FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A Capitalist Anomaly
A Capitalist Anomaly
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Look beyond the glitzy cities and see the multi millions who like in tin shacks and scarpe by but only just and see the real poverty in china
"Exactly, a very small percentage of the country has become wealthy what a ridiculous comparison. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Thatcherism is why this country has so much poverty, Growing up in the 60s we were all told to eat our food as there were millions starving in China, there were a few Tramps but not loads of people sleeping on the streets. If you rented a property you were a sitting tenant & the landlord could not get you to move out at a whim. " Here we go still blaming Thatcher even though we had 'Things can only get better' Labour government for 13 years after.! | |||
"Thatcherism is why this country has so much poverty, Growing up in the 60s we were all told to eat our food as there were millions starving in China, there were a few Tramps but not loads of people sleeping on the streets. If you rented a property you were a sitting tenant & the landlord could not get you to move out at a whim. Here we go still blaming Thatcher even though we had 'Things can only get better' Labour government for 13 years after.!" and lo and behold things did get a lot lot better ... then in 2010 after call me dave, things got a lot lot lot worse .... then johnski came along and the country fell off a cliff. | |||
"Thatcherism is why this country has so much poverty, Growing up in the 60s we were all told to eat our food as there were millions starving in China, there were a few Tramps but not loads of people sleeping on the streets. If you rented a property you were a sitting tenant & the landlord could not get you to move out at a whim. Here we go still blaming Thatcher even though we had 'Things can only get better' Labour government for 13 years after.! and lo and behold things did get a lot lot better ... then in 2010 after call me dave, things got a lot lot lot worse .... then johnski came along and the country fell off a cliff. "hahaha things only got better for the middle classes as per usual the working class got shafted as per usual still i suppose if your middle class why would you give a fuck about those below you, upper class know there cunts middle class think there better but there really not, only difference is the middle classes are just a cpl of pay packets away from picking up the scraps with the working class | |||
"Thatcherism is why this country has so much poverty, Growing up in the 60s we were all told to eat our food as there were millions starving in China, there were a few Tramps but not loads of people sleeping on the streets. If you rented a property you were a sitting tenant & the landlord could not get you to move out at a whim. Here we go still blaming Thatcher even though we had 'Things can only get better' Labour government for 13 years after.!" The Blair government kept a lot of Thatcher's policy's on housing & employment to pinch votes from the conservatives, a winning strategy but not good for the country long term | |||
"Look beyond the glitzy cities and see the multi millions who like in tin shacks and scarpe by but only just and see the real poverty in china
Exactly, a very small percentage of the country has become wealthy what a ridiculous comparison."The point with China is that millions of people are significantly, by a big margin, less poor than previously in a much shorter period than the same changes took in Europe. That doesn't make the majority wealthy, but it makes them significantly more prosperous and grateful to their government to escape from the truly grinding poverty that they used to live in. That is a huge success. What is not clear is why in the UK after so long their are still people working hard who are still poor. Forget the wasters and the slackers. Why are there still so many hard working poor both native and immigrant? | |||
| |||
"Look beyond the glitzy cities and see the multi millions who like in tin shacks and scarpe by but only just and see the real poverty in china
Exactly, a very small percentage of the country has become wealthy what a ridiculous comparison.
The point with China is that millions of people are significantly, by a big margin, less poor than previously in a much shorter period than the same changes took in Europe.
That doesn't make the majority wealthy, but it makes them significantly more prosperous and grateful to their government to escape from the truly grinding poverty that they used to live in.
That is a huge success.
What is not clear is why in the UK after so long their are still people working hard who are still poor.
Forget the wasters and the slackers. Why are there still so many hard working poor both native and immigrant?"A lack of training and apprentices due to the fact companies could import labour from the eu.Its no coincidence that apprenticeship's have risen significantly since we left the eu. Education and training lead to higher wages and less poverty. | |||
"Look beyond the glitzy cities and see the multi millions who like in tin shacks and scarpe by but only just and see the real poverty in china
Exactly, a very small percentage of the country has become wealthy what a ridiculous comparison.
The point with China is that millions of people are significantly, by a big margin, less poor than previously in a much shorter period than the same changes took in Europe.
