[ckaihatsu]

Yes of course.

Politics is about power between people. Imperialism is a form of power, where the more powerful dominate and exploit the weaker. It's a brutal and cruel practice.


Of course consumers have a say. Mass consumers have BY FAR the biggest power in the economy. They vote with their dollars. Nothing would continue to be mass produced unless we, the consumers, bought it, which creates demand for a product. Economics works on supply and demand. There's no reason for companies to produce millions of televisions if people don't want to watch television and they're just going to sit in a warehouse and not be sold.

I'm saying that consumers aren't part of the 'boardroom' process -- consumers, but more importantly, *workers* don't have inputs into what the design, engineering, and production processes will be.

Yes, consumers with their dollars will illuminate one *industry* over another, and maybe one *model* over another, but that's relatively *crude*, decision-making-wide, and indirect.

Of course corporations have power too, and it's far more concentrated which is very advantageous for them, but everything they do is based on consumer demand in order to make profits.

That's the key word: profits -- as long as *something* is being produced that is popular enough with consumers, then that's it, that's *enough* for the capitalism process to make that thing.

The example of *imperialism* shows that government expenditures on *warfare* are 'worth' it, as an 'investment' into acquiring new markets and cheap labor for the imperialist country and its major corporations. That's profit, too, based on billions from public funding and mass killing abroad.

The very wealthy have tons of money but also don't consume very much (although far more than the average person), the vast majority of their wealth is tied up in the means of production. You might own a TV factory but nobody watches 100,000 TV's at one time. Bill Gates probably has, what, like 30 TV's max in all his homes? Maybe owns 100 cars if he's a huge collector?

This isn't a thread about the lifestyles of the wealthy.

This isn't a thread about imperialism. I've already told you I was and still am against the Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya invasions. What's your point? You're the one moralizing here, and projecting moral stances on me and making insinuations.

Imperialism is very much *associated* with China since it's a geopolitical phenomenon / dynamic.

Where did I say that?

Saudi Arabia has vast reserves of oil that is very cheap to extract and refine compared to all other oil producers such as the US, Venezuela, Canada etc. It's very easy for them to increase or decrease production to manipulate the global price of crude. Other countries in the middle east like Iran and Iraq have smaller reserves than SA but have joined together with other countries in the developing world oil producers to form a trade bloc and cartel in order to control oil profits. OPEC has on numerous occasions used the cartel as a political weapon.

My point is being against imperialism is fine and good, but oil is a major economic and national security concern for every country on earth. The US can remove themselves militarily from the middle east, but it also means ceding power to these countries, meaning they can jack up the price of oil by 300% using oil embargo's any time they want political concessions from the US or any other country. The US militarily abandoning the ME would also mean creating a huge power vacuum which surely would be filled other powerful foreign countries, such as Russia or China, who would gain much more influence over countries in the ME and over OPEC policy, and thus over the US economy and national security. Now imagine a scenario where the US/NATO and Russia/China went to war. Their militaries (planes, battleships, tanks etc) run on oil. So now what if OPEC countries in the ME, siding with Russia & China, decided to enact an oil embargo on NATO countries and made oil ridiculously unaffordable or created a shortage, and economic supply chains were literally choked, and the US/NATO militaries were less able to function and continuing their war effort was unaffordable and so the US/NATO was forced to make major concessions and/or surrender? Goodbye Crimea, Ukraine, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea etc.

Now do you understand what I mean by 'complex international politics'? As I said, the world is a very mean and nasty place and there's plenty of people and governments ready and willing to slit your throat and steal everything you own if you let them. Being a peacemaker is a noble pursuit, but if you're too nice and not willing to ever get blood on your hands it will be your throat that will be slit. The nice guys & "peacemakers" appeased Hitler, the pacifist Jews ended up in ovens. This is why Israel exists and is armed to the fucking teeth. This is the way the world works, you're welcome.

All you're concerned with is inter-imperialist maneuverings and status-quo geopolitics.

I don't dispute your *empiricism* here, but you then use this analysis of yours to be patronizing and condescending, by implying *violence* into every political play, while portraying me as some sort of milquetoast -- it's unwarranted and unappreciated.

[skinster]

Why America’s economic war on China is failing
U.S. President Donald Trump—supported by most of the U.S. establishment—deepened the U.S. government’s assault on the Chinese economy. The “trade war” seemed to play well with Trump’s political base, who somehow hoped that an economic attack on China would miraculously create economic prosperity for them. In 2018, Trump slapped tariffs on more than $200 billion worth of various Chinese goods. Then, Trump’s administration went after Chinese high-tech firms such as Huawei, ZTE, ByteDance (the owners of TikTok), and WeChat.

None of this has worked very well. Trump faces negative legal judgments about his “trade war,” and the U.S. economy slips into negative territory. It is not just Trump. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are committed to a policy that will not cause China to surrender to U.S. ambitions. Whether or not the U.S. can backtrack from this policy orientation and begin a dialogue with China remains to be seen; doing so would be, of course, desirable.

