

Zionazis thought they could reverse the damage by seizing TikTok, but it simply did not work. Major fail.

Click to expand...

Even more funny is Zionist platform like Faceboobs the anti Zionist/Ice is get more like and more attention. Well to be fair for Zioberg he also pushing Jew propaganda pretty hard when i get at least 5 page with name like: Israel in Canada, AIPAC, Israel for UN etc. To be continue operate the platform must push most popular content i guess.

bebops said:

I believed Democrats will win. The young voters and latinos who once voted for Trump in 2024 are expressing strong dissatisfaction on the surveys and polls right now.

Without strong latino, young and independent voters, either side cannot win.

Click to expand...

Bold of you to assume there will be more elections going forward.

jli88 said:

Here is AI responding to you:

While your view correctly identifies the potential of AI to break individual resource constraints, it overlooks the Network Effect of aggregate scale: technology is a multiplier ($M$), but population remains the essential base ($B$), and total GDP ($T = B \times M$) cannot be sustained if the base vanishes, as evidenced by Japan's 'rising robots' failing to offset a shrinking workforce's fiscal and growth pressures. Furthermore, productivity gains are subject to technological convergence, meaning that as AI-driven efficiency becomes a global commodity, the competitive advantage shifts back to the sheer size and connectivity of a nation's human network. Crucially, GDP is a measure of transactions, and since there has never been a 'consumption decoupling,' an economy requires a human population to provide the demand and utility that give automated production its value—without a human consumer base, a factory's theoretical output generates no actual economic movement.

Click to expand...

My view is simple: if India cannot transform its large population advantage into a high-quality labor force, it is destined for failure in its future development.

Your view leans towards the idea that a large population inevitably leads to more economic activity.
Ultimately, our underlying logic differs. I believe economic development primarily depends on production, while you believe it primarily depends on consumption—a perception influenced by Western financial capitalism.

I cannot determine which viewpoint is more correct; you can consider it yourself.

jli88 said:

Here is AI responding to you:

While your view correctly identifies the potential of AI to break individual resource constraints, it overlooks the Network Effect of aggregate scale: technology is a multiplier ($M$), but population remains the essential base ($B$), and total GDP ($T = B \times M$) cannot be sustained if the base vanishes, as evidenced by Japan's 'rising robots' failing to offset a shrinking workforce's fiscal and growth pressures. Furthermore, productivity gains are subject to technological convergence, meaning that as AI-driven efficiency becomes a global commodity, the competitive advantage shifts back to the sheer size and connectivity of a nation's human network. Crucially, GDP is a measure of transactions, and since there has never been a 'consumption decoupling,' an economy requires a human population to provide the demand and utility that give automated production its value—without a human consumer base, a factory's theoretical output generates no actual economic movement.

Click to expand...

A major reason for Japan's decline was its abandonment of innovation. Following the bubble economy, the nation adopted conservative industrial policies, avoiding risks and revolutionary innovations while focusing solely on hardware manufacturing—an area where it had already achieved mastery. To protect social employment, it propped up numerous inefficient zombie companies.

Regarding your earlier question, population decline and aging may lead to reduced consumption. However, due to rising per capita wealth and improvements in distribution systems, a shrinking population can still sustain high consumption levels. We see that over 300 million Americans generate enormous purchasing power. If China successfully implements distribution reforms in the future, it will significantly boost ordinary residents' consumption. Moreover, China remains a major exporter. As long as China maintains strong competitiveness in international markets, India will struggle to compete with China in the free market.