That doesn't make the majority wealthy, but it makes them significantly more prosperous and grateful to their government to escape from the truly grinding poverty that they used to live in.
That is a huge success.
What is not clear is why in the UK after so long their are still people working hard who are still poor.
Forget the wasters and the slackers. Why are there still so many hard working poor both native and immigrant?A lack of training and apprentices due to the fact companies could import labour from the eu.Its no coincidence that apprenticeship's have risen significantly since we left the eu. Education and training lead to higher wages and less poverty. "It is not a coincidence. It is directly related to the Government funding which could have been made available at any point in history. When it was last done, whilst within the EU, the result was the same. Education and training is not going to create a car battery design engineer out of someone with an ability for bricklaying. In principle though, I agree skills and training, but that needs to be valued. For generations it's been immigrants who have seen this as a privilege, not those born here. Does not having foreign labour available resolve this? | |||
| |||
"Too many things penalise people when they are poor -Gas and electric Key meter charges Higher interest rates on loans and credit Car tax because they can only afford older polluting vehicles. Poor quality housing with no insulation which increases energy prices No access to high quality education Poor diets due the cheapest food being ultra processed which affects health Cheap alcohol being readily available Poorer Areas having a higher concentration of gambling establishments Higher mental issues due to stress over bills, due to low incomes not making ends meet, putting artificial barriers to escaping the poverty trap. When you have poor jobs, poor health and poor financial standing isn’t it a wonder that these barriers cause so many problems. Endless consumerism, which makes people want things just to keep up with joneses, at the expense of their financial situation creating a vicious cycle. Current government tell you, you’re poor because it’s your fault, and many people ascribe to that. Sadly Society needs is examples, to drive people to want more. Until that attitude changes, nothing will change. " This feels like a fair set of barriers to success. Particularly the blame attached to "failure". A lot of these same problems exist in China too, but perhaps the last point is a differentiator? In China, with the sheet mass of people, you are expected to be poor and to remain so. There is no shame attached to it. However, if you do manage to jump through all the hoops of education or find another path, your success is celebrated. However, as a counterbalance, corruption and nepotism is rife in China in a manner that far outstrips any Public school networks here... | |||
"This is relative. Poverty in China was staggeringly poor. The rise in living standards has been sharp, but spread very thinly. It has also lead to huge social dislocation and terrible working and living conditions. Better, but not good by Western European standards. There has also been huge corruption and the gap in living standards to the wealthiest is huge. However, the Chinese economy is still growing and demands for better wages and conditions with it. The country is not really following a different path to that of the UK, it's just doing so faster. The UK has a mature economy and suffering from the problems that China will eventually see too..." I know it's relative, I did allude to that. I also agree that it's possible China may see similar problems, too - if it follows our model. The main notion here is; should we not expect that poverty in the UK should not increase? One of our less informed friends has called it a ridiculous comparison. It's nothing of the kind. I want to know why it is - if our system is so good - that more people are falling into poverty in the UK? Btw, for everyone who loves the relative poverty argument; I already covered that for the excuse it is. As always, it tends to be mad by people who aren't struggling to pay any of their bills - even these days. | |||
"Too many things penalise people when they are poor -Gas and electric Key meter charges Higher interest rates on loans and credit Car tax because they can only afford older polluting vehicles. Poor quality housing with no insulation which increases energy prices No access to high quality education Poor diets due the cheapest food being ultra processed which affects health Cheap alcohol being readily available Poorer Areas having a higher concentration of gambling establishments Higher mental issues due to stress over bills, due to low incomes not making ends meet, putting artificial barriers to escaping the poverty trap. When you have poor jobs, poor health and poor financial standing isn’t it a wonder that these barriers cause so many problems. Endless consumerism, which makes people want things just to keep up with joneses, at the expense of their financial situation creating a vicious cycle. Current government tell you, you’re poor because it’s your fault, and many people ascribe to that. Sadly Society needs is examples, to drive people to want more. Until that attitude changes, nothing will change. This feels like a fair set of barriers to success. Particularly the blame attached to "failure". A lot of these same problems exist in China too, but perhaps the last point is a differentiator? In China, with the sheet mass of people, you are expected to be poor and to remain so. There is no shame attached to it. However, if you do manage to jump through all the hoops of education or find another path, your success is celebrated. However, as a counterbalance, corruption and nepotism is rife in China in a manner that far outstrips any Public school networks here..." It's become significantly less rife under Xi - he's brought it down to UK proportions. | |||