Legal Setbacks
Legal challenges in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California went against the Trump administration. This is a setback for the policy orientation of the U.S. government.

After Trump announced the tariffs against a wide range of Chinese imports, the Chinese government formally took up the matter through the WTO’s dispute mechanism. After considerable study, the WTO came back with a verdict. On September 15, 2020, a three-person WTO panel found that the U.S. had violated the provisions of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the treaty that established the WTO. This was a serious defeat for the United States; the Trump administration has 60 days to file an appeal.

The United States government does not like to lose. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer released a statement condemning the ruling. “This panel report,” Lighthizer said, “confirms what the Trump administration has been saying for four years: The WTO is completely inadequate to stop China’s harmful technology practices.” The U.S. has paralyzed the WTO’s ability to hand down a final binding verdict, as the WTO’s appeals court is currently no longer functioning because of Washington’s refusal to accept new members for it.

In 1994, the U.S. pushed for the creation of the WTO, wrote many of its rules, and brought China into the WTO in 2001. Because the U.S. felt in command of the world, the WTO worked to advance its interests; now that China’s economy has grown in strength, the U.S. finds the rules of the WTO to be burdensome. Free trade is only useful to governments such as the U.S. when it is beneficial to its companies; the principle of free trade is otherwise easily rejected.

Even within the U.S., there is doubt about Trump’s policies. A judge signed an injunction to halt Trump’s attempt to prevent U.S. residents from using WeChat as a means to communicate with people in China. Pressure on TikTok may also dissipate after the U.S. elections.

Economic Divergence
A senior analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis says that the economic impact of the “chaotic” lockdown in the U.S. will create major disruptions for at least a generation. It is unlikely, he says, that the U.S. will be able to “recover easily.” When asked about China’s recovery, he said that so far things look much better. But any persistent reliance of China upon the U.S. market will have a negative impact on China’s growth.

China has essentially broken the chain of the COVID-19 infection, although the authorities remain vigilant for new outbreaks; in the U.S., it is hard to talk about a second wave since the first wave has not yet crested.

What this has meant is that as early as the second quarter of 2020, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) rose to 3.2 percent above the level a year previously; meanwhile, the GDP of the U.S. fell by 9 percent below last year’s level. China is already on the way to recovery, while the U.S. does not even know if the infection has peaked or not.

The U.S. and China publish somewhat different measures of industrial output, but the contrast is so striking that it leaves no doubt as to the relative trends. China publishes data for total value added by industrial enterprises, which in August 2020 was 5.6 percent higher than a year previously, whereas in contrast the U.S. industrial output for August 2020 was 7.7 percent lower than a year earlier. China’s level of industrial production was higher than a year previously, whereas the U.S.’s was far below it.

As a result of China’s much more dynamic economic recovery, China’s trade is recovering much more rapidly than that of the United States. This is clear for imports—which for other countries are their exports. In July, the last month for which there is data for both the U.S. and China, China’s imports had almost regained pre-pandemic levels—being only about 1 percent lower than a year previously. In contrast, U.S. imports were still about 11 percent below a year previously.

The result of these trends is that China will be the center of world economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession—while the U.S. will contribute almost nothing to it.

The latest global projections of the IMF indicate that in 2020-2021, China will account for the absolute majority, 51 percent, of world growth, and the U.S. for only 3 percent—and the latest IMF predictions for the U.S. indicates that this may be an exaggeration of its growth. Most of the other contributors to world growth according to the IMF analysis will be Asian economies who have strong trading relations with China—South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

To analyze the global situation, the impact of the COVID-19 crisis has a very dramatic impact on the pattern of development of the world economy as divided between developing and advanced economies. The data in the IMF’s projections show that by 2021 GDP in the advanced economies will still be 3.6 percent below its level in 2019 while in the developing economies it will be 2.7 percent above 2019. This is a major distribution of world economic growth in favor of developing economies and against advanced ones.

The April IMF estimates indicate that in 2020-2021 more than 95 percent of world economic growth will take place in developing economies—the data in the April IMF World Economic Outlook database means it projects that 51 percent of world growth will take place in China and 44 percent in other developing economies. Less than 5 percent of world economic growth will take place in advanced economies.

By attempting to reorient world trade away from China and to the United States, the U.S. is therefore attempting to lock other countries into subordination to its own very low growth instead of the much more rapidly growing economy of China. This is evidently strongly damaging for other countries’ economies.
https://mronline.org/2020/10/07/why-ame ... s-failing/

[ckaihatsu]

Wall Street Moves Into China, Despite Tech and Trade Battles _ WSJ

[Unthinking Majority]

I'm saying that consumers aren't part of the 'boardroom' process -- consumers, but more importantly, *workers* don't have inputs into what the design, engineering, and production processes will be.

