Trade War with China
- Thread starter Ultra
- Start date
- Status
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Like this ?. so much for the theory of "Bridge to no where". Not to mention of loss productivity,pollution, frazzle nerve etc
Beijing commuters expect convenient city public transportation
Do you know what Beijing looks like at five o’clock in the morning?
Well, I bet it’s much more crowded than Kobe Bryant’s LA.
An exhausted commuter who just arrived at work sits in his chair. He glances at his watch, “An hour and half, not late. Good.”
An exhausting morning routine is common for most commuters in Beijing, the first megacity in northern China, with a population of 21.71 million in 2017.
Many workers set off at five o’clock morning due to Beijing’s commuter-unfriendly road planning and construction, which results in severe urban traffic congestion during rush hours. In addition, the old block-divided design of the city is a major cause of relatively lower road density, which adds more distance among connecting points and makes it hard for vehicles and passengers to pass through.
The result is millions of workers getting up before dawn to flood into the downtown area and seemingly-endless wearing commuting.
A study conducted by Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba on Chinese nightlife shows that the biggest demand for taxi services comes around five o’clock in the morning, the free bus after overtime peaks around 11 pm.
The average one-way distance of a Beijing commuter is 13.2 km, with a commute time of 56 min on average. That is followed by Shanghai’s 12.4 km, 54 min commute and Chongqing’s 12.2 km, 54 min commute, according to data from the 2018 Chinese City Commuting Report.
The capital city already enforces odd-even license plate restrictions to reduce traffic volume and optimize the public transportation system, especially the metro stations during commuting peak times, as a way to ease the traffic pressure on the workdays for Beijing commuters.
solarz
Brigadier
Beijing has practically free public transit and an amazing subway network that puts the Toronto one to shame. The Shanghai public transit is more expensive, but just as expansive.
With the addition of HSR, formerly out of reach towns have become urban suburbs. For example, Kunshan used to be a "middle of nowhere" town near Shanghai. Now, it's developing into a new Shanghai suburb thanks to the HSR stop.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I know 20 years ago Beijing only has only one line east to west and Toronto already has 2 lines with Spadina line added to network of Downtown to Finch area. Now it is incomparable Beijing has at least 370 mile network with 370 stations. the 2nd biggest network in the world after Shanghai
But still not enough!
The Beijing Subway is a rail network that serves the of . The subway is the , with 3.78 billion trips delivered in 2017, averaging 10.35 million per day, with peak single-day ridership reaching 13.49 million. The subway network has 22 lines, and 608.2 km (377.9 mi) If not counting , 599.4 km (372.4 mi) of in operation, and is the after the .
The Beijing Subway opened in 1969 and is the oldest metro system in . Before the system underwent rapid expansion since 2002, it consisted of only two lines. The existing network still cannot adequately meet the city's needs. Beijing Subway's extensive expansion plans call for 998.5 km (620.4 mi) of lines serving a projected 18.5 million trips every day by 2021
Last edited:
Japan in the 1980s was pretty much fully developed and urbanised, with a GDP per capita which was roughly the same as the USA.
But China is still way less urbanised and developed. On average, China still has a GDP per capita which is less than half that of Japan or the USA
So we're still at the point where there isn't enough infrastructure, particularly in the Chinese interior where the majority of the population lives, and which still has fairly fast growth rates because it is a lot poorer than the coast.
Beforehand: gold and silver based commodity moneys never had "stable value", just check the inflation/deflation periods in the 1800s.You make a deep comprehension mistake right here.Gold or silver chosen as money because of its relative steady value instead of other commodities whose value could vary due to a bad harvest, wildfires etc. A steady point is needed to measure the value mirroring other commodities, and what a better from gold which itself is a commodity and has a value. How the value of a commodity is beeing measured? Mirroring values of other materials composing it, tools and of course work! That goes down to the other materials etc. Without work none of that materials could put together and make a commodity. Now, going back we can find that a currency based on gold rule has it value in whatelse? Work, though productivity! Fiat money instead is based on speculations, national or better personal interests ,etc(i don't think a worker want its work being valued arbitrary unless he can manipulate that value himself, adding that capitalist made inflation devalue its work even gold or fiat money is in circulation, and thats why socialist revolutions happened and will happen) So, it looks like, it works like real money but is arbitrary at all. Thats the difference.
Anyway.
Your example is true ONLY for NON centrally governed, highly interconnected/low transaction /transport cost economical agents, where the matrix created from the transaction relative values of n goods has the most significant eigenvector mainly on the gold (or silver like in China).
If there is a central taxation authority then there is no naturally developing common "money", but rather a chosen medium controlled by the central government.
Before the advent of highly secure printing process the only way to make this was the gold/silver coinage.
And they had limited options to dilute the gold/silver, because the counterfeiting of coinage had only small cost compared to the value ( taxational) of coins.
I m not believe it, I KNOW that the central planning is extremely inefficient compared to the market economy.
The difference is 2-3 times in difference.
Economic planning is possible, however usually it serves as indicator, not target , but the PLANNED ECONOMY and ECONOMIC PLANNING are two completely different thing.
Anyway, planning the activities centrally for a 1000 person company has (-minus)20-50% efficiency difference compared to low level decision making/resource management distributed among the employees.
It is one of the reason why the US companies are more efficient, the workers over there has huts to stand up and make independent decisions.
I killed today an "improvement " project idea.
IT was simple, save the effort to use an operator to write few number onto marker, and use a pc to print it .
By simple calculation the saving would be 40 minutes/day, and the investment would be 3-4 month of programmer's time , plus support.
Means the project would not pay back its money , considering the frequent changes in methods that pulling code changes.
(3-4 years only for investments, without support cost)
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
If the Chinese economy actually does follow the same develpdevel path as the Japanese economy, then within two decades it will be more than double the size of US economy. So the question is a actually whether or not, with such a massively larger population, can China sustain the high growth rates up to that point. But ultimately, the question is when, rather than if, Chinese economic development will reach that point.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
You "knew" a lot of things that were disproved, including, oddly, whether people in my family were proud of me LOL
Show all calculations, please...
They're so efficient that they can't compete with Chinese companies' manufacturing/ tech design and ended up rage-electing a senior citizen with the speech pattern of a 4th grader to start tariff wars trying to help them out LOL
- Status