"This is relative. Poverty in China was staggeringly poor. The rise in living standards has been sharp, but spread very thinly. It has also lead to huge social dislocation and terrible working and living conditions. Better, but not good by Western European standards. There has also been huge corruption and the gap in living standards to the wealthiest is huge. However, the Chinese economy is still growing and demands for better wages and conditions with it. The country is not really following a different path to that of the UK, it's just doing so faster. The UK has a mature economy and suffering from the problems that China will eventually see too... I know it's relative, I did allude to that. I also agree that it's possible China may see similar problems, too - if it follows our model. The main notion here is; should we not expect that poverty in the UK should not increase? One of our less informed friends has called it a ridiculous comparison. It's nothing of the kind. I want to know why it is - if our system is so good - that more people are falling into poverty in the UK? Btw, for everyone who loves the relative poverty argument; I already covered that for the excuse it is. As always, it tends to be mad by people who aren't struggling to pay any of their bills - even these days." I don't think that anyone except our government believes that our system is "so good". Property prices too high. Empty for investment or rented out by the wealthy. Lack of supply. Driven by policy for decades. That feeds a lot of inequality. Also causing major problems in China. Reliance on foreign fuel, making us vulnerable for decades rather than transitioning to renewables and nuclear decades ago at a sensible pace. Lack of consistent investment in education and healthcare prevention. Also for decades. The UK had a lead in many of these areas after the second world war but managed to progressively prioritise the short term to individual politicians and businessmen over the long term societal benefit over time. The cohesion that came from a shared experience of conflict evaporating. People as culpable as politicians in all of this. Apparent from the comments and attitudes in these threads as well as the Governments and policies voted for. | |||
"Too many things penalise people when they are poor -Gas and electric Key meter charges Higher interest rates on loans and credit Car tax because they can only afford older polluting vehicles. Poor quality housing with no insulation which increases energy prices No access to high quality education Poor diets due the cheapest food being ultra processed which affects health Cheap alcohol being readily available Poorer Areas having a higher concentration of gambling establishments Higher mental issues due to stress over bills, due to low incomes not making ends meet, putting artificial barriers to escaping the poverty trap. When you have poor jobs, poor health and poor financial standing isn’t it a wonder that these barriers cause so many problems. Endless consumerism, which makes people want things just to keep up with joneses, at the expense of their financial situation creating a vicious cycle. Current government tell you, you’re poor because it’s your fault, and many people ascribe to that. Sadly Society needs is examples, to drive people to want more. Until that attitude changes, nothing will change. This feels like a fair set of barriers to success. Particularly the blame attached to "failure". A lot of these same problems exist in China too, but perhaps the last point is a differentiator? In China, with the sheet mass of people, you are expected to be poor and to remain so. There is no shame attached to it. However, if you do manage to jump through all the hoops of education or find another path, your success is celebrated. However, as a counterbalance, corruption and nepotism is rife in China in a manner that far outstrips any Public school networks here... It's become significantly less rife under Xi - he's brought it down to UK proportions." It's not as visibly excessive. It would seem that UK corruption has increased significantly in recent years though. This government in particular hence the reduction in the relative gap. | |||
| |||
"This is relative. Poverty in China was staggeringly poor. The rise in living standards has been sharp, but spread very thinly. It has also lead to huge social dislocation and terrible working and living conditions. Better, but not good by Western European standards. There has also been huge corruption and the gap in living standards to the wealthiest is huge. However, the Chinese economy is still growing and demands for better wages and conditions with it. The country is not really following a different path to that of the UK, it's just doing so faster. The UK has a mature economy and suffering from the problems that China will eventually see too... I know it's relative, I did allude to that. I also agree that it's possible China may see similar problems, too - if it follows our model. The main notion here is; should we not expect that poverty in the UK should not increase? One of our less informed friends has called it a ridiculous comparison. It's nothing of the kind. I want to know why it is - if our system is so good - that more people are falling into poverty