How so? Are you saying that all designers, engineers etc own the means of production and aren't employees? "Workers" aren't simply some old caricature of poor hapless folk working on an assembly line.

That's the key word: profits -- as long as *something* is being produced that is popular enough with consumers, then that's it, that's *enough* for the capitalism process to make that thing.

Yes. Consumers almost always choose products with the highest (or at least adequate) quality for the lowest price. Companies therefore have to figure out how to produce decent quality products as cheap as possible and then sell it high enough to make a good profit but not so high that other companies can't produce a similar quality product for cheaper. Hence, low-skill jobs jobs moving to China etc., or bribing African leaders to access diamonds and gold.

The example of *imperialism* shows that government expenditures on *warfare* are 'worth' it, as an 'investment' into acquiring new markets and cheap labor for the imperialist country and its major corporations. That's profit, too, based on billions from public funding and mass killing abroad.

Yes I agree. Then you add things like political corruption, where corporations/wealthy bribe politicians through donations etc. to enact favourable foreign policy.

Imperialism is very much *associated* with China since it's a geopolitical phenomenon / dynamic.

I suppose sure. Is the West being imperialist to China, or vice versa? We've seen China has gained an edge in trade by their corporations and governments stealing valuable IP from the West. I'm sure the US has spies littered throughout China too, at least government spies. China has also used it's leverage to pressure western governments and corporations, it will no doubt do the same in the developing world and obviously already has.

All you're concerned with is inter-imperialist maneuverings and status-quo geopolitics.

My main concern is preventing people from suffering or dying, and people being treated as fairly & decently as much as possible. This certainly includes the poor and people in developing countries who are exploited. It also includes you and I and our loved ones etc. I want as much peace in the world without our throats being slit and/or having our valuables stolen.

I'm very concerned with the economic rise of China, because of the inevitable conflict it is causing vis-a-vis the US and the West. I want the people of China to be wealthier and healthier, I want peaceful trade amongst us & all countries if they so choose, but I also don't want my throat slit or my valuables stolen or my basic human rights taken away. A bipolar geopolitical order is a dangerous game, and there's thousands of very smart academics, bureaucrats, and politicians around the world who've spent a lifetime studying it and don't have any good answers on how to change it.

I don't dispute your *empiricism* here, but you then use this analysis of yours to be patronizing and condescending, by implying *violence* into every political play, while portraying me as some sort of milquetoast -- it's unwarranted and unappreciated.

We're discussing the economic rise of a totalitarian-ruled nation, a new Cold War, and imperialism. It's impossible to exclude violence from that discussion.

You've condescendingly implied I'm ignorant about imperialism, Marxism, and the like. I didn't appreciate that either, so I guess now we're even and can move on. The implication is based on virtually every Marxist / far-leftist I've known: they're very often naive about how the world works, just as I was in my younger days.

[Unthinking Majority]

Wall Street Moves Into China, Despite Tech and Trade Battles _ WSJ

Interesting. What would be the incentive for China to allow this?

[Igor Antunov]

^They're under full oversight of central government finance controls. It's like allowing hollywood into china, exactly 20 films a year and they get custom changed to conform with the market.

Big newes:

Massive beryllium find in China raises stakes in rare earth tensions: Surveys discover what’s believed to be world’s largest deposit of metal used in manufacture of weapons. Huge quantities of cobalt also unearthed
https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/mass ... h-tensions

Yes, it's in Xinjiang. Suddenly the mewling and grunts of frustration start to make sense. West covets that region even more so than Tibet.

Oh no no no not like this no no better mention the genosyd oh no its not working nooo


Digital Yuan Pilot program

Ant Group and Fintech come of age
Ant Group received $350 billion valuation, 1 billion users, $16 trillion in transactions this year. Bigger than JP Morgan: https://archive.is/o9oxv

Sri Lanka turns to China rather than IMF to avoid default
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... id-default

[ckaihatsu]

How so? Are you saying that all designers, engineers etc own the means of production and aren't employees? "Workers" aren't simply some old caricature of poor hapless folk working on an assembly line.

Yeah, actually, the assembly-line is the *norm* for manufacturing, though somewhat more automated / mechanized these days.

Yes, designers, engineers, etc., tend to be closer to *management* because they're effectively *advisors* to the owners of capital -- the boardroom -- so they're not actually producing commodities the way that *workers* are, on the assembly line. And those workers *definitely* don't have any say in their own working conditions, because of being *commodified*.

Yes. Consumers almost always choose products with the highest (or at least adequate) quality for the lowest price. Companies therefore have to figure out how to produce decent quality products as cheap as possible and then sell it high enough to make a good profit but not so high that other companies can't produce a similar quality product for cheaper. Hence, low-skill jobs jobs moving to China etc., or bribing African leaders to access diamonds and gold.

