Trump 2.0 official thread

C

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Ringsword said:
No,Trump needs to build a sumptuous Summer Palace and a Marble boat in Florida's Lake Okechobee where he and Melania can enjoy life as royalty that they are.One trillion USD "defence budget" just really isn't enough ;)
Click to expand...
That's not nearly enough to honor him appropriately. The entire government budget for every year of the remainder of his term should be held in his name only, as a private individual. In his own personal accounts. There should be no oversight and he should have authority to use all of it as he wishes. SS, medicare, medicaid, defense, ALL of it should be transferred into his personal accounts to do with as he wishes. If he wants to use it on staffing, great. If he wants to use it on defense purchases, great. If he wants to roll it over indefinitely instead of spending it all before the end of the year, great. The key thing is that both the decision and approval for any spending should sit within him alone as the key individual. And anything purchased is owned by him as a private individual. Likewise with any military, space, or intel assets.
 
E

ENTED64

Junior Member
Registered Member
supersnoop said:
Even by the 80's China was in a good position. I remember reading a book about the Beijing-Jeep JV, when the American executives went to see the BAIC plant that was to be used for the JV, the shape of the plant was considered not bad. Obviously the tooling was obsolete, and quality standards were out of date, but the plant was laid out properly and the workers were well trained.

Was India's economy always based more on agriculture?
Click to expand...
It's not really the case that India's economy was always more agricultural than China, post WW2 China wasn't really better off than India. However by the 80s a lot of progress had already been made, it just wasn't easily evident in the top line numbers. One big factor was that China under Mao focused on raising the baseline of society by investing in the health and basic education of the whole population ensuring that the vast majority got a high school level education and dramatically increasing life expectancy. India instead focused on developing top quality higher education for their best and brightest.

So China went for broad base first and better higher education later whereas India did the reverse. The problem is a lot of India's best and brightest promptly left India for other countries that could offer better pay. Further the lack of a broad based educated population makes it harder to get on the first few rungs of the industrialization ladder which requires a lot of people to work in labor intensive industries. A handful of top scientists is less useful because there is no base for them to work off of. In other words to get started on industrialization it is better to have 100 high school graduates than 10 Ph.D. and 90 people with no education at all.

As for the divergent trajectories of Indian and Chinese economies post 80s, some of it is indeed due to cultural and technical factors like more red tape in India, etc. But a lot of it is also just luck of timing. China was able to expand quickly at a time where globalization was in full swing and was able to get a lot of FDI and expertise. It's harder for India to follow such a path today because protectionism is much stronger as governments are now more aware of the downsides of globalization. China has seen how outsourcing all of their industry has hollowed out USA and is not eager to allow India to do the same to them. So even if the governance problems like red tape could be sorted out India was probably always going to grow slower than 90s and early 2000s China just due to timing.
 
FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Major
Temstar said:
Because a founding principle of PRC is to create a class-less society, to overturn the old imperial way of organizing society into 王-士大夫-民 classes, that's why the new phrase "人民" was invented to cover everybody and specifically made to be part of CPC's party slogan.

And India is the exact opposite of all of that. There are lots of reforms that India could do that would lift up the country as a whole, Modi is even aware of them and even tried some of them. But they all failed because they ran against the interest of the landlord class. Remember that agriculture reform that Modi tried to do and had to be called off because of all the protests by farmers? Who do you think financed all that protest and let their farm hands out to block the roads?
Click to expand...
India is an amalgamation of different states with distinct cultures, languages, and ethnicities. Due to its federalized political system, it is impossible for the disparate states to reach a consensus on economic policies that would be beneficial for the whole country, as each state only prioritizes the interests of its own elites and would rather drag all the other state down if it is unable to secure direct benefits for itself. Historically, multiethnic federations/empires have struggled with modernization and economic development, ie Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire. India as a unified nation-state is a myth, Indians would be much better if they were to give up on the idea of India and instead separate out into 3-4 independent nations tied together by a loose confederation.
 
C

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
FriedRiceNSpice said:
No, this is the US we are talking about: they would never use it for cooking. Not when they can try to sniff it to get high.
Click to expand...
Not before cutting it with fent.
FriedRiceNSpice said:
India is an amalgamation of different states with distinct cultures, languages, and ethnicities. Due to its federalized political system, it is impossible for the disparate states to reach a consensus on economic policies that would be beneficial for the whole country, as each state only prioritizes the interests of its own elites and would rather drag all the other state down if it is unable to secure direct benefits for itself. Historically, multiethnic federations/empires have struggled with modernization and economic development, ie Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire. India as a unified nation-state is a myth, Indians would be much better if they were to give up on the idea of India and instead separate out into 3-4 independent nations tied together by a loose confederation.
Click to expand...
So keep smashing them up. First Pakistan gained independence, then Bangladesh. What's next? Severing the chicken neck to create a new nation seems like the best bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top