in the UK? Btw, for everyone who loves the relative poverty argument; I already covered that for the excuse it is. As always, it tends to be mad by people who aren't struggling to pay any of their bills - even these days." Have you considered the huge changes in in China? Would the people who’ve been lifted out if poverty have been so had they not made those changes? How many of those that are reported as poor have made similar changes in past decades? The millions that have gained work at foxxcon have mostly moved 100a if bot 1000s of miles to get that work. Had they stayed put working in the rice fields maybe their share of the wealth gain in China would be less. I’m not sating we should be returning to the 18th Century pattern in the UK - a time when the same thing happened. But fact is globalisation leads to arbitrage opportunity. Those with the least valuable skills are impacted the most. Some thought leaving the Eu Would fix that, but transition blip and pandemic impact aside, it won’t in the long term. Now of course more could be done to make the share a little more equitable. Higher and level playing field taxation. Better housing supply, better education and health etc (all which would require considerably higher taxes on those who contribute). The question is where that slide rule stops, and what level of hardship is expected of those who need to “level up”…. Because that is a huge difference. So what specifically would you like to see changed and what level of expectation is there? | |||
"Poverty here as increased because we have gone down the US capitalist model and abandoned the more socialist capitalist model we had decades ago more akin to the Scandinavian countries. China has a dictatorship means its government can make long term decisions, while in democracy governments only think of voting cycles and policies flip flop with government changes, leading to constant changes of direction. Leading to wastage of resources. " There is a significant difference between short term decision making and media cycles in democracies. There is also no particular reason why totalitarian states should get their long term planning right. Historically the opposite has been the case. We have chosen poor leaders in the UK of late. We chose them. China has been lucky of but now have a more authoritarian leader with an eye to territorial expansion in the East. A traditional path to tread when economic benefits are harder to come by is to push an expansionist agenda... | |||
"Look beyond the glitzy cities and see the multi millions who like in tin shacks and scarpe by but only just and see the real poverty in china
Exactly, a very small percentage of the country has become wealthy what a ridiculous comparison.
The point with China is that millions of people are significantly, by a big margin, less poor than previously in a much shorter period than the same changes took in Europe.
That doesn't make the majority wealthy, but it makes them significantly more prosperous and grateful to their government to escape from the truly grinding poverty that they used to live in.
That is a huge success.
What is not clear is why in the UK after so long their are still people working hard who are still poor.
Forget the wasters and the slackers. Why are there still so many hard working poor both native and immigrant?A lack of training and apprentices due to the fact companies could import labour from the eu.Its no coincidence that apprenticeship's have risen significantly since we left the eu. Education and training lead to higher wages and less poverty. "So it’s all down to the EU that skilled manual labour and apprenticeship programs were demeaned and diminished and now everything is peachy!?! That flag is looking a little tattered and torn isn’t it?  | |||
| |||
"Is it not that companies stopped training people because they could just import workers already trained ?" Companies have been importing staff from outside the EU as well. That hasn't stopped. In fact, it's increasing. If all these people came from the EU, then how come they manage to invest in training but not us? The fact is that people have an ability and motivation to do some things and not others. No amount of training will change that. Training and staff development are basic requirements though, that the short term thinking that riddles the country doesn't consider valuable. | |||
"Is it not that companies stopped training people because they could just import workers already trained ? Companies have been importing staff from outside the EU as well. That hasn't stopped. In fact, it's increasing. If all these people came from the EU, then how come they manage to invest in training but not us? The fact is that people have an ability and motivation to do some things and not others. No amount of training will change that. Training and staff development are basic requirements though, that the short term thinking that riddles the country doesn't consider valuable." Companies stopped investing in the youth of this country because they could get easy labour from else where who were already trained,why did they come? because the wages are much higher than a lot of eu countries.That route has been cut and so now they are reverting back to apprenticeships something they should never have cut. | |||