So my point stands that even *consumers*, paying actual *cash*, do not have the ear of the corporate boardroom, either -- they could say 'Make it this way', and the company will say internally 'We're doing just fine with it being the same way as 100 years ago.' Consumers, at times, have even pointed out certain *hazards*, and *deaths* from consumer products, and the industries paid lawyers so that they could *ignore* such demands for product alterations.

Yes I agree. Then you add things like political corruption, where corporations/wealthy bribe politicians through donations etc. to enact favourable foreign policy.

What you call 'corruption', I call 'capitalism' -- *of course* it's pay-to-play, because government influence, and policy decisions, are a government *service* to the bourgeoisie. That's what government *does* -- serve ruling-class interests.

I suppose sure. Is the West being imperialist to China, or vice versa? We've seen China has gained an edge in trade by their corporations and governments stealing valuable IP from the West.

China, since Mao onward, has basically been a *colony* of the West, after initially successfully *fighting off* colonization in the postwar period.

Much of the left around the world had enthused at the Cultural Revolution. In many countries opponents of the US war in Vietnam carried portraits of Mao Zedong as well as the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh. The trite sayings in the Little Red Book of ‘Mao’s thoughts’ were presented as a guide to socialist activity. Yet in 1972, as more US bombers hit targets in Vietnam than ever before, Mao greeted US president Nixon in Beijing, and by 1977, under Deng, China was beginning to embrace the market more furiously than Russia under Stalin’s successors.

The Western media saw such twists and turns as a result of wild irrationality. By the late 1970s many of those on the left who had identified with Maoism in the 1960s agreed, and turned their backs on socialism. A whole school of ex-Maoist ‘New Philosophers’ emerged in France, who taught that revolution automatically leads to tyranny and that the revolutionary left are as bad as the fascist right. Yet there is a simple, rational explanation for the apparently irrational course of Chinese history over a quarter of a century. China simply did not have the internal resources to pursue the Stalinist path of forced industrialisation successfully, however much its rulers starved the peasants and squeezed the workers. But there were no other easy options after a century of imperialist plundering. Unable to find rational solutions, the country’s rulers were tempted by irrational ones.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p.576

Across Asia, Africa and Latin America, bureaucrats and politicians who had made their careers sponsoring versions of state capitalism switched over to praise ‘free’ markets and make deals with Western multinationals. Congress governments in India, the former Maoist movement which won a civil war in Ethiopia, the Algerian regime and the successors to Nasser in Egypt all followed this path to a greater or lesser degree. In the vanguard of the new approach was Deng Xiaoping’s China, where adoration of the market and profit-making went hand in hand with formal adherence to the cult of Mao.

Most Third World governments showed their commitment to the new approach by signing up to the ‘structural adjustment programmes’ of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). There is little evidence that these could overcome the problems of low growth rates and poverty. Some 76 countries implemented adjustment programmes designed by the World Bank on ‘free market’ criteria in the 1980s. Only a handful recorded better growth or inflation rates than in previous decades. Of 19 countries which carried through ‘intense adjustment’, only four ‘consistently improved their performance in the 1980s’.301

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p.594

---

I'm sure the US has spies littered throughout China too, at least government spies. China has also used it's leverage to pressure western governments and corporations, it will no doubt do the same in the developing world and obviously already has.

If China has had such 'leverage' then why are the wages so *low* in China? I think the average blue-collar business-type corrupted trade union in the U.S. has far more 'leverage', for better wages, than (government) unions do in China.

My main concern is preventing people from suffering or dying, and people being treated as fairly & decently as much as possible. This certainly includes the poor and people in developing countries who are exploited. It also includes you and I and our loved ones etc. I want as much peace in the world without our throats being slit and/or having our valuables stolen.

I'm very concerned with the economic rise of China, because of the inevitable conflict it is causing vis-a-vis the US and the West. I want the people of China to be wealthier and healthier, I want peaceful trade amongst us & all countries if they so choose, but I also don't want my throat slit or my valuables stolen or my basic human rights taken away. A bipolar geopolitical order is a dangerous game, and there's thousands of very smart academics, bureaucrats, and politicians around the world who've spent a lifetime studying it and don't have any good answers on how to change it.

You sound like you're having *second thoughts* about capitalism now. (grin)

We're discussing the economic rise of a totalitarian-ruled nation, a new Cold War, and imperialism. It's impossible to exclude violence from that discussion.

You've condescendingly implied I'm ignorant about imperialism, Marxism, and the like. I didn't appreciate that either, so I guess now we're even and can move on. The implication is based on virtually every Marxist / far-leftist I've known: they're very often naive about how the world works, just as I was in my younger days.

I guess I have 1 credit now to insult you, since you just *had* to end your post with another stock round of condescension.


---

Wall Street Moves Into China, Despite Tech and Trade Battles _ WSJ

Interesting. What would be the incentive for China to allow this?

Capitalist restoration. Lower GDP growth. Constant harassment from the U.S. Economic co-dependence. Take your pick.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yeah, actually, the assembly-line is the *norm* for manufacturing, though somewhat more automated / mechanized these days.

Yes, designers, engineers, etc., tend to be closer to *management* because they're effectively *advisors* to the owners of capital -- the boardroom -- so they're not actually producing commodities the way that *workers* are, on the assembly line. And those workers *definitely* don't have any say in their own working conditions, because of being *commodified*.

They owners own stock, that's the only thing they have in common. They could be in the boardroom or on Wall Street or sitting on their couch eating nachos following the ticker.

So my point stands that even *consumers*, paying actual *cash*, do not have the ear of the corporate boardroom, either -- they could say 'Make it this way', and the company will say internally 'We're doing just fine with it being the same way as 100 years ago.'

If consumers say "we want you to change the colour of your fridges to black" and the boardroom says "no, we want to keep them white" the consumers will just buy black fridges from another company and the 1st company will lose a lot of money and possibly even go out of business. I'd say that means consumers have the ear of the boardroom. The boardroom doesn't give 2 shits what colour they make anything, they'll do whatever makes them the most profit. If consumers are lined up wanting a giant vagina painted across the fridge door they'll do it in a heartbeat, or else some other company will.

What you call 'corruption', I call 'capitalism' -- *of course* it's pay-to-play, because government influence, and policy decisions, are a government *service* to the bourgeoisie. That's what government *does* -- serve ruling-class interests.

Corruption exists in all forms of government and economic systems, some more than others.

The vast majority of politicians, like the vast majority of people, are mainly self-interested. Politicians above all want to keep their jobs and be re-elected. If option A will lose a lot of votes and option B will gain or keep a lot of votes, they will choose option B. If they can get away with taking a lot of money from corporations in return for favourable policies that benefit the corps, and this money will help them get re-elected, they will take the money. Because if they don't, their opponents will.

Democrat voters nominated Biden and Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Voters don't care as much about stopping "pay-to-play" as they do about other things, like winning. That makes them no better than self-interested politicians or bourgeoisie.

China, since Mao onward, has basically been a *colony* of the West, after initially successfully *fighting off* colonization in the postwar period.

Well, China has done extremely well for a colony. I've also never heard of a colony that has held nuclear weapons since 1964.

If China has had such 'leverage' then why are the wages so *low* in China? I think the average blue-collar business-type corrupted trade union in the U.S. has far more 'leverage', for better wages, than (government) unions do in China.

China has 1.4 billion people, that's a lot of money to spread around. Per capita GDP in China is still low, but China's total GDP is 2nd in the world only to the US. Pissing off the world's 2nd largest economy and 1.4 billion potential consumers isn't the wisest move....that's leverage. Wages in China have also been rising rapidly.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/tom-c ... 202160078/

I guess I have 1 credit now to insult you, since you just *had* to end your post with another stock round of condescension.

I didn't say all Marxists, I said virtually all.

Capitalist restoration. Lower GDP growth. Constant harassment from the U.S. Economic co-dependence. Take your pick.

These US banks must be providing capital and loans to Chinese businesses and workers/people. Safe loans from stable banks are good business for China. Banks have ridiculous capital, capital is needed for investment. Guess the CPP doesn't have the money to fund/lend for everything and everybody.

[ckaihatsu]

They owners own stock, that's the only thing they have in common. They could be in the boardroom or on Wall Street or sitting on their couch eating nachos following the ticker.

Yep, so my point stands that consumers and workers have no direct say-so over what gets made, and what working conditions are. (The 'boardroom' is meant to indicate where the *policy* decisions are made, by the largest owners of the company.)

If consumers say "we want you to change the colour of your fridges to black" and the boardroom says "no, we want to keep them white" the consumers will just buy black fridges from another company and the 1st company will lose a lot of money and possibly even go out of business. I'd say that means consumers have the ear of the boardroom. The boardroom doesn't give 2 shits what colour they make anything, they'll do whatever makes them the most profit. If consumers are lined up wanting a giant vagina painted across the fridge door they'll do it in a heartbeat, or else some other company will.

Um, so where'd you go to get the vagina-fridge? (grin)

Yeah, I think we're just back to being glass-half-full, glass-half-empty here.

Here's a treatment of wanton corporate *negligence*, though, damn the consumer:


Dark Waters (2019)

A corporate defense attorney takes on an environmental lawsuit against a chemical company that exposes a lengthy history of pollution.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/?r ... flmg_act_4


---

Corruption exists in all forms of government and economic systems, some more than others.

The vast majority of politicians, like the vast majority of people, are mainly self-interested. Politicians above all want to keep their jobs and be re-elected. If option A will lose a lot of votes and option B will gain or keep a lot of votes, they will choose option B. If they can get away with taking a lot of money from corporations in return for favourable policies that benefit the corps, and this money will help them get re-elected, they will take the money. Because if they don't, their opponents will.