"Is it not that companies stopped training people because they could just import workers already trained ? Companies have been importing staff from outside the EU as well. That hasn't stopped. In fact, it's increasing. If all these people came from the EU, then how come they manage to invest in training but not us? The fact is that people have an ability and motivation to do some things and not others. No amount of training will change that. Training and staff development are basic requirements though, that the short term thinking that riddles the country doesn't consider valuable.Companies stopped investing in the youth of this country because they could get easy labour from else where who were already trained,why did they come? because the wages are much higher than a lot of eu countries.That route has been cut and so now they are reverting back to apprenticeships something they should never have cut. " Apprenticeships and training grants have increased those in these schemes whenever they have been made available, in or out of the EU. However do other EU countries like Germany and France who attract a lot of immigration and provide high wages manage to provide high levels of training in the workplace? | |||
"During this century, the number of Chinese citizens living in poverty has fallen. The number of UK citizens living in poverty has risen. Now, I know there are many different ways to measure poverty; our wealthy politicians love to use them to excuse their failings. However, the question is this; how come the CCP is making capitalism work so well? After all, it's a police state where you have no real rights. The UK is a freedom loving democracy (mostly) - but food bank use, homelessness and child poverty have been increasing for years. What is our government doing wrong - if it can't do better than a dictatorship in creating a "rising tide that lifts all boats"? I'm well aware of the genocide against the Uighurs and I really don't think the Chinese are the good guys - because they aren't. I'm just wondering how such a bunch of evil c*nts like them are able to improve the lives of so many; whilst we're failing to - indeed, it could be argued we're doing the opposite. How do we lift more of our people out of poverty? If they can do it - surely we can?" The one thing China does that other countries who have sold out the population to the corporate take over do not, is.. is ... they execute rogue bankers and billionaires. | |||
| |||
"Too many things penalise people when they are poor -Gas and electric Key meter charges Higher interest rates on loans and credit Car tax because they can only afford older polluting vehicles. Poor quality housing with no insulation which increases energy prices No access to high quality education Poor diets due the cheapest food being ultra processed which affects health Cheap alcohol being readily available Poorer Areas having a higher concentration of gambling establishments Higher mental issues due to stress over bills, due to low incomes not making ends meet, putting artificial barriers to escaping the poverty trap. When you have poor jobs, poor health and poor financial standing isn’t it a wonder that these barriers cause so many problems. Endless consumerism, which makes people want things just to keep up with joneses, at the expense of their financial situation creating a vicious cycle. Current government tell you, you’re poor because it’s your fault, and many people ascribe to that. Sadly Society needs is examples, to drive people to want more. Until that attitude changes, nothing will change. This feels like a fair set of barriers to success. Particularly the blame attached to "failure". A lot of these same problems exist in China too, but perhaps the last point is a differentiator? In China, with the sheet mass of people, you are expected to be poor and to remain so. There is no shame attached to it. However, if you do manage to jump through all the hoops of education or find another path, your success is celebrated. However, as a counterbalance, corruption and nepotism is rife in China in a manner that far outstrips any Public school networks here... It's become significantly less rife under Xi - he's brought it down to UK proportions. It's not as visibly excessive. It would seem that UK corruption has increased significantly in recent years though. This government in particular hence the reduction in the relative gap." Well, there's that, to be fair. Bottom line, the argument that poverty isn't really poverty unless it's absolute poverty, is utterly facile - and the only people who make it are governments who want you to believe there's no poverty in their country and people who can comfortably pay their bills. If they really believe that position; perhaps they could make us a list of the things they believe that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have, in order to satisfy their definition of poverty? And, when they've done that, maybe give us a similar list for the disabled; because not all of them are Olympians or minor television celebrities. It is not enough for our government, so proud of the UK's wealth and status, to allow an increase in poverty to occur on its watch - and it has. Indeed, if it's not careful in its handling of the current financial situation, it'll plunge even more people into poverty than they did with 10 years worth of austerity. Theresa May talked about those who were "just about managing". There are millions of them still out there - not in poverty yet, but facing a tsunami of price rises that will drag them into it. Another post asked what I would want done? Another furlough type system - not as generous as the last one but enough to make sure people can afford to feed themselves and their children and pay their energy bills. Clearly it would have to be strictly means tested. Doing nothing at all - doesn't bear thinking about. | |||
| |||
"Western greed has been the driving force for China's progress. Outrageously greedy, self-enriching company directors offshoring manufacturing and jobs and, at the other end, consumers eager to shop for the lowest price, irrespective of the real costs of their often-throwaway purchases. All presided over by short-sighted politicians happy to accept cheap goods in the shops. Remember arsehole Gordon Brown welcoming gangster Xi ("my very good friend") with the red carpet treatment while the Chinese security detail was acting with thuggery towards protesters on the streets of London? Or, again dealing with gangsters, we have the prescient example of Blair (certainly not the only one), thinking he could do business with (manage) Putin? Problem is, most of our PPE politicians are fucking idiots. Rule one of international relations, understand your opponents/rivals, their history, psychology and world view." China and India were always going to become economic superpowers again. All they needed were half decent leadership. Remember both countries have only been independent for less than 90 years. Historically they were the leading GDP of the world before colonisation. | |||
| |||
"Poverty is a word used so much out of context in the UK it means very little any more. " …. But I think the definition here in this context is certain individuals getting free money to pay their bills. Or maybe i’ve missed the point? So how much free money is really the question. And how much will it cost those footing the bill. Answer that and move on. | |||
"Western greed has been the driving force for China's progress. Outrageously greedy, self-enriching company directors offshoring manufacturing and jobs and, at the other end, consumers eager to shop for the lowest price, irrespective of the real costs of their often-throwaway purchases. All presided over by short-sighted politicians happy to accept cheap goods in the shops. Remember arsehole Gordon Brown welcoming gangster Xi ("my very good friend") with the red carpet treatment while the Chinese security detail was acting with thuggery towards protesters on the streets of London? Or, again dealing with gangsters, we have the prescient example of Blair (certainly not the only one), thinking he could do business with (manage) Putin? Problem is, most of our PPE politicians are fucking idiots. Rule one of international relations, understand your opponents/rivals, their history, psychology and world view. China and India were always going to become economic superpowers again. All they needed were half decent leadership. Remember both countries have only been independent for less than 90 years. Historically they were the leading GDP of the world before colonisation. " Erm who was China controlled by? | |||
"Poverty is a word used so much out of context in the UK it means very little any more. …. But I think the definition here in this context is certain individuals getting free money to pay their bills. Or maybe i’ve missed the point? So how much free money is really the question. And how much will it cost those footing the bill. Answer that and move on. " So do you have a solution? I suppose we could always go back to poor houses for the destitute or lazy? I am slightly pulling your leg because I have always worked and I find it hard to understand people that don’t want to, yet I understand how if you aren’t brought up in a home where people work and more importantly get rewarded adequately for that work then where is the instinct and the incentive to do anything different? If you think taking money away from people is the answer than I guess your view of the world is different to mine | |||
"Western greed has been the driving force for China's progress. Outrageously greedy, self-enriching company directors offshoring manufacturing and jobs and, at the other end, consumers eager to shop for the lowest price, irrespective of the real costs of their often-throwaway purchases. All presided over by short-sighted politicians happy to accept cheap goods in the shops. Remember arsehole Gordon Brown welcoming gangster Xi ("my very good friend") with the red carpet treatment while the Chinese security detail was acting with thuggery towards protesters on the streets of London? Or, again dealing with gangsters, we have the prescient example of Blair (certainly not the only one), thinking he could do business with (manage) Putin? Problem is, most of our PPE politicians are fucking idiots. Rule one of international relations, understand your opponents/rivals, their history, psychology and world view. China and India were always going to become economic superpowers again. All they needed were half decent leadership. Remember both countries have only been independent for less than 90 years. Historically they were the leading GDP of the world before colonisation. Erm who was China controlled by?" its easy to Google nowadays, Japan, Britain to name a few. | |||
"Western greed has been the driving force for China's progress. Outrageously greedy, self-enriching company directors offshoring manufacturing and jobs and, at the other end, consumers eager to shop for the lowest price, irrespective of the real costs of their often-throwaway purchases. All presided over by short-sighted politicians happy to accept cheap goods in the shops. Remember arsehole Gordon Brown welcoming gangster Xi ("my very good friend") with the red carpet treatment while the Chinese security detail was acting with thuggery towards protesters on the streets of London? Or, again dealing with gangsters, we have the prescient example of Blair (certainly not the only one), thinking he could do business with (manage) Putin? Problem is, most of our PPE politicians are fucking idiots. Rule one of international relations, understand your opponents/rivals, their history, psychology and world view. China and India were always going to become economic superpowers again. All they needed were half decent leadership. Remember both countries have only been independent for less than 90 years. Historically they were the leading GDP of the world before colonisation. Erm who was China controlled by? its easy to Google nowadays, Japan, Britain to name a few." I know but I do not think you can count China in the same way as India in terms of being a colonial territory of either Britain or Japan. | |||