Democrat voters nominated Biden and Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Voters don't care as much about stopping "pay-to-play" as they do about other things, like winning. That makes them no better than self-interested politicians or bourgeoisie.

You're getting bogged-down in the *mechanics*, as usual -- you're missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of the politician, they're effectively carrying out *corporate* policy, because those are the organizations with the greatest clout, whether financial or political. It's a political system for the interests of the *ruling class*, regardless of specific *personnel*.

The serious privacy concerns involved in the harvesting of the personal information of some 50 million Facebook users were underscored by Britain’s Channel 4 News. An undercover investigation filmed Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix boasting of dirty tricks operations to ensnare politicians and subvert elections.

But while the disclosures are being used to bolster hysterical claims of “Russian meddling,” a closer examination reveals that the real and far more fundamental threat to democratic rights involves psy-ops programmes run by elements of the British and US deep state.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/0 ... b-m26.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_stat ... ted_States


---

Well, China has done extremely well for a colony. I've also never heard of a colony that has held nuclear weapons since 1964.

How about the U.S.?

China has 1.4 billion people, that's a lot of money to spread around. Per capita GDP in China is still low, but China's total GDP is 2nd in the world only to the US. Pissing off the world's 2nd largest economy and 1.4 billion potential consumers isn't the wisest move....that's leverage. Wages in China have also been rising rapidly.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/tom-c ... 202160078/

Good for them.


---

I guess I have 1 credit now to insult you, since you just *had* to end your post with another stock round of condescension.

I didn't say all Marxists, I said virtually all.

---

These US banks must be providing capital and loans to Chinese businesses and workers/people. Safe loans from stable banks are good business for China. Banks have ridiculous capital, capital is needed for investment. Guess the CPP doesn't have the money to fund/lend for everything and everybody.

I don't know the details -- I'll probably just keep calling it 'Chinus' from now on.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yep, so my point stands that consumers and workers have no direct say-so over what gets made, and what working conditions are. (The 'boardroom' is meant to indicate where the *policy* decisions are made, by the largest owners of the company.)

I want to note that i'm not the laissez-faire neoliberal status quo capitalist you might think i am.

The CEO's and board of directors aren't necessarily large stockholders. Either way, they act in the interests of the stockholders.

Anyways, low-rung workers don't get much say I agree with that. Without a union they have little leverage. Consumers do have a say. It all depends on 1. how much they're informed about the product being sold (and how its made), and 2. If they care. Typically there's major gaps in 1. and in terms of 2. most often consumers just want their cool shit and they want it cheap.

There are many examples though of consumers caring about how products are made & its worker conditions. However, most consumers prefer to pay the cheapest price for chocolate, coffee, and athletic-wear than give a shit about the people who make them:
https://www.fairtrade.net/product

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nik ... lem-2013-5

Um, so where'd you go to get the vagina-fridge? (grin)

The vagina outlet mall off I-84.

I don't know the details -- I'll probably just keep calling it 'Chinus' from now on.

Is that a combination of "China" and "anus"?

Here's a treatment of wanton corporate *negligence*, though, damn the consumer:

Corporations are amoral. They typically only care about profit. So I don't dispute they do horrible things constantly, and would do more if they could get away with it. That's why government regulation/laws are needed, and unions, and consumers who give a fuck.

You're getting bogged-down in the *mechanics*, as usual -- you're missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of the politician, they're effectively carrying out *corporate* policy, because those are the organizations with the greatest clout, whether financial or political. It's a political system for the interests of the *ruling class*, regardless of specific *personnel*.

Yes in many ways it is I agree. The details are important, you tend to oversimplify things and stereotype in order to fit them into your theory. Beware of confirmation bias. There are many different actors of influence in politics. Corporations are one actor, though a very powerful one. Then you have to add the personal ideology of the politicians, pressure from voters, foreign governments, vocal activist groups etc.

Corporations/ruling class have much more power in the US than other democracies because that is the seat of all this money and corporate activity. In other western countries you see more nationalization and a stronger welfare state (universal healthcare etc) because the voters have a stronger influence on a politician's job security and the wealthy not as much compared to US.

How about the U.S.?