"Western greed has been the driving force for China's progress. Outrageously greedy, self-enriching company directors offshoring manufacturing and jobs and, at the other end, consumers eager to shop for the lowest price, irrespective of the real costs of their often-throwaway purchases. All presided over by short-sighted politicians happy to accept cheap goods in the shops. Remember arsehole Gordon Brown welcoming gangster Xi ("my very good friend") with the red carpet treatment while the Chinese security detail was acting with thuggery towards protesters on the streets of London? Or, again dealing with gangsters, we have the prescient example of Blair (certainly not the only one), thinking he could do business with (manage) Putin? Problem is, most of our PPE politicians are fucking idiots. Rule one of international relations, understand your opponents/rivals, their history, psychology and world view. China and India were always going to become economic superpowers again. All they needed were half decent leadership. Remember both countries have only been independent for less than 90 years. Historically they were the leading GDP of the world before colonisation. Erm who was China controlled by? its easy to Google nowadays, Japan, Britain to name a few. I know but I do not think you can count China in the same way as India in terms of being a colonial territory of either Britain or Japan. " Although they did not control all China like they did India, they controlled the seas and the main port cities. At a time of no aviation. Therefore strangling it economically.Below an excerpt from Wikipedia. In the mid-19th century, the Qing dynasty experienced Western imperialism in the Opium Wars with Britain and France. China was forced to pay compensation, open treaty ports, allow extraterritoriality for foreign nationals, and cede Hong Kong to the British[83] under the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, the first of the Unequal Treaties. The First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) resulted in Qing China's loss of influence in the Korean Peninsula, as well as the cession of Taiwan to Japan.[84] The Qing dynasty also began experiencing internal unrest in which tens of millions of people died, especially in the White Lotus Rebellion, the failed Taiping Rebellion that ravaged southern China in the 1850s and 1860s and the Dungan Revolt (1862–1877) in the northwest. The initial success of the Self-Strengthening Movement of the 1860s was frustrated by a series of military defeats in the 1880s and 1890s. | |||
"Western greed has been the driving force for China's progress. Outrageously greedy, self-enriching company directors offshoring manufacturing and jobs and, at the other end, consumers eager to shop for the lowest price, irrespective of the real costs of their often-throwaway purchases. All presided over by short-sighted politicians happy to accept cheap goods in the shops. Remember arsehole Gordon Brown welcoming gangster Xi ("my very good friend") with the red carpet treatment while the Chinese security detail was acting with thuggery towards protesters on the streets of London? Or, again dealing with gangsters, we have the prescient example of Blair (certainly not the only one), thinking he could do business with (manage) Putin? Problem is, most of our PPE politicians are fucking idiots. Rule one of international relations, understand your opponents/rivals, their history, psychology and world view. China and India were always going to become economic superpowers again. All they needed were half decent leadership. Remember both countries have only been independent for less than 90 years. Historically they were the leading GDP of the world before colonisation. Erm who was China controlled by? its easy to Google nowadays, Japan, Britain to name a few. I know but I do not think you can count China in the same way as India in terms of being a colonial territory of either Britain or Japan. Although they did not control all China like they did India, they controlled the seas and the main port cities. At a time of no aviation. Therefore strangling it economically.Below an excerpt from Wikipedia. In the mid-19th century, the Qing dynasty experienced Western imperialism in the Opium Wars with Britain and France. China was forced to pay compensation, open treaty ports, allow extraterritoriality for foreign nationals, and cede Hong Kong to the British[83] under the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, the first of the Unequal Treaties. The First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) resulted in Qing China's loss of influence in the Korean Peninsula, as well as the cession of Taiwan to Japan.[84] The Qing dynasty also began experiencing internal unrest in which tens of millions of people died, especially in the White Lotus Rebellion, the failed Taiping Rebellion that ravaged southern China in the 1850s and 1860s and the Dungan Revolt (1862–1877) in the northwest. The initial success of the Self-Strengthening Movement of the 1860s was frustrated by a series of military defeats in the 1880s and 1890s. " Yes I know and I now see what you were intending. I was more talking about direct Imperial control/government rather than “economic colonialism” | |||
"Western greed has been the driving force for China's progress. Outrageously greedy, self-enriching company directors offshoring manufacturing and jobs and, at the other end, consumers eager to shop for the lowest price, irrespective of the real costs of their often-throwaway purchases. All presided over by short-sighted politicians happy to accept cheap goods in the shops. Remember arsehole Gordon Brown welcoming gangster Xi ("my very good friend") with the red carpet treatment while the Chinese security detail was acting with thuggery towards protesters on the streets of London? Or, again dealing with gangsters, we have the prescient example of Blair (certainly not the only one), thinking he could do business with (manage) Putin? Problem is, most of our PPE politicians are fucking idiots. Rule one of international relations, understand your opponents/rivals, their history, psychology and world view. China and India were always going to become economic superpowers again. All they needed were half decent leadership. Remember both countries have only been independent for less than 90 years. Historically they were the leading GDP of the world before colonisation. Erm who was China controlled by? its easy to Google nowadays, Japan, Britain to name a few. I know but I do not think you can count China in the same way as India in terms of being a colonial territory of either Britain or Japan. Although they did not control all China like they did India, they controlled the seas and the main port cities. At a time of no aviation. Therefore strangling it economically.Below an excerpt from Wikipedia. In the mid-19th century, the Qing dynasty experienced Western imperialism in the Opium Wars with Britain and France. China was forced to pay compensation, open treaty ports, allow extraterritoriality for foreign nationals, and cede Hong Kong to the British[83] under the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, the first of the Unequal Treaties. The First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) resulted in Qing China's loss of influence in the Korean Peninsula, as well as the cession of Taiwan to Japan.[84] The Qing dynasty also began experiencing internal unrest in which tens of millions of people died, especially in the White Lotus Rebellion, the failed Taiping Rebellion that ravaged southern China in the 1850s and 1860s and the Dungan Revolt (1862–1877) in the northwest. The initial success of the Self-Strengthening Movement of the 1860s was frustrated by a series of military defeats in the 1880s and 1890s. Yes I know and I now see what you were intending. I was more talking about direct Imperial control/government rather than “economic colonialism”" I would say that as the thread was about poverty and economic growth then economic colonisation is very relevant. Also I would say that as the Peoples Republic of China it was really a new country starting from scratch. After centuries of Monarchy dynasties, foreign powers interference and civil wars. | |||
"Poverty is a word used so much out of context in the UK it means very little any more. …. But I think the definition here in this context is certain individuals getting free money to pay their bills. Or maybe i’ve missed the point? So how much free money is really the question. And how much will it cost those footing the bill. Answer that and move on. So do you have a solution? I suppose we could always go back to poor houses for the destitute or lazy? I am slightly pulling your leg because I have always worked and I find it hard to understand people that don’t want to, yet I understand how if you aren’t brought up in a home where people work and more importantly get rewarded adequately for that work then where is the instinct and the incentive to do anything different? If you think taking money away from people is the answer than I guess your view of the world is different to mine" The solutions have already been pointed out: Better social mobility facilitated by better education and training, cheaper housing (more stock). But these changes are structural and take decades to filter through as noticeable impact. In the meantime, what other choice is there but to bolster benefits; hence the question “so how much will it cost me”. (Speaking as a top rate taxpayer). Not enough of a c*** to insist on the poor houses - though realise eventually something like that will be needed as well. Long term whilst globalisation and the march of AI, ML and robotics progresses a good chunk of the population simply don’t have the minerals to keep up. We need a long term solution to help them too. | |||
"Poverty is a word used so much out of context in the UK it means very little any more. …. But I think the definition here in this context is certain individuals getting free money to pay their bills. Or maybe i’ve missed the point? So how much free money is really the question. And how much will it cost those footing the bill. Answer that and move on. " You have, unsurprisingly, missed the point. Although, you are - again unsurprisingly - making the point that "free money" to keep a middle manager working from home for two years is ok - but "free money" to keep a home carer able to pay her utilities bills and feed her children is not ok. As for footing the bill - we all will. Nobody in the UK is exempt from every kind of tax. Although, the well off only pay whatever their accountants can't get them out of. | |||