Corporate America doesn't give 2 fucks about American workers, and they have a lot of influence on politicians, so the math is clear. The problem is Americans know there's a problem but have been very, very slow in realizing what it is and many not at all. The Unthinking Majority:

[Unthinking Majority]

The world is my expense
The cost of my desire
Jesus blessed me with its future
And I protect it with fire
So raise your fists
And march around
Don't dare take what you need
I'll jail and bury those committed
And smother the rest in greed
Crawl with me into tomorrow
Or I'll drag you to your grave
I'm deep inside your children
They'll betray you in my name

Sleep now in the fire

The lie is my expense
The scope of my desire
The Party blessed me with its future
And I protect it with fire
I am the Nina, The Pinta, The Santa Maria
The noose and the rapist
And the fields overseer
The agents of orange
The priests of Hiroshima
The cost of my desire

Sleep now in the fire

For it's the end of history
It's caged and frozen still
There is no other pill to take
So swallow the one
That made you ill
The Nina, The Pinta, The Santa Maria
The noose and the rapist
The fields overseer
The agents of orange
The priests of Hiroshima
The cost of my desire

Sleep now in the fire

[ckaihatsu]

I want to note that i'm not the laissez-faire neoliberal status quo capitalist you might think i am.

The CEO's and board of directors aren't necessarily large stockholders. Either way, they act in the interests of the stockholders.

Anyways, low-rung workers don't get much say I agree with that. Without a union they have little leverage. Consumers do have a say. It all depends on 1. how much they're informed about the product being sold (and how its made), and 2. If they care. Typically there's major gaps in 1. and in terms of 2. most often consumers just want their cool shit and they want it cheap.

There are many examples though of consumers caring about how products are made & its worker conditions. However, most consumers prefer to pay the cheapest price for chocolate, coffee, and athletic-wear than give a shit about the people who make them:
https://www.fairtrade.net/product

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nik ... lem-2013-5

Yeah, I'll agree that rising consumer sentiment is having more of an impact these days, which is a good thing, but ultimately consumers are mostly *disconnected* and aren't a part of the *production* process, as workers are. It's *workers* who need to become politicized since they have the power to collectively withhold their labor at the workplace itself, so that bosses have to relent to whatever the unaddressed political issue happens to be.

The vagina outlet mall off I-84.

Is that a combination of "China" and "anus"?

No, 'China', and the 'U.S.'

Corporations are amoral. They typically only care about profit. So I don't dispute they do horrible things constantly, and would do more if they could get away with it. That's why government regulation/laws are needed, and unions, and consumers who give a fuck.

Unions are now mostly corporate themselves, and bought-off -- there *are* some *rank-and-file* unions now filling the gap, so that's promising. Much of that activity is around resisting the bosses' back-to-work call despite the hazards and risks of the coronavirus.


---

You're getting bogged-down in the *mechanics*, as usual -- you're missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of the politician, they're effectively carrying out *corporate* policy, because those are the organizations with the greatest clout, whether financial or political. It's a political system for the interests of the *ruling class*, regardless of specific *personnel*.

Yes in many ways it is I agree. The details are important, you tend to oversimplify things and stereotype in order to fit them into your theory. Beware of confirmation bias. There are many different actors of influence in politics. Corporations are one actor, though a very powerful one. Then you have to add the personal ideology of the politicians, pressure from voters, foreign governments, vocal activist groups etc.

Corporations/ruling class have much more power in the US than other democracies because that is the seat of all this money and corporate activity. In other western countries you see more nationalization and a stronger welfare state (universal healthcare etc) because the voters have a stronger influence on a politician's job security and the wealthy not as much compared to US.

Yup, true, plus the U.S. is the prevailing military empire, though that, along with the economics (debt-to-GDP ratio) is waning.

What, exactly, is your critique of 'my' theory?

Corporate America doesn't give 2 fucks about American workers, and they have a lot of influence on politicians, so the math is clear. The problem is Americans know there's a problem but have been very, very slow in realizing what it is and many not at all. The Unthinking Majority:

WQeRG72E3OM

To be fair, though, the bourgeois hegemony and propaganda has been *pervasive* over past decades, yielding much 'false consciousness', that may now be ebbing, mostly due to the end of the former Cold War, and its accompanying anti-communist bullshit rhetoric.

It's sad, though, to see Trump trying to pick a fight with China, when the U.S. has been such a *beneficiary* of China's productive prowess, both in merchandise and in China's purchasing of U.S. capital goods / finance.

[QatzelOk]

Populism both left and right is bad for democracy. It destroys the social consensus necessary for a functioning society.

I'm not sure what you mean by "populism" here. It sounds like you are saying you prefer some kind of oligarchy, which, by the way, the Western nations already have in spades. So you must be saying that "popular" politicians who are just fun and shallow, are the problem.

Hmm...

Another way of looking at "why governments are popular" can be traced to "new tech."

In the 50 and 60s, in North America, almost everyone was "enjoying" some new technology that their parents didn't used to possess. Because of all the excitement and thrill of "driving cars" "watching TV" and "mowing lawns" during this period, they could convince themselves that they were better off and were thriving in some way. That they were happy and modern.

And because these things were new, they were also able to conveniently ignore everything that they were losing at the same time (their communities, their physical health, their connection to nature, family, skills, etc).

Perhaps it is China that is going through a romantic period that won't last - but the romance is with the new toys of recent tech. It all comes crashing down when the social losses of tech start out-weighing the thrill of novelty.

[Atlantis]

I'm not sure what you mean by "populism" here. It sounds like you are saying you prefer some kind of oligarchy, which, by the way, the Western nations already have in spades. So you must be saying that "popular" politicians who are just fun and shallow, are the problem.

Another way of looking at "why governments are popular" can be traced to "new tech."

In the 50 and 60s, in North America, almost everyone was "enjoying" some new technology that their parents didn't used to possess. Because of all the excitement and thrill of "driving cars" "watching TV" and "mowing lawns" during this period, they could convince themselves that they were better off and were thriving in some way. That they were happy and modern.

And because these things were new, they were also able to conveniently ignore everything that they were losing at the same time (their communities, their physical health, their connection to nature, family, skills, etc).

Perhaps it is China that is going through a romantic period that won't last - but the romance is with the new toys of recent tech. It all comes crashing down when the social losses of tech start out-weighing the thrill of novelty.

Technological innovation is actually increasing at an exponential rate. Today's technological innovation is far more rapid than it was in the 50s and 60s. If I remember the first computers and printers I used in the 80s, they seem like stone-age technology compared to today's electronic devices. People just take for granted that they can buy a new Smartphone every 6 months which has twice the capacity and half the price of the previous one. Compared to my car, which was built in the 90s, today's cars look like spaceships.

I understand what you are trying to say; however, it is patently flawed.

People get used to prosperity. To my friends, who grew up West of the iron curtain, material possessions are less important than to people who grew up East of the iron curtain. They crave for all the material things they won't allowed to have under communist rule. They still have some catching-up to do. Will the same happen to the Chinese? I don't know. Chinese can be very materialistic and accumulating wealth is deeply ingrained in Chinese society.

I can't believe that you don't understand the difference between a "popular politician" and a "populist politician".

[Potemkin]

I can't believe that you don't understand the difference between a "popular politician" and a "populist politician".

To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, a populist politician is just a politician who believes that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. Lol.

[QatzelOk]

People get used to prosperity.

You missed my point entirely.

For my parent's generation, the thrill of riding a car was much stronger than the loss of a functionning community because... they were already adults. Their kids would suffer from isolation and lack of social opportunities, but the adults had already grown up.

And likewise, the sudden apparition of fast food joints was an "extra" for my parents, but it was standard for my genration, so we grew up unhealthy and addicted to sugar and fat. And we have gotten sicker and sicker because of suburban isolation and callous, tech-brained parents and friends and etc. And media isolation. And most of our traditional cultures were destroyed in the process, so there's no going back for most people.

So this warning about tech is universal: the negative side-effects of all the tech change will hit China the same as it will hit any other country in the world. And then the fun and games will be over.

You can't see the negatives right now because, like my newly-suburban car-driving parents, you are amazed by the new powers at your fingertips. Anyone would be. But the thrill won't last, and the damage will last a long, long time.


Weee! This is fun!

...

Ten years later

[Igor Antunov]

China reports surge in long-term investment inflows despite talk of decoupling from US

China’s foreign investment inflows in September jumped 23.7 per cent from a year ago, Ministry of Commerce says
Politburo meeting approves Chengdu-Chongqing integration to protect stability of industrial value chain

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-econ ... spite-talk

[Atlantis]

Having successfully beaten the pandemic, China now has a full economic recovery while the West keeps on stagnating because the half-measured it has employed don't save the economy while keeping the pandemic simmering.

China has beaten the pandemic
China has a full economic recovery
China is the first country to produce a save vaccine

What's left for the West? The dustbins of history? What a way to go! Hubris be thy name.

In a world mired in recession, China manages a V-shaped recovery

Officials reported that the economy expanded by 4.9% in the third quarter compared with a year earlier, just shy of its pre-pandemic pace. Whereas most other countries are mired in recession and grappling with a new wave of covid-19 cases, China has just about completed the upward leg of a V-shaped rebound. Analytically, its success is easy to explain. China got one crucial thing right: by almost stamping out the virus, it was able to allow activity to resume with few restrictions. Schools are fully open, factories are humming and restaurants are buzzing. Moreover, China is lucky in one crucial way: it is better insulated from weak global demand than smaller peers such as New Zealand that have also done a good job of containing the pandemic. Until vaccines are rolled out, others will struggle to match China’s feat.

[Igor Antunov]

China's economy in 2021 will be 10% bigger than it was in 2019 and every other major economy will be smaller
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/analysis ... 19938.html

[QatzelOk]

I am the Nina, The Pinta, The Santa Maria
The noose and the rapist
And the fields overseer
The agents of orange
The priests of Hiroshima
The cost of my desire

Thanks for the Mea Culpa.

Your song admits that the USA is a genocide-based institution dedicated to human enslavement.

This relates indirectly to China's economic recovery, but it is still